SECT. V. tensive and the most successful experience in the treatment of cholera, that to give food to a stomach that rejects, and to intestestines that discharge whatever is introduced, is to take away all chance of success from the treatment.

Mr. Pearce conducted the case with success till he himself was seized with an attack of Asiatic cholera, for which he was obliged to seek homeopathic aid. The success was so great, that his brother was enabled to dress himself, sit up and write letters.

Unable to visit his brother from his own prostration, Mr. Pearce prescribed as well as he could from the history of the symptoms, which were daily forwarded to him.

Mr. Pearce's dietetic rules were set at nought. The patient was fed with beef-tea, tea, and other articles of food, and the peculiar TYPHOID fever, which so frequently follows recovery from the stage of collapse in cholera, was developed in his brother, and he having, in a fit of self-will, while still debilitated by his disease, gone down into his garden, one bleak day in September, was seized with a fresh attack of diarrhea, which caused excessive prostration.

The sufferer wished to see Mr. Pearce, but Mr. Pearce being unable, from his own illness, to attend, he recommended that his brother should seek the advice of one of two homeopathic physicians whom he named.

The sufferer did not attend to Mr. Pearce's advice to obtain further homœopathic aid, but his wife called in Mr. Davis, a practitioner in the neighbourhood, who prescribed for him and ordered as well brandy, brandy and water, beef tea, &c. This was on the Monday evening, and on the morning of Tuesday he died. Mr. Davis refused to certify the cause of death, and a coroner's inquest was held. Mr. Davis opened the deceased's body without letting Mr. Pearce know any thing of his intention. The widow was told to declare at the inquest that her husband had been starved to death.

An inquest was held under the presidency of Mr. H. Membury Wakley.

All the witnesses except one* received the bias resulting from

* Sarah Payne, the deceased's mother-in-law, deposed, (after having stated that

Mr. Davis's declared opinion, and they answered the coroner's SECT. V. questions, which tended to establish the crime of starvation, with a willingness rather remarkable.

Mr. Davis swore that the deceased died of exhaustion from want of food. He unhesitatingly declared that this was established by the appearance of the patient, by the observations made to him by the patient, and by the appearances presented at the post mortem examination of the deceased.

Mr. Davis's evidence was deemed by the coroner as paramount: for although Mr. Harris, who first attended the deceased, declared his belief that the patient died of cholera, although the evidence of the witnesses, who seemed to wish to prove that the deceased died from starvation, proved that he had food almost daily, and although Dr. Kelsall gave evidence to prove, that Mr. Pearce's dietetic directions were the only ones, that, followed out, could ensure success in the treatment of the case, the coroner, in his summing up, instead of recognizing the opinion of Mr. Harris, the statement of Dr. Kelsall, and the statements of the witnesses in reference to the food given, clearly directed the attention of the jury to one main idea, namely, that the patient died from starvation, and that, if the death did so happen, Mr. C. T. Pearce, who advised abstinence, being the instigator thereto, was guilty of manslaughter.

The jury, notwithstanding this summing up, seem to have had much difficulty in coming to a conclusion, the coroner having, after the court was cleared, been sent for by the jury, and having remained closetted with the jury half an hour before the verdict of manslaughter was arrived at.

Mr. Pearce, who waited to hear the verdict, not having the slightest expectation that any such verdict could by any possibility be given, (" How any man can be found to say this defendant is guilty of manslaughter I cannot imagine”—Justice Maule.) was conveyed as a felon

she gave the deceased some tea,) in reply to a question from a juror, "Did he make any remarks about food to you?" Witness: "" None, but what I have said; would not tell a story; I will speak the truth." This last sentence, which the witness emphatically uttered, embodies the idea that some influence had been used similar to that which urged the widow to declare that her husband had been starved to death.

SECT. V. to Newgate late in the evening, having no opportunity to see his wife or his family. He, still debilitated by the attack of cholera, and by the excitement from the inquest, was confined in a dungeon in which he had nothing to sleep on but a door mat, placed on a board, and nothing to cover him but two horse cloths, in which insects abounded.

