Part 3

“Shortly after the deceased went out to see about his linen which was left at the public house where the conveyance stopped, that had brought him to Norwich. This was a short distance from my house, and soon returning, the deceased observed that he was in dreadful pain, had been losing a deal of blood, and on calling for a vessel, the blood came from him in a stream. He continued to bleed some time, and becoming alarmed, I called upon Dr. Bell to come to Swann’s assistance. He quickly attended, and soon after the bleeding ceased. From that time the deceased continued to be a great sufferer, and on Dr. Bell visiting him _three_ days after, I said to him privately, I am sure you have injured that poor man, I never saw a man lose so much blood before from sounding, nor yet complain of so much suffering. Dr. Bell inquired of the deceased “whether it was Mr. Webber or him that hurt him,” he said “you, sir!” Dr. Bell then asked “are you sure it was not the other gentleman,” the deceased said “No—it was you, I did not feel Mr. Webber’s instrument pass, he gave me no pain.” Dr. Bell continued to attend him a fortnight or three weeks, she could not recollect which. No other medical man attended during this time, but the poor man getting worse and worse, Dr. Bell brought Mr. Webber again to see him. They did not agree as to their treatment of him, Mr. Webber suggested one course, but Dr. Bell refused to do so. They left my house, and I do not know what passed, but Dr. Bell shortly after returned, and said “Nurse, at your peril you are not to suffer any medical man to interfere, he is not to take any thing except from me, as Mrs. Shirley said he was to be entirely under my care.” I said “of course Dr. Bell I do not want to bring any medical man in, the only gentleman that has been, you brought yourself.” The deceased had no other medical man at that time to attend him; he continued to get worse, and I was obliged to call up Dr. Bell one night, and then he was very much frightened, and asked “What can be the cause of all this?” I said, “The cause is what Mr. Webber told you would be the result—ulceration,” and I exclaimed “Oh! good God, what will become of the poor woman and children?” he replied, “Mrs. Shirley will take care of them.” I begged and prayed of him not to go out of the way and leave me with a dying man without doing something himself, or sending another medical man; he then went up-stairs to Swann, and asked him again whether he would take his medicine, and the man said “No—no more,” I heard him say so. When Dr. Bell came down stairs again, he asked “Who can have set this man against my medicine?” I said, “Go up-stairs and ask him in the presence of witnesses”—Dr. Bell did so, and said, “My good man, who set you against me and my medicine?” He replied, “No one but the pain the medicine gave me.” Dr. Bell then left the house and ceased attending him, and Mr. Webber was called in. He ordered the deceased some medicine, and fomentations to allay pain, which were continued several days. He called in Mr. Gibson to witness the condition of the patient, for he was afraid the man would die in the state he was then in, and they talked about medicine and treatment. Mr. Gibson called once more, and said “the man was in good hands.”

“The deceased came to my house on the 11th of February, and left me exactly seven weeks after. Dr. Bell called on me at the end of six weeks, and said that “Mrs. Shirley insisted on the man being sent home, and that I should not be paid more than six weeks lodging.” I said, “I could not send him home on my own account; but that Mr. Webber would send him home when he thought fit.” Mr. Crickmay, another surgeon had also seen Swann several times, with Mr. Webber, and that he had nothing further to suggest.”

Mr. John Coleby deposed, “I am a surgeon, residing at North Walsham, and I was summoned to attend the deceased last August; he complained of pain across the loins, particular in the region of the left kidney, and I treated him accordingly. After some time I suspected a stone had escaped into the bladder, I passed an instrument twice without any difficulty, in November, the first time without success, but the second time I detected a small stone. At that time his health was so indifferent, as to lead me to believe had I operated upon him, his life would have been the sacrifice. I then prescribed such medicine as I thought conducive to his benefit, with a view to prepare him for the operation, and I remarked to him previous to his going to Norwich—put yourself under my care, you have a stone in your bladder, but I cannot advise you to be operated upon immediately. He however went to Norwich, and I called upon the deceased whilst he was lodging at Mrs. Phillips’. I never saw a man so much altered as he was in so short a time, which I consider to have entirely arisen from the bad treatment he had received—I really thought he would die. Mr. Webber had previously opened an abscess, which had formed in the central lobe of the testis and pus {39} was escaping. On the 30th of March last, he returned to Knapton, and I called to see him the following day, I found him in a very debilitated and exhausted state. He was then labouring under irritation of the bladder, accompanied with an inflammatory affection of the left kidney. He continued to linger nearly six weeks, suffering great agony to the last, and on the 15th of May, I performed a post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, in the presence of Mr. Webber and Mr. Crickmay, of Norwich; Mr. Evans, of Coltishall; his assistant, Mr. Tibbetts, and my own assistant, Mr. Cheverton. I examined the left kidney, which was considerably enlarged, and in the renal capsule connected with the ureter, there had evidently been inflammation, for an abscess had formed there, which caused his death. I have no ill feeling towards any one in stating it to be my firm opinion, that this abscess, like all the others in his case, resulted from the violence used by Dr. Bell, in passing the instrument, and that which hastened his death. Since the man returned home, he told me frequently ‘he owed his death to Dr. Bell.’”

