LONG (John St. John): Case for opinion of Mr. L.C. Humfrey re unlicensed practice...

2 July 1849.

Sir George Clark Hist. of R.C.P. Vol. II pp. 677-678

In its own chosen sphere the College was hampered by all the old impediments and also by the uncertainties of the future, with its prospect of some kind of reform. Through almost the whole year 1830 it had a case to consider which in the end proved plainly how little it could do to fulfil the first of all its purposes, the putting down of pretenders to medicine. An ignorant and, it seems, cruel charlatan named John St. John Long had been rising for some years in the world of fashionable practice. He now treated consumption, rheumatism and other complaints at 41 Harley Street. The censors, perhaps mindful of the disaster of Dr. Harrison's case, reported to the College, which had asked them to consider Long's, that they did not deem it prudent to prosecute, and therefore thought it unnecessary to lay the case before counsel. This did not satisfy the College, which added Drs. Paris, Macmichael and Seymour to the censors to form a committee. The committee produced a long historical report tracing the whole matter of punishing imposture and malpractice, from the foundation down to the cases of Benamore in 1788 and Delahoyde in 1826. They could not find any opinion of counsel on this subject more recent than 1631, (26 June, 11 July 1843. Perhaps this was the homoeopathist George Newman about whom an enquiry from Glasgow is recorded on 29 September 1851.), and so they recommended, and the College resolved, that counsel should be consulted after all. Mr. Humpfrey, the standing counsel, gave his opinion that the College had authority to punish Long, and that it would be prudent to exercise its powers. He advised that if a case of malpractice could be made out the censors, should summon Long and hear him or, if he refused to appear, should apply to the court of king's bench for a mandamus ordering them to proceed. They should select a case in which the patient had not died because felony was out of the hands of the College. (25 January 1848: in comitia minora extraordinaria.) By the time this opinion reached the Christmas comitia, Long had already been prosecuted for manslaughter and found guilty. That only cost him a fine of £250.

In another trial on a similar charge he was acquitted.