4 NOVEMBER 1876, Page 3

What may be best called the Medical Courts-martial appear to

act on slightly namby-pamby principles. At least the decision of the Censors' Board of the Royal College of Physicians on the dispute between Sir William Gull and Dr. George Johnson as to their evidence concerning the Bravo case, seems to be a perfect model of a moral compensation-pendulum or finely-adjusted balance. 'An ordinary perusal of Sir William Gull's evidence, as given in the Daily 7'elegraph,' would, say the Censors, have led most readers to Dr. Johnson's own conclusion,—but Dr. Johnson should have communicated that conclusion to Sir William Gull before making any complaint, and have given him an opportunity of repudiating the interpretation put upon his words. The course actually taken by Dr. Johnson is deprecated, and his answers on his second appearance in Court are said to have evinced a warmth which might naturally have given offence to Sir W. Gull. Never- theless, Dr. Johnson did not " mean " to impugn Sir W. Gull's veracity, and parts of Sir W. Gull's evidence were certainly very objectionable, as being so open to misinterpretation. Nor did Sir W. Gull, say the Censors, really intend to disparage the pro- fessional character of Dr. Johnson ;—and so the see-saw goes on. It would probably have been better to say at once that the Censors' Board felt quite unequal to the painful duty of censuring any man so eminent as either Sir W. Gull or Dr. Johnson, and earnestly begged them to make it up, and let the profession resume its usual complaisance.