might turn him out, for he would not go till he chose; that he did not come there unadvisedly, he having talked to his Lawyer before he came. He knew the extent of the power of the College to be, that if he practised without their licence, they might fine him 51. per month. He was able to pay it; and he more than once put his hand to his pocket, and asked what was to pay? He continued to put interrogatories, for some minutes, as to what the College would do, and as to how they would proceed; with an intention, as it appeared to me, to provoke altercation. No answer was made to

6

him, and at last he rose to go away. As he was leaving the room, one of the Censors said to him, 'Are you disposed, Mr. Campbell, to give the Board any assurance that you will restrict your practice to surgery and pharmacy? To which he answered, he was not. The Censor then replied, Then, Mr. Campbell, you must expect that the Board will proceed as the law authorises them to do.' This was spoken to him in as mild a tone as I speak it now. Mr. Campbell's observation upon that was, Then you are all a parcel of qui tam scoundrels,' and then he left the room. By that time the President had rung his bell, and the door of the room was opened by the Beadle; so that what the Defendant had said might have been easily heard by others who were out of the room, and there were more than one Gentleman then waiting, in order to be examined. I received a letter from Mr. Campbell pretty nearly in the terms of the others sent to the Gentlemen of the Board; but feeling myself indignant at it, I threw it into the fire."

Upon being cross-examined, the witness said he never knew Mr. Campbell before, either in regard to his character or profession. He did think that there was a letter from the defendant read to the Board, stating reasons for his conduct, that were not deemed satisfactory, although it appeared to have escaped the memory of Dr. Hervey.

Here the Counsel for the Defendant offering to adduce proof of the delivery of this letter, it was permitted to be read in Court, and was as follows :

"Gentlemen,

"I have received your admonition to desist from the practice of physic, and also your summons to attend this day in order to be duly examined, touching my skill and ability. I beg leave to suggest, that your information has been very incorrect, and to inform you, that I have studiously avoided giving offence, or making infringements on privileged bodies. A man, actuated by truth, can give the best account of himself and pursuits; and however unpleasant, it is indispen sible when the task cannot be left to the representation of others.

"My practice in and about this town has consisted entirely in medical surgery, midwifery, and teaching chemistry and other branches of philosophy: I have chosen this course of life, with it P am content, and supposed myself protected in this unassuming station by privileges claimed as an old army surgeon. At the same time, I beg leave to express my respect and deference for the College, both collectively and as individuals; and from the above short statement, they will see that in the line of practice I have chosen, were I even connected with their body, it would be impossible for me to comply with the rules by which their members are bound, consequently they might think my mode of proceeding derogatory to that professional etiquette which distinguishes their body in the course of business. certainly have long possessed a degree in physic, and have acted as physician in a highly respectable situation in Cambridgeshire; and were I inclined to solicit the honour of a licence from your College, I trust I should not be found deficient in the necessary qualifications. Preferring another mode of life, I beg only rules to direct my steps from making inroads on the rights of the London College.

"No. 17, St. Peter's Hill, "Doctors' Commons."

I am,

Gentlemen,

I

66 Your most obedient Servant.

This the witness thought similar to the language of the letter alluded to. He did not recollect Mr. C. ask. ing the College to prescribe rules for his conduct, in order that he might not infringe upon their privileges.

His recollection was called to the precise words of the conversation before narrated, by his having occasion almost immediately afterwards to make an affidavit upon the subject. The complaint of the College was merely confined to Mr. Campbell's practising as a physician, and had no relation to his practice in surgery or midwifery.

Dr. Lamb, Sir Lucas Pepys, and Dr. Curry, were also examined as to the letters they had each receiv ed from the defendant, and a Mr. Charles Humphries identified the hand-writing.

- The purport of these letters was pretty similar to each other. They were each of them read. That to Sir L. Pepys was as follows:

To Sir Lucas Pepys.

H. Campbell, with respects to Sir Lucas Pepys, trusts he slept well last night, after performing the important function of interdiction. Should Sir Lucas be inclined to persecute Dr. Campbell further, let him, with his worthy Colleagues, proceed to prosecution, and participate in all the benefits that may arise from qui tam actions. Should Sir Lucas think fit to send his Janitor or Mastiff again to St. Peter's-hill, he must be sent with better manners, or his ears,will be cropped or lengthened according to the taste of the President and Censors. This Fellow has twice, in Dr. Campbell's house, behaved very ill-like masters, like man. Dr. Campbell begs leave to repeat, that he will bear no further insolence from the Compilors of the very Chemical London Pharmacopoeia. He wrote to them as a Gentleman-his treatment will be shortly published.