Here the coroner, turning to the jury, observed, “The deceased died from natural causes, shown in the evidence of Mr. Coleby, for his death was owing to an abscess in the _renal_ capsule of the kidney, and that is sufficient.”

Dr. Bell, who had been sitting next the coroner, in a juxta position with one of the jury, with whom he was observed to be often earnestly talking, then rose, and said “He could not leave that room without offering a defence for the sake of his family and friends, as he perceived that his character was at stake, and in spite of the remonstrance used by Mr. Webber. Dr. Bell obtained the sanction of the court, and was proceeding to state, that he was M.D. surgeon, when Mr. Webber objected such was not evidence, that the coroner was at liberty to call Wm. Bell, of Norwich, but that this witness must state his qualification on oath. He was then formally sworn, and stated, “I am a surgeon M.D. at Norwich. The man was sent to me from Knapton, by Mrs. Shirley, (whose letter the witness read.) The man reported to me that he had been ill on the previous harvest—that he had been attended by Mr. Coleby daily, and that he had been under his treatment until he visited me on the morning of the 11th of February. His symptoms led me to ask him if Mr. Coleby had ever examined his bladder, naturally suspecting that he was labouring under stone. He said that Mr. Coleby had done so, and told him that there was no stone. That for months he had passed blood, and on some occasions something remained at the bottom of the vessel he used, if allowed to stand. He appeared to be extremely weak and emaciated. I took him to my house where I examined him with a sound, and immediately detected a small stone. I then wrote to Mrs. Shirley, of which I have kept a copy, but that lady has lost the original. Dr. Bell then read a note in which was stated that he had examined the man, who was in a deplorable state. That he had a small stone in his bladder, and had evidently been under a dangerous affection since last harvest—she could adopt one of three courses—_she could place him under the care of Mr. Coleby again_, _and when his attention was more immediately directed to the case_, _perhaps he would be more fortunate in detecting the nature of the complaint_—or she could send him to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital—or she could place Swann under his care, and he should be happy to attend without any charge, and the only expense would be for his board and lodging. Whatever plan should be adopted, let it be with the sanction of Mr. Coleby, and if he found relief from that gentleman, he was not to be taken from him, but strictly to attend to his (Dr. Bell’s) directions pro tempore. He also read a note from Mrs. Shirley, wherein she sanctioned Swann being under his care.

“The man returned home that day, and remained a week when he came again to me. I called upon Mr. Webber and mentioned the ease of the poor man who had been to me, and handed to him the two notes I received from Mrs. Shirley on the subject. Mr. Webber said he was exceedingly anxious to see the practice of Homæopathy, and if my remedies failed in removing the stone, he would be very glad to operate on the man, if I would allow him. Accordingly on the morning of the man’s arrival to stop in Norwich, which was Wednesday, the 11th February, Mr. Webber accompanied me to his (Swann’s) lodgings, at Nurse Phillips’. We sent the man up to his room, and desired him to prepare himself—Mr. Webber, myself, and the Nurse followed soon after. I then attempted to introduce my sound into the man’s bladder—the one I had used before; on this occasion I found the instrument from being cold, seemed to be grasped by the uretha; I ordered the nurse to bring some warm water, with which I warmed another instrument and passed it through. Upon Mr. Webber calling the attention of the jury to this expression, Dr. Bell said ‘I introduced it with the greatest facility.’ I immediately felt a stone, and I then passed the instrument to Mr. Webber, who said he felt it also. He withdrew the instrument, and upon my solemn oath, not a particle of blood or sign of blood followed. After the lapse of a minute or two, Mr. Webber drew an instrument of a large size from his pocket and introduced it, and he also injected some hot water. (Mr. Webber here exclaimed ‘hot water.’) On my oath, gentlemen, not hot water, but scalding water. Directly after this instrument was withdrawn, the man left the house. On my next visit, it was reported to me by the man and the nurse, that he had been parting with a good deal of blood, and I prescribed accordingly—I never introduced any instrument after that. Every visit that I made afterwards, I found that the man became more and more dissatisfied—he said he was anxious to leave me and Mr. Webber and go home, and the nurse declared that Mr. Webber had injured the man by the injection. Finding that he did not improve—that his nervous system was becoming more irritable, I called on Mr. Webber the following Wednesday morning, who observed I had done evil in bringing the man to that woman’s house, and we went and visited him.

