208

would tend to obstruct and to interferewith the various proceedings of the re-

forming board ? They felt the extent ofthis obstacle, and determined, at theirfirst meeting, to appoint, at a reducedsalary, to the office of surgeon, one withwhom they had long acted, and in whomthey felt that they could confide. I am

proud to say that their choice fell uponme. With the appointment 1 had no moreto do than had Mr. Gozna himself.

But Mr. Gozna says, in his letter thathe has "in no way interfered in politicalor parochial affairs." Why have myselfseen him at a public meeting warmlycheering his tory friends and crying downthe reformers; and it is notorious that atthe last election for churchwardens hewas one of the most active canvassers forthe two tory opponents of Mr. Simpson,who had both been overseers, and one ofwhom, who had the contract for leather,actually sent into the workhouse, on thelast day of office of the late board, leather,at a charge to the parish of 1021., whicha committee of the most eminent leather-sellers in London have decided could bepurchased in the market for 331. And

yet Mr. Gozna did not scruple to vote andcanvass for such men !He also says, that " Mr. Simpson

solicited me to relinquish my claim, butthat I resolved on having the appoint-ment." It is untrue that Mr. Simpsonever solicited me either one way or theother. As chairman of the meeting, hedeclared that he would act impartially;and 1 am quite sure he did not influence asingle vote, but left the appointment to theunbiassed opinion of the board : and as tomy "resolving to have the appointment,"the statement is sheer nonsense. Thejudgment of that man must indeed beblinded who could suppose that I couldcontrol the opinions of 2000 of thewealthiest and most intelligent parishio-ners of the metropolis, or of those whomthey almost unanimously chose to act forthem.

Having thus, as 1 believe, exoneratedmyself from Mr. Gozna’s accusations, tothe satisfaction of every unprejudicedmind, allow me also to say, that should hewish to be supplied with any further rea-sons why he ought not to have been con-tinued in the office, I shall be able toadduce some which it may not be quite soagreeable to him to have made public asthose mentioned in this letter.

I am afraid that I have occupied toolarge a space in your invaluable journalon matters which are unimportant to themedical public, but as it has been themedium through which unjust aspersionshave been made against a member of the

profession, your sense of justice will, Idoubt not, allow me room for so length-ened a reply. 1 am, Sir, your very obe-dient humble servant, J. A. BAINBRIDGE.

88, St. Martin’s.lane. May 5th, 1835.J.A. BAINBRIDGE.

THE ASSOCIATE OF JOHN LONG.

W. HUGHES, Surgeon.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

Sir,-I leave you to publish or not, asyou may think fit, the following instanceof unprofessional conduct, on the part ofDr. Ramadge, although, perhaps, it is nomore than might be expected from theassociate of that notorious quack, St.John Long. I was called in by a patientof mine, residing in Southampton-street,Covent-garden, to see his servant, whowas suffering from severe cough, withhaemoptysis. On the following day the

hemorrhage had ceased, and by my ad-vice she applied a blister to the chest.

Having on a former occasion consultedDr. Ramadge, who told her that she hada disease of the heart, she was desirous tohave his advice again, to which hermaster consented; and on Saturday morn-ing last she went to Dr. Ramadge’shouse, and although the girl told him thatshe was under my care, he desired her totake his prescription to a druggist on

Holborn-bridge, where I have reason to

believe he is in the habit of sending hispatients. On hearing this statement 1wrote a polite note to the Doctor, re-

questing to know from him if such wasthe fact, and his answer (a verbal one) bymy servant was, that " he knew nothing ofMr. Hughes’s patients, and should sendhis prescriptions wherever he pleased."It seems to me that such conduct on thepart of a " Fellow of the College of Phy-sicians" should be made known to the

profession. - I am sir, your obedientservant,

W. HUGHES, Surgeon.90, High Holborn, May 5, 1835.

The Letter of Mr. Laming came too late for

inertion this week.We are compelled, by the press of other matter,

to defer publishing the conclnaon of M. Lisfranc’!Remarks on White Swellings for a week.

ERRATAERRATA.—In leaders, page 154, line 3, for to

derived read to have derived.—Page 1i1, line 24,for and protective to read as it may be protectiveto.-Page IG5, article headed Vaccination and

Inoculation," line I i, J’o?- legislation read legicla-ture.—In the confab. page 173, line 35, for doneread dons.