MR. NOLAN made a short but eloquent address to the Jury on behalf of the Defendant. He commenced by regretting that the duty he had to perform, of defending the learned and very respectable gentleman, who had fallen into this unfortunate situation, had not devolved to abler hands, and alluding to the observation of Dr. Pitcairn, as to the Defendant having told the Board, that he had consulted his Lawyer, previous to attending them, he could assure the Jury that if Dr. Campbell did consult any legal advice, it was not that of his Learned Friend (Mr. Gurney) or himself, nor of the Solicitor who was employed upon this occasion. Dr. Campbell was a person who had been educated in the medical profession from the age of eighteen, had practised first as an Army Surgeon, and afterwards at a place considerably distant from London. Instigated by a love of science, and with an intention of benefitting, not merely himself, but his family and the public, he had latterly removed to the city of London, where his general practice was that of a surgeon, and not of a

physician. Upon receiving the summons to attend the College of Physicians, he sent a respectful letter to them, stating that he begged leave to decline an examination, conceiving that he was not within their jurisdiction. In answer to this, however, he received another summons, inclosed in an open cover, which fell into the hands of his servants, which, hurting his feelings, had been the occasion of his expressing his resentment in the manner described, when he attended the College of Physicians. He had misconceived the case: he had conceived himself insulted, although there was no reason to suppose that any insult was intended. His mind, to use his own eloquent expressions at the consultation, "was like the fragments of a broken mirror reflecting nothing but emotions."

He had then forgot himself so far as to utter words which he had since acknowledged to have been unbecoming, both of himself, and the respectable gentlemen who were now the Prosecutors. He however took the first means to repair the injury he had committed, although he (his counsel) could not now go into evidence upon it. He had not only sent a letter of apology, the most civil and most respectful, but he had also since sent an agent to make it by word of mouth. Yet still that apology could not appease the resentment of that Learned Body. He might have done that which was his unquestionable right to do-he might have allowed judgment to go by default; but his reason for coming into Court was, that as he was conscious he had done in his irritation what he had already apologized for, but that not proving satisfactory, he wished to come before the public, more amply to atone for the offence he had given to the Learned College. Could the prosecutors wish to go further than this? Could their own characters, or the interests of society, be benefited by their doing so? Certainly not. He trusted, that those learned persons, men of science and of feeling too, would think this apology sufficient on the part of Dr. Campbell; if not, and that they should persist in calling for punishment by the Court hereafter, then he would state upon his oath what he now instructed his Counsel to declare upon his honour, his extreme sorrow for the consequences of his intemperate passion, and that he had the highest respect for those

prosecutors collectively and individually. Surely when a man of education, of feeling, of gentlemanly habits, of the best connections, of a studious course of life, cultivating science to the utter disregard of his convenience, by which the temper was sometimes impaired as well as the health, expressed contrition, nothing after that could be added to the humiliation of his state. That he had offended the learned members of the College of Physicians he was aware, and by so doing he had offended himself, if possible, still more: he was conscious that it was easier for them to forgive him, than it was for him to forgive himself for conduct so unworthy of both parties. With these observations he should conclude, by not attempting to justify, but to state to the Jury that it was evident, that through the frailty of mankind he had yielded to an irritation and passion, for the consequences of which he had endeavoured already amply

to atone.

Lord Ellenborough, in his address to the Jury, said, it was impossible for him to anticipate what might be the effect of an appeal to the Court by the Royal College of Physicians, when the defendant might be brought up for judgment, in his behalf. That was not the point at issue; the Jury had to consider whether, under all the circumstances of the case, they were convinced that the general counts and allegations in the indictment were made out. Were they convinced of that, they would find the defendant Guilty; if, on the contrary, they entertained any reasonable doubt, they would give the defendant all the benefit of those doubts.-The Jury found the defendant Guilty.

N. B.-It will be recollected that the verdict of the Jury embraced only the fact of the libellous letters and expressions. With respect to the right of interdiction, &c. the College are precisely where they were.