MR HILL'S HOSPITAL PARTY.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1851, 7 September 1874, Page 3

MR HILL'S HOSPITAL PARTY.

To tlio Editor of the Thames Advertiser.

Sib,—Permit mo to offer my thanks to you for the fearless way in which you oppose anything like the introduction of a party opposition to the present hospital servants, even though that party be strengthened by the amalgamation of the most incongruous interests. I am quite 9uro the public will agree with you that the opposition of the Ho v. J, Hill and Mr Mcllhone, which appears to bo the main cause of the feeling that justice will not be evenly administered in this case, does not- arise purely out of a feeling of Christian duty, There is somo stronger motive underneath, much as the rev. gentleman may try to cloak it. Not content with letter writing in your columns, where he has met with a Roland for an Oliver, I see he has taken to the editorial columns of the evening paper, where I recoguise his hand in Saturday's article purporting to answer your note to his letter in the morning's issue. No doubt it suits the evening paper admirably to have literary assistance from the rev. special pleader in this matter, because if he had not combined with the Mcllhone party against the doctor of tho institute the public would have hoard nothing of the alleged negligence and incapacity ; one of tho proprietors of the Slav was tho first tool of tho party, and of course they must defend the charge, right or wrong. I.do not consider that the abuse have you received at Mr Hill's hands has been at all warrauted, because you are quite right in bringing the matter prominently before the public, seeing that they, and not Messrs Hill and Mcllhone, are the supporters of the institution. The report has been published, I presume with the approval of the committee, and it is certainly open to the subscribers to discuss its one-sided construction, Surely the committee will never allow themselves to be so gulled as to swallow its contents nolens volens, because it is supported by two such professedly disinterested persons as Messrs Hill aud Mcllhone. I say it would be monstrous that such a document—such lawyer-like evidence—should be the means of deciding the important professional points involved, and the future character of the Hospital servants, whose reputations are at stake. I say you are quite right in attacking any committee under such circumstances, in your capacity as custodian of the public interest, The fact is the Eev. Mr Hill is indignant that he should be detected in lending his assistance to Mr Mcllhone's party to oust Br. Lethbridge and put into his shoes an attendant of his own kirk, for that is simply what the unity of such antagonistic parties means. Mr Hill may bo a clear-headed man at logic, but he cannot cloak tho logic of facts. I hope the general committee will show by their votes that they are determined to discountenance these faction fights on the broad principle that, at least, this institution ought to be freed from such baso proceedings. The efforts of Mr Hill have been mainly directed, in his communications to you, and in his editorial writing in Saturday's Star, to show that he did not tamper with the evidence in rewriting it, as he calls it. This is simply a subterfuge, because the mere rewriting was not what was relied upon to give a colour to the evidence. The questions that were put to the witnesses, the exclusion of the Press representative, and tho nicely planned examination of those upon whom they relied to make out a case -and lastly the attempt to burk free discussion on the merits of that one-sided examination —• are the grounds for complaint, and the grounds on which the public will yet demand a fairer investigation into the whole case. The instances given by the three members of the sub-committee of alterations or additions to the evidence are proof enough that there was a laxity in taking down or hearing the testimony of witnesses which is alone sufficient to stamp it as unreliable. Putting these things together, I say that nothing could be more unfair, illogical, or impertinent thau the manner in which Mr Hill and his party attempt to burk free discussion on a matter of so much importance to the welfare of the Hospital, and tho public who support it. The committee, or the sub-committee either, have a right to court a free expression of opinion on the matter, instead of attempting to pass the matter over lightly, or allowing an interested party to be lawyer, jury, aud judge combined. The Sub-Committee have bungled tho inquiry, because they haye been made the dupes of a nice little plot, and it will now devolve upon the general com riittoe to see that no injustice is doue through the conspiracy. Only the extension of the fullest latitude to those upon whom the report implies blame will satisfy the public, in order that the other side of the question may also be placed before them. —I am, &c., A Sudscbibeb. Thames, Sept. 5.