Tions for seditious libel. Rather, he was the object of civil

Tions for seditious libel. Rather, he was the object of civil suits, brought against him by private citizens. But despite this, libel, even in its civil incarnation, remained a deeply political issue, not least because Wakley made it so. Through his frequent and deliberate publication of libellous material he committed himself to defending one of the most important radical causes, the freedom of the press. As Cobbett had written: Liberty, actively speaking, means the right, or power, of doing with safety to yourself, that which is naturally disagreeable to, or contrary to the interests of another. . . . So of the Liberty of the Press which means the right, or power, of publishing, with safety and without any risk to one’s self, that which is naturally disagreeable to, or contrary to the interest of another. . . . If you are to publish only that which offend nobody; if you are permitted to publish nothing that hurts any man’s feelings; if you are not to say a word that any man can take amiss; would it not be a mockery, a base truckling, to say that you enjoyed the Liberty of the Press?60 Wakley may have been a reformer in the widest sense of the word, but his targets were not the political establishment per se; whatever his personal opinions, he generally shied away from publishing any material which could be construed as a libel on the Crown or its ministers.61 And yet by identifying himself so closely with one of the most important tropes of radical political discourse, Wakley was able to direct the popular appeal of that discourse toward his own purchase RWJ 64809 specific ends. Broadening the axis of his attack, he figured medical reform as commensurate with the general cause of popular liberty and identified the medical and surgical elites as an incarnation of `Old Corruption’. While he may not have been charged with seditious libel, his encounters with its civil equivalent allowed him to transcend the level of the individual and to mount a much more extensive critique of the system as a whole. Nowhere was this more evident than with the 1828 trial between himself and Bransby Cooper. The fraternal nephew of Sir Astley Cooper, Bransby Cooper had started out in life as a naval midshipman before turning to surgery under the influence and tutelage of his uncle. After completing his studies he enlisted as a surgeon in the Royal Artillery, serving in both the Peninsula campaign and the Anglo-American war of 1812. By 1817 he was back in London where, without due consultation or formal procedure, he was effectively appointed his uncle’s successor as lecturer to the Borough Hospitals medical school.62 This provoked outrage among the governors of St Thomas’s and effectively led to the collapse of the `United School’. With the split between the two hospitals, the treasurer of Guy’s, Benjamin Harrison, established a separate school at which Bransby was appointed chair of anatomy.63 In 1825 he was appointed surgeon to Guy’s Hospital itself, again in his uncle’s stead.60Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, 34:15 (2 January 1819), 460. 61 The Lancet, 5:129 (18 February 1826), 715?16; The Lancet, 5:131 (4 March 1826), 782. 62ibid., 56:1409 (31 August 1850), 270 ?. 63A. M. Kass, `Harrison, Benjamin (1771 ?1856)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). 64The Lancet, 56:1409 (31 August 1850), 270?.MayThe Lancet, libel and Lonafarnib manufacturer English medicineBransby Cooper was therefore already something of a controversial figure when, at the end of March 1828, The Lancet p.Tions for seditious libel. Rather, he was the object of civil suits, brought against him by private citizens. But despite this, libel, even in its civil incarnation, remained a deeply political issue, not least because Wakley made it so. Through his frequent and deliberate publication of libellous material he committed himself to defending one of the most important radical causes, the freedom of the press. As Cobbett had written: Liberty, actively speaking, means the right, or power, of doing with safety to yourself, that which is naturally disagreeable to, or contrary to the interests of another. . . . So of the Liberty of the Press which means the right, or power, of publishing, with safety and without any risk to one’s self, that which is naturally disagreeable to, or contrary to the interest of another. . . . If you are to publish only that which offend nobody; if you are permitted to publish nothing that hurts any man’s feelings; if you are not to say a word that any man can take amiss; would it not be a mockery, a base truckling, to say that you enjoyed the Liberty of the Press?60 Wakley may have been a reformer in the widest sense of the word, but his targets were not the political establishment per se; whatever his personal opinions, he generally shied away from publishing any material which could be construed as a libel on the Crown or its ministers.61 And yet by identifying himself so closely with one of the most important tropes of radical political discourse, Wakley was able to direct the popular appeal of that discourse toward his own specific ends. Broadening the axis of his attack, he figured medical reform as commensurate with the general cause of popular liberty and identified the medical and surgical elites as an incarnation of `Old Corruption’. While he may not have been charged with seditious libel, his encounters with its civil equivalent allowed him to transcend the level of the individual and to mount a much more extensive critique of the system as a whole. Nowhere was this more evident than with the 1828 trial between himself and Bransby Cooper. The fraternal nephew of Sir Astley Cooper, Bransby Cooper had started out in life as a naval midshipman before turning to surgery under the influence and tutelage of his uncle. After completing his studies he enlisted as a surgeon in the Royal Artillery, serving in both the Peninsula campaign and the Anglo-American war of 1812. By 1817 he was back in London where, without due consultation or formal procedure, he was effectively appointed his uncle’s successor as lecturer to the Borough Hospitals medical school.62 This provoked outrage among the governors of St Thomas’s and effectively led to the collapse of the `United School’. With the split between the two hospitals, the treasurer of Guy’s, Benjamin Harrison, established a separate school at which Bransby was appointed chair of anatomy.63 In 1825 he was appointed surgeon to Guy’s Hospital itself, again in his uncle’s stead.60Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, 34:15 (2 January 1819), 460. 61 The Lancet, 5:129 (18 February 1826), 715?16; The Lancet, 5:131 (4 March 1826), 782. 62ibid., 56:1409 (31 August 1850), 270 ?. 63A. M. Kass, `Harrison, Benjamin (1771 ?1856)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). 64The Lancet, 56:1409 (31 August 1850), 270?.MayThe Lancet, libel and English medicineBransby Cooper was therefore already something of a controversial figure when, at the end of March 1828, The Lancet p.