Mrs. Roddis alerted John St. John Long: the wound upon her young lodger was spreading, and the patient could no longer retain any nourishment. Long examined the symptoms, declared that the sore was progressing favourably, and protested that he would give an hundred guineas to produce such another upon any other patient. This blithe assurance, set against the family’s growing dread, opens the narrative of two affairs that brought his practice into the courts of justice. The first concerns Catherine Cashin, who succumbed following the treatment; the second, Mrs. Colin Campbell Lloyd, whose demise gave rise to a second trial and a contrary verdict.
About August 1830, Mrs. Cashin was residing in London with her two daughters, lodging in the house of Mrs. Roddis, in Mornington Place. The family sought treatment for the younger daughter, aged sixteen, said in the opening of the account to be afflicted with consumption. Long, established in Harley Street, had gained renown for a method which consisted in producing an external sore and discharge, in the hope of “drawing” the disease forth from the body. Pelham observes that he possessed no regular surgical education; this remains his retrospective assessment, not a formal medical finding.
Long at first declared that he could do nothing for the younger girl. Yet he warned the family that the elder sister might likewise be seized with the malady, and offered to avert it. Pelham does not name this elder daughter in his preamble; Sweetman would later identify her as Catherine. Described by Pelham as being in robust health, she was submitted to the treatment. An open sore appeared upon her back; the text nowhere specifies how Long produced it. It spread rapidly, while the sufferer could retain neither food nor drink. Mrs. Roddis wrote to him, and presently showed him the alarming signs. Long replied that the wound was advancing most favourably, made light of the symptoms, and recommended mulled port wine to stay the sickness. The draught was instantly rejected. When the family urged that the condition was worsening, he refused to alter his course.
Mrs. Cashin at length summoned Mr. Brodie, the surgeon. Upon examination, he discovered an extensive and severe sloughing wound upon the back, and pronounced that there was little hope of recovery. On the following morning, the young woman expired. The source does not reconstruct the initial application nor furnish a comprehensive clinical record; Brodie, for his part, deposed that the wound had brought on the vomiting and caused her death. He could not conceive how such an injury might prevent or cure consumption.
The coroner’s inquest was opened on Saturday, 21 August 1830. Mrs. Roddis recounted Long’s attendances and the rapid decline of the deceased. Being asked by the defence concerning certain plums which Catherine was alleged to have eaten in great quantities, she answered that she had eaten no such thing. She added that the young lady had been in perfect health but ten days prior to her death. Brodie attributed the fatal event entirely to the wound. The examination of the body was resumed after the jury required a more complete post-mortem inspection; the medical men subsequently consulted declared that the remains showed no trace of disease other than that occasioned by the external lesion.
Sweetman named the deceased: he stated that he had known Catherine, aged twenty-four years, and her sister Ellen, aged sixteen, who was ill of consumption. According to his deposition, the younger sister had come to London to be treated, but Long had declined to undertake her cure. He reported further that Long had foretold to Catherine that she would inevitably fall into consumption without his treatment, and that Miss Ellen Cashin had previously been declared consumptive by Dublin physicians. Sweetman described a book which Long required his visitors to sign, binding them to keep secret his mixture and the prescribed inhalations. He stated that Long charged one guinea per visit for each young lady; he noted that he had himself paid nothing.
Long’s defence then called a number of patients who extolled his method and maintained that they had derived great benefit therefrom. Sir Francis Burdett had submitted his hand to the process; Miss Matilda Christian and Mrs. Sharpe deposed to having obtained relief after the production of sores and the use of inhalations. Other witnesses spoke of gout, pains, or general debility. These testimonies formed the body of the exculpatory evidence laid before the court.
After several sittings, the coroner summed up the question: had Long possessed the requisite knowledge and exercised ordinary care, or did his conduct amount to criminal negligence? The jurors retired at five o’clock and returned at eight with a verdict of manslaughter against Long. As the accused was not in attendance, a warrant was issued. He subsequently surrendered to custody and was admitted to bail.
The criminal trial appointed for 18 September at the Old Bailey was postponed by reason of the absence of material witnesses for the prosecution. On 30 October, Long appeared once more at the bar. The evidence previously heard was repeated before the court; the jury returned a second verdict of manslaughter. Long was committed to Newgate to await judgment. On the following Monday, the court sentenced him to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pounds to the King. The sum was discharged forthwith, and he was set at liberty. Thus, in Pelham’s account, the conviction recorded in the Cashin case was not attended by any term of imprisonment.
In the distinct case of Mrs. Colin Campbell Lloyd, the wife of a captain in the Royal Navy, aged forty-eight years, the coroner’s inquest was opened on 10 November, two days after her death. She had consulted Long during the preceding autumn. Captain Lloyd related that he had accompanied his wife on 5 October for an initial interview. She returned to Long on the following day and inhaled during the days that ensued; on the 9th, she was rubbed upon the chest for the first time. On the 10th, according to her husband, the friction was repeated; a painful, burning sensation supervened, and Long was summoned. He declared that it was nothing and would pass away. By the next day, the skin was violently inflamed, the center of the chest blackened, and Mrs. Lloyd could neither take food nor sleep without agony.
The captain’s deposition detailed the measures he observed: cabbage leaves applied to the sore, the rising of blisters, and a wicker cradle constructed to prevent the bedclothes from touching the body. When Long called again, Mrs. Lloyd protested against any further friction. He recommended dry linen to absorb the discharge, rubbed the dark patch with a towel, and eventually consented that she might use a simple dressing. Captain Lloyd recounted these scenes before the court with deep emotion. The surgeons Vance and Campbell described an extensive slough and mortification; they ascribed the death of Mrs. Lloyd, on 8 November, to a corrosive substance applied to the chest. The post-mortem examination, according to their report, revealed no organic disease of the lungs or the heart.
The coroner directed the jury to determine whether Mrs. Lloyd had died through the gross ignorance or inattention of her practitioner, or from natural causes. On the following day, the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter, citing “gross ignorance and other considerations.” This inquest verdict, however, was not that of a criminal trial. On 19 February 1831, Long appeared at the Old Bailey to answer for the death of Mrs. Lloyd.
The prosecution recapitulated the testimony of the captain and the surgeons. The defence laid stress upon the circumstance that Long had been dismissed after the appearance of the sore, and contended that Campbell’s treatment had brought about the fatal termination. Long himself addressed the court: he maintained that he would have restored Mrs. Lloyd to health had he been permitted to attend her but a few days longer, and charged rival practitioners with professional jealousy. The court restricted the testimony of other patients to Long’s general character, disallowing any detailed examination of distinct individual cases. The learned judge directed the jury to consider whether Long had acted with gross rashness or culpable ignorance, and whether they were satisfied that death had resulted from the wound which he had inflicted.
Retiring about half-past eight, the jury returned some an hour later with a verdict of not guilty. On this occasion, Long was acquitted upon his trial, notwithstanding the adverse finding of the coroner’s inquest. He returned to his practice. A defamatory publication subsequently gave rise to an action for libel; on 14 June 1831, he obtained a verdict with one hundred pounds damages. Pelham concludes the narrative with the origins of Long, who was born at Mallow of a family of basket-makers, became a drawing-master, and then set up as a practitioner in London, prior to his death in 1834. Between the two proceedings, he had encountered two contradictory judicial results: a conviction followed by a fine in the case of Catherine Cashin, and an acquittal in that of Mrs. Lloyd.