The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-03-19 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

authority, or sheaving a disposition to see him—for
he says that he not only " did not then see Mr.
Nightingall, but he did not even enquire for him"—
he decided the question, and laid the foundation for
a charge against that gentleman of neglect of, or in-
capacity for the discharge of, his duties.
The gravamen, however, of the charge is, we sup-
pose, that Mr. Nightingall, on finding these children
in the itch ward, subjected to the contagion of that
ward, and not satisfied that they were affected with
the disease, sent them back again to Low-hill. We
may here remark upon the fact that there is no in-
termediate ward at either Low-hill or Brownlow-
bill for doubtful cases. Mr. Nightingall considered
these to be very doubtful cases. Dr. Macrorie ad-
mitted that the appearances of eruption in one of
the cases might be less marked in the morning,
when Mr. Nightingall saw them, than in six or
eight hours after, when he himself saw them ; and
that that case might even have escaped notice. Yet,
in defiance of the opinion of the House-Surgeon
(and he had not then had the opinion of Dr.
Macrorie) the Governor again sent for the children
to Brownlow-hill, and they were again, on the cer-
tificate of Dr. Macrorie, placed in the itch ward.
Had the case stopped here, we submit that the
conduct of the Governor must have been considered
throughout as marked with extreme impropriety.
In the first instance, he assumed the possession of
a greater knowledge of a disorder, which medical
men do not always find easy of detection in its inci-
pient stages, than a surgeon of twenty years' exten-
sive practice in such cases ; and acted, insultingly
to Mr. Nightingall, upon that assumption. In the
second place, he set the opinion of a young practi-
tioner, Mr. Ratcliffe, against that of his senior, Mr.
Nightingail, and acted upon it by sending again for
the children, returned by the former as not decidedly
affected. The opinion of the nurse of the ward, a
woman of six or seven years' experience, might
have been ascertained, had he chosen to ask such
opinion—and we are not aware• that he had it not—
that the children were not itch patients. Clearly,
therefore, the Governor was acting in contempt of
medical authority up to the time of his procuring
the certificate of Dr. Macrorie. And even subse-
quently to the receipt of that certificate, there was no
ground for imputation against Mr. Nightingall, be-
yond the fact that he appeared disposed to doubt
the infallibility of the Governor in medical cases, and
to resent hie dictatorial interference with the medical
office. Doctors differed. They have differed before
now, and will differ again ; and the opinion of a
man of Mr- Nightingall's long experience was cer-
tainly worthy of being treated with deference.

And what has been the solution of this difference
of doctors ? Why, that after all, the opinion of Mr.
Nightingall has every appearance of having been
correct, as was shown by the fact of the children
having been discharged from the itch ward on Mon-
day last. Yes, although the Honorary Medical Board
in the first instance censured Mr. Nightingall for
his treatment of these cases—although an assistant
poor law commissioner has rebuked him, or at all
events given evidence of an•opinion that he was liable
to censure,. the subjects of the charge have all been
since dismissed from the itch ward, as not, in Mr.
Nightingall's opinion, being affected, either then or
at any time,. with that disease !:
The second charge is one-of ill treatment of a boy
named Freeman, who was alleged to have been dis-
charged by Mr. Nightingall from a ward which is
called the Buys' Sick Nursery,- whilst labouring
under "a severe apthous affection of the mouth
and throat."' This ward, we may explain, is set
apart for children affected with, slight disorders
which are considered more as subjects for the nurse
than the doctor,. and is therefore•only visited by the
surgeon' at Intervale, or when hie-presence is required
by the nurse. an returning to his school duties he
complained of sore mouth, and was reported by the
schoolmaster as-unfit for school attendance, and he
was ordered by Mr.. Nightingall to'attend him every
second day at the surgery.. He had previously been
treated by Mr. Woods.. Here, again,.there is a differ-
ence of doctors. The Honorary Medical Board, before
whom the boy was- brought ten days after he was
discharged by Mr. Nightingall, reported their opinion
that such a case "ought not to be exposed to the
open air, but ought to be treated in,a warm room,"
and censured Mr.. Nightingall for the course which
he pursued; but, with a strange regardlessness of
consistency, accompany this censure with a declara-
tion, from the mouth of their witness, Dr. Macrorie,
that "he could not say but that the boy was cured
when, discharged .f" And with respect to the proper
treatment of such a case, which the board say should
not be exposed to the open air, Dr. Gill, an eminent
authority, has declared that "he- would adopt the
same treatment employed by Mr., Nightingall in his
own private practice."
But with respect to the real facts of this case—
what are they ?- The medical board (at least such
appears the plain inference from the evidence) assume
that Freeman was- in a. dangerous state when dis-
charged—ten days before they saw him—and upon
that assumption censure Mr.. Nightingall. The
nurse of the ward' declared before the Poor Law
Commissioner that "he seemed well ; he ate his
meat heartily, and, played about the yard with. the
other boys. Ills mouth seemed much the same
when he was discharged as when admitted, and, he
did not c)mplain about it."
Trumpery charges surely these are to call for the
presence of a Poor-law Commissioner, and a:special
meeting of the vestry ;—paltry matters on account
of which te subject a gentleman, who has laboured
for twenty years in the service of his par'.sh, to the
too probable fate of being dismissed from his office,
and thrown upon the world with the blight of that
dismissal upon his name ! Would, however, that
this was the worst feature of the ease !. Would
that we could believe that the treatment of Mr.
Nightingall was just or kindly ! Mr.. Nightingall
was known to. have a sentence of dismissal hanging
over his head,. ready to be visited upon him on the
first proof of neglect proved against him. Mr.
Galloway and others were directed by the Go-
vernor, under a threat, to, " report to him
the cases of boys who were sick, which Mr.
Nightingall knew of and did not aVend to ;"
and the case of the boy Freeman was thus
reported. And then a case having been got up,
the Medical Board, his professional brethren,—what
was their conduct towards this persecuted gentle-
man ? Did they afford him the opportunity of con-
fronting his accusers ? Did they say to him, as one
would imagine they would in common charity—not
to talk of courtesy—towards a professional friend,
" Mr. Nightingall, can you explain these matters ?"
They did not. As Mr. Nightingall says in his de-
fence, " the board tried, judged, and condemned
me unheard ; whereas, if they had heard my ex-
planation, they might have entirely acquitted me
of all blame." Surely this was harsh. Surely Mr.
Nightingall ought to have had the poor consolation
of being heard in his defence—a privilege granted
to the most guilty criminal that ever answered for
his guilt at the bar of his country.

For the present we have done. We leave the
facts to a just and impartial public. On a future
occasion, however, we may have some remarks to
offer upon the administration of the affairs of the work-
house, with respect both to medical and general

matters. In the meantime, our readers will per-
haps favour us with giving what we have already
said their discriminating attention.