Between the two sides. Wakley’s focus on the public and systemic dimensions of the case and Scarlett’s Isorhamnetin custom synthesis insistence upon the personal and private implications of defamation were more than an expedient legal device: they embodied two contrasting visions of medical and social identity rooted in two mutually opposed cultural and political ideologies. Wakley’s reformist vision of the medical profession as an ARRY-470MedChemExpress Larotrectinib abstract body of public servants dedicated to the social good was founded upon the inchoate middle-class values of meritocracy, duty and reward.92 Scarlett and his witnesses, on the other hand, were wedded to the established and essentially aristocratic values of character, breeding and reputation. Hence while Wakley spoke of `men of talent, industry and ability’,93 Scarlett defined professional character in terms which distinguished it from the mere `plaindealing’ of commerce: [I]n the practice of a liberal profession, there is a certain feeling of honour, which becomes a gentleman, and which a gentleman only can feel, which renders it not sordid, but gives to it a character which belongs to such a profession ?a certain dignity, a certain pride which makes the man feel that profit is a secondary object to him ?that fame, that reputation . . . are his true rewards, and that everything else is only secondary.94 Ultimately the jury’s verdict did little to settle the matter at hand. Wakley restated his opinions in an impassioned summing-up, though he had to interrupt his speech in order to regain his strength and composure. The jury then retired to discuss their decision, returning two hours later with a verdict for the plaintiff. However, rather than the ?000 initially proposed, they chose to award a mere ?00.95 Nevertheless, for Wakley, the trial had been a signal victory. Everything about his performance had been calculated. Even his temporary indisposition, though perhaps a genuine consequence of exhaustion and anxiety, evoked the memories of Hone, Cobbett, Wooler and Carlile, all of whom had come close to physical collapse in conducting their own defences.96 By presenting91ibid.,121 ?. For more on this see M. Brown, Performing Medicine: Medical Culture and Identity in Provincial England, c.1760 ?1850 (Manchester, 2011), `Medicine, reform and the “end” of charity in early nineteenth-century England’, English Historical Review, CXXIV , 511 (2009), 1353 ?88 and `”Like a devoted army”:medicine, heroic masculinity, and the military paradigm in Victorian Britain’, Journal of British Studies, XLIX , 3 (2010), 592?22. 93Wakley, Report of the Trial, op. cit., 131. 94ibid., 72. 95 ibid., 146. 96For example, see `Third trial: the King against William Hone’ in The Three Trials of WilliamMayThe Lancet, libel and English medicinehimself as a radical following in the footsteps of the great champions of English popular liberty, Wakley established a congruity between his cause and that of popular democracy. As in the political realm, where systemic corruption was constructed as the bane of `the people’, medical incompetence and nepotism were shown to be anathema, not simply to the interests of better qualified or more deserving practitioners but to the health and safety of the public as a whole. In this way, Wakley was able to scale up a relatively niche matter seemingly of concern only to a limited number of medical professionals and turn it into a much broader political issue. The popular response to this trial suggests that Wakley was successful in t.Between the two sides. Wakley’s focus on the public and systemic dimensions of the case and Scarlett’s insistence upon the personal and private implications of defamation were more than an expedient legal device: they embodied two contrasting visions of medical and social identity rooted in two mutually opposed cultural and political ideologies. Wakley’s reformist vision of the medical profession as an abstract body of public servants dedicated to the social good was founded upon the inchoate middle-class values of meritocracy, duty and reward.92 Scarlett and his witnesses, on the other hand, were wedded to the established and essentially aristocratic values of character, breeding and reputation. Hence while Wakley spoke of `men of talent, industry and ability’,93 Scarlett defined professional character in terms which distinguished it from the mere `plaindealing’ of commerce: [I]n the practice of a liberal profession, there is a certain feeling of honour, which becomes a gentleman, and which a gentleman only can feel, which renders it not sordid, but gives to it a character which belongs to such a profession ?a certain dignity, a certain pride which makes the man feel that profit is a secondary object to him ?that fame, that reputation . . . are his true rewards, and that everything else is only secondary.94 Ultimately the jury’s verdict did little to settle the matter at hand. Wakley restated his opinions in an impassioned summing-up, though he had to interrupt his speech in order to regain his strength and composure. The jury then retired to discuss their decision, returning two hours later with a verdict for the plaintiff. However, rather than the ?000 initially proposed, they chose to award a mere ?00.95 Nevertheless, for Wakley, the trial had been a signal victory. Everything about his performance had been calculated. Even his temporary indisposition, though perhaps a genuine consequence of exhaustion and anxiety, evoked the memories of Hone, Cobbett, Wooler and Carlile, all of whom had come close to physical collapse in conducting their own defences.96 By presenting91ibid.,121 ?. For more on this see M. Brown, Performing Medicine: Medical Culture and Identity in Provincial England, c.1760 ?1850 (Manchester, 2011), `Medicine, reform and the “end” of charity in early nineteenth-century England’, English Historical Review, CXXIV , 511 (2009), 1353 ?88 and `”Like a devoted army”:medicine, heroic masculinity, and the military paradigm in Victorian Britain’, Journal of British Studies, XLIX , 3 (2010), 592?22. 93Wakley, Report of the Trial, op. cit., 131. 94ibid., 72. 95 ibid., 146. 96For example, see `Third trial: the King against William Hone’ in The Three Trials of WilliamMayThe Lancet, libel and English medicinehimself as a radical following in the footsteps of the great champions of English popular liberty, Wakley established a congruity between his cause and that of popular democracy. As in the political realm, where systemic corruption was constructed as the bane of `the people’, medical incompetence and nepotism were shown to be anathema, not simply to the interests of better qualified or more deserving practitioners but to the health and safety of the public as a whole. In this way, Wakley was able to scale up a relatively niche matter seemingly of concern only to a limited number of medical professionals and turn it into a much broader political issue. The popular response to this trial suggests that Wakley was successful in t.