Article image
Article image

A London correspondent writes:—One of the topics of the weak has, of course, been the publication of Sir Morell Mackenzie's vindication of his professional treatment of the late Emperor Frederick. From all pointe of view it may devoutly be regretted that the book wae printed, much lees publiahed. A cloud of words and a tornado of abuse ere expended over the possibility that the German physicians might have been wrong in their diagnosis of the diseMe; but when, aa a matter of fact, it is now admitted on all hands, and especially by Nir Morell Maokemie himself, that they all the time rtgAt/ii is really difficult to see how the Englisl; assailant has a leg to stand on. It is idle to insinuate that Professor Bergmann was in* toxicated when he “ ill treated ” the Emperor. AU contemporaneous testimony is to the contrary, and Professor Virchow, to whom Sir Morell appeals, emphatically endorsee hie incompetency. No doubt it is something to have secured £40,000 instead of £4OOO a year for the Empress Frederick, and it the dead were openly confessed Sir Morell might aj least claim the meed of cleverness. As it is he has proved himself a muddler, meddler and mischief maker from start to finish, bis conduct exciting the indignation of the German people, covering the Empreee with obloquy, and embroiling two nations whose marriage alliancse, Instead of contributing Io a unity vital at least to England, bid fair to permanently separate interests wtaeii »ugM to be identteol. '

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GSCCG18881220.2.13.5

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 237, 20 December 1888, Page 2

Word Count
249

Page 2 Advertisements Column 5 Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 237, 20 December 1888, Page 2

Page 2 Advertisements Column 5 Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 237, 20 December 1888, Page 2