Mr. Pearce was kept confined in prison for a period of seven days, till a judge at chambers could be obtained to admit him to bail: the only changes, while in jail, being, that he was allowed a blanket, and subsequently the removal from his cell to admit Manning to take possession.

The coroner's inquisition was brought before the grand jury, and no true bill was returned, the grand jury thus recognizing that the deposed evidence did not justify the verdict.

The English Homœopathic Association determined to defend their Honorary Secretary. Messrs. Ashurst and Son, the solicitors employed, prepared the defence, which would have gone fully into the MERITS of the case: they had persons in court in good health, ready to depose that they had been treated homeopathically for Asiatic cholera and had been cured, and had fasted 10, 12, 14 to 21 days, taking nothing but water: they had evidence ready to prove that all the conclusions of Mr. Davis, derived from the appearance of the patient and from the post mortem appearances, asserted by Mr. Davis to have been present in the deceased, were in direct opposition to the opinion of the most eminent writers on the subject of starvation.

The case for the prosecution broke down even with the first witness. When the second had concluded his evidence, Mr. Justice Maule expressed his opinion

"This man seems to have been doctored as well as he could: how any man can be found to say this defendant is guilty of manslaughter, I cannot possibly imagine: it appears he was called in in a desperate case, and did every thing it was possible to do under the circumstances."

Mr. Pearce, who had been placed in the felon's dock, was at once liberated, and on receiving the congratulations of his friends, found that great difficulties exist in the way of making the parties, who brought upon him all these undeserved inflictions, receive the punishment which their conduct requires.

CHAPTER II.

Report of an adjourned Inquest on the body of
RICHARD DAVID PEARCE, held at the Perseverance

Tavern, Mary Street, Hampstead Road, Sept. 26th,
1849.

[The parts that are in italics constitute points of reference in the remarks which follow.]

Mr T. H. Johnston, solicitor, who attended on behalf of Mr C. T. SECT. V. Pearce, brother to the deceased, said that, before the inquiry was resumed, he hoped the jury would divest their minds of any impression that might have been made, by the report being circulated that the deceased died from starvation whilst under the hands of his client. Such was not the case, adding, that the jury would shortly be convinced that deceased had received the best of treatment.

The evidence of Eliza Higgins, residing at 86, Mary Street, was then recapitulated. She said she was present at the death of the deceased, which happened about half-past ten on the morning of Tuesday, 18th of September. He was taken ill with a violent bowel complaint. Went for a Dr Harris on Sunday morning, the 9th. After that day, had supposed that Mr C. T. Pearce had taken the case out of Mr Harris's hands. Mr Pearce saw deceased as a doctor. Mr Harris came three times after that, He, Mr C. Pearce, attended him apparently as medical adviser up to Wednesday, the 12th. The deceased was to send to his brother, Mr C. T. Pearce, to let him know every day how he was getting on. This was done. Believed a Mr M'Oubrey, a medical man, came to see him on Thursday, the 13th. This Mr M'Oubrey called several times. Deceased said he was to have very little to drink and allowed nothing to eat, but a little gruel.-COR. Nothing else? WIT. No food, nothing but a little weak thin gruel. Mr Pearce saw the deceased for the last time on this day fortnight. He died on the 18th. Mr Davis was first sent for on Monday night, 17th. Deceased had repeatedly asked for food, but we had orders from Mr Pearce to give him no food. His wife was fearful to give him any thing to eat. By so doing was attending to her brother's orders. Nothing was given to him but gruel and weak tea: and that was latterly. Complained every hour in the day for food. The beef tea was not given him till after the Thursday, 13th.-COR. What did he say when he wanted food? WIT. He said he wanted food, was hungry, and that he was being starved to death. Those were his words.-COR. When did he say this? WIT. Several times; he said it in the night previous to his death.-COR. Did he know that he was dying? WIT. That I am not aware of.-COR. Did you consider he was dying? WIT. I do not know.-COR. Did you hear him say that he felt his end approaching? I did not.COR. to Mr. Johnston. Do you wish to ask this witness any questions? Mr. JOHNSTON. Witness says, "deceased was taken out of Mr Harris's hands;" I should wish to know what she means by this statement. WIT. Mr Pearce went to see deceased as a brother, she believed. Deceased

