A gentleman, who appeared to be a student, thought that the introduction of any attack upon the witnesses, or indeed of anything that occurred at the trial, was irrelevant (hear, hear!). The way to answer a speaker was not by hisses, but by disproving his arguments and rebutting his facts (applause). If questions were to be settled merely by strength of lungs, he was afraid that instead of the right side prevailing, success would uniformly attend those whose physical powers probably much exceeded their mental (laughter and applause). He could not agree with the gentleman who had stated that the law of England was the protector of the freedom of the Press; for it was well known that the Judges had decided, over and over again, that truth was a libel (applause). It was only the vehicle that conveyed public sentiment, and not the force that impelled it forward. He was convinced that any attempt to connect medical reform with Mr. Wakley should be studiously avoided and disclaimed. As a friend of free discussion in every case, and anxious to uphold the principle, whatever he might think of the instrument, he intended to propose, as an Amendment, "That the latter part of the Resolution, relating to Mr. Wakley, should be omitted." This would save the cause of medical reform from being identified with Mr. Wakley, of whose impartiality he would give a specimen. In the last number of the Lancet, the report of the late trial was given from the Times, but with a remarkable omission. The Lord Chief Justice had rebuked one of the defendant's witnesses for not answering the questions in a straightforward manner, and this passage was omitted. If Mr. Wakley would do this on such an occasion, would he be more candid when the public eye was less upon him? He, therefore, wished to have the question of medical reform kept separate from Mr. Wakley individually. The first part of the Resolution would be carried without a dissenting voice, as on that principle they were all agreed, whatever they might think of the conduct of individuals. [One or two persons then made speeches for or against the amendment; which was negatived, and the original motion carried.] _Mr. Hensley_ then, after observing that Mr. Wakley's conduct was highly praiseworthy, because it tended in every way to the benefit of humanity, moved the second Resolution, which was to the following effect:-- "That the purposes for which the Hospitals and Infirmaries of the Metropolis were founded, and that the views of the humane contributors to their funds, are materially promoted by the weekly publication of reports detailing the medical and surgical treatment of the unfortunate patients; and that Mr. Wakley having originated the practice of publishing Hospital Reports, has conferred important benefits on Medical Science, and on the cause of humanity." The resolution was then carried unanimously.