“The days on which Mr. Webber saw him with me, were the 11th, the 18th, and the last time, the 22nd of February. On these occasions, Mr. Webber spoke to me respecting my treatment, and that was the reason why the man’s confidence in me was removed—but this was not all—on the evening of Sunday, the 22nd, Mr. Webber visited the man when I was not with him; after doing so, he sent me a note, and here it is:—

Dear Sir,

Having since I parted from you, been again summoned to the neighbourhood of Crook’s Place, I took the opportunity of giving Swann another look, I saw no ground for altering the opinion I openly expressed to you at our meeting; nor will I suffer the real issue in the case, the security and welfare of the patient, to be prejudiced by irreconcileable and strange disclosures which have been made, reflecting most unfairly and ungenerously upon me, considering the candour and frankness I have shown towards you, but to which I shall not now further allude, the real object of this note, being in my estimation of far more importance than professional differences; therefore, let me again beg of you to lose no further time in pursuing those measures, of which you at our first meeting expressed yourself as “sceptical or doubtful,” but at once to adopt more energetic means for the relief of the sufferer.

Understand me, I do not mean for a moment to assert that the inflammation which you agreed existed, may not abate or be determined without the application of the leeches, &c., but surely the known sequelœ of neglected opportunity, such as ulceration, &c. ought to be thought of, and if possible, to be averted—they being as effects quite as mischievous in the end, as the cause—the inflammation itself; the only difference that I ever observed, being that the one destroys quicker than the other, but both as certainly.

The patient begged of me to write to Mrs. Shirley, and state the facts of the case, and I cannot deny his request; but I will “nothing extenuate or aught set down in malice.”

As you have admitted to me, that you occasionally give half-grain doses of opium and of quinine (allopathic doses,) as “homæopathic to disease” (?) excuse my ignorance, you will I apprehend, have no difficulty in carrying out sound constitutional treatment, with local means, in the case in point.

I am, Sir, yours in much haste,

W. WEBBER.

St. Giles’, Sunday, Feb. 22nd, 1852. To Dr. Bell.

“This shows that Mr. Webber went in my absence and talked to the man. I had told him to leave Swann in my hands, but instead of that, he visited him in my absence. Up to that night, the nurse had invariably told me that it was the injection which had injured him, but after that, Mr. Webber and the nurse seemed to have set him against my treatment. On Tuesday, the 24th, when I visited him, he would have nothing to do either with me or my medicine, and the nurse suggested that I should send for another medical man.

“On Wednesday morning, the nurse came to me, and asked me to see him early. I went immediately to him, and found him labouring under a paroxysm of the stone. He declined to receive any medicine from me. The nurse then suggested that Mr. Webber should attend him—I was much surprised at this, as previously she had always abused Mr. Webber. I asked the man if he wished Mr. Webber to see him, and he replied that he did. About nine o’clock the same morning, I wrote to Mr. Webber, stating that the man refused to use my medicine, and that he wished to see him. Mr. Webber sent me a note, stating that the wife of Swann had just been, and requested that he would take charge of her husband’s case, which he had promised to do. The man after this remained five weeks in Norwich, during which I had nothing to do with him.”

The coroner commenced ordering strangers and witnesses to withdraw, previous to his summing up, when Mr. Webber asked the coroner why he had been summoned, and insisted on his right to be heard, after the palpably incorrect statements which Dr. Bell had been allowed to make—the coroner replied that he did not consider it was necessary for Mr. Webber to give evidence at all. {46} The foreman of the jury, (Mr. Coleman) said “He thought it would be no more than right, that as Dr. Bell had made a statement, Mr. Webber should be allowed to make a statement also;” this opinion his brother jurors coincided in, and much against the inclination openly expressed, and the significence of great and frequent impatience of the coroner during the time occupied in the delivery of the evidence. Mr. Webber, after being sworn, deposed as follows:

I am a M.R.C.S., Eng., residing in Norwich. I received a note from Dr. Bell on the morning of the 11th of February, who asked at what time I could see a patient of his who had been sent by a lady, to be placed under his care, to which I returned an answer, and agreeably to arrangement, Dr. Bell called on me, and proceeding on our way to Mrs. Phillips’, in Union Place, he said he believed the patient, Wm. Swann had a stone in his bladder. That Mr. John Coleby of North Walsham had examined him, but had not found one, and he therefore wished to be satisfied that he was correct in the opinion he had formed. That he intended to treat him homæopathically, and that if the man should not be relieved by his treatment, about which he was “sceptical,” (“as he had had no experience in this disease”)—he would then hand him over to me to be operated upon, as he believed I was fond of operating in such cases—I told him I had no fondness for cutting up anybody, but, that when operations came in my way, and they were necessary, I never hesitated to perform them. He said he was not in the habit himself of operating in such cases. I agreed to go and examine the case, stating at the same time that I would have nothing to do with the treatment he proposed. That if his system proved to be a sound one, I should not hesitate to proclaim it as a great boon to suffering humanity, but that if it should prove to be otherwise, he might rest assured I should expose it.

Arriving at Nurse Phillips’, I there saw Swann, who was a man about five feet, nine or ten inches in height, in tolerably fair plight, no emaciation, no evidence of extensive organic disease going on, nothing beyond a slight wearing from the irritation which generally accompanies stone in the bladder, and with nothing in his appearance to interdict an operation after a week or two preparation, nor to exclude the benefits of opportune and proper treatment.