SECT. V. particularly wished to see his brother. Heard Mr Pearce say, "I have taken you into hand." Said she had no directions from Mr Pearce; but Mrs P., deceased's wife, had.-Mr JOHNSTON. How do you know that? WIT. By being constantly with her; she did not hear the order given, but saw its workings. Mrs Pearce received the order. Recollecting herself, she said she heard Mr Pearce tell deceased's wife that he was to have nothing but a little gruel. Said so to Mrs Pearce.--Mr PEARCE. I believe I told you both so; notwithstanding that, food was repeatedly given, was it not? WIT. Yes; but the food was rejected by the deceased.-COR. What did you see given to him? Did he have any beef-tea or arrowroot? WIT. Yes, but that was Thursday or Friday, after Mr Pearce had given him over.-COR. Who was it ordered this beef-tea? WIT. Could not say. -COR. Do you not know who ordered it? WIT. No.-A JUROR. Do you consider Mrs Pearce was satisfied with the treatment? No, she was not; she said that on Sunday night she thought her heart would have broken. Mr Davis, medical man, sworn. Resides at Ampthill Square, Camden Town. Was called to see deceased on Monday night, 17th; a little after 9. He found him extremely emaciated and in a state of exhaustion. Ordered a glass of brandy and nourishment. He saw him Tuesday morning. Deceased was dying then. On the same evening stated he had been murdered, or starved to death, or something to that effect. COR. Did he say by what or by whom he had been starved to death? WIT. He said by the homeopathic system. Was not aware that Mr Pearce's name was mentioned at that time. I sent him some medicine. Did you think that he had cholera? WIT. I could not hardly determine that in one visit. Saw one of the dejections; was of a white frothy character. Such a one as we might have with diarrhoea. Mr Davis made a post mortem examination. Lungs congested, as also liver and kidneys.

COR. Did you find any thing in the stomach? Mr DAVIS. A small quantity of brownish matter, of a liquid consistency.-COR. How much? WIT. About an ounce.-COR. No more than that? WIT. Believed not. Mr Davis's son here produced 2 or 3 small phials containing the matter. He had made an analysis; there were about three or four drachms, not half an ounce, in the stomach. Said he discovered a slight trace of arsenic; but accounted for this, as he had heard there was arsenic given in the treatment.-COR. Not sufficient to cause death? WIT. Oh dear no!— COR. What should you, Mr Davis, consider the cause of the man's death? WIT. Considered he died from exhaustion caused by the want of food. Deceased took brandy and water and beef-tea during the night. He kept the whole on his stomach. He had not thrown any thing off his stomach, he believed, for full a week.-COR. You ordered him beef-tea and brandy and water?-WIT. I did, and I believe he had a little milk.—Mr. JOHNSTON. Was deceased attended by Mr Harris for cholera ? Yes, he was so; was not certain, only from what he was told.-Mr. JOHNSTON. Were you satisfied that he had had a previous attack of cholera? Yes.-Mr. JOHNSTON. Did Mr Harris give over the case? WIT. Could not say. Had not seen Mr Harris: understood from the parties in the house that the case was one of cholera.-Mr JOHNSTON said he could prove that this was the second attack of cholera.

The widow of the deceased was then called: she resided at 86, Marystreet. Was the wife of the deceased. Was with him when he was taken ill, which was on Saturday, the 8th September. Had violent cramp and pains in the bowels. Mr Harris was called in on Sunday morning: he said it was cholera. Mr Harris attended him three times on Sunday. Sent for Mr C. T. Pearce on Sunday morning. He came directly. His brother (the deceased) had a great wish to see him. Was not present when any remarks took place between Mr Pearce and Mr Harris. Mr