Correspondence and statements regarding the teaching of clinical medicine in the University of Edinburgh, 1855-1857 : with a sequel / by T. Laycock.
- Thomas Laycock
- Date:
- 1857
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Correspondence and statements regarding the teaching of clinical medicine in the University of Edinburgh, 1855-1857 : with a sequel / by T. Laycock. Source: Wellcome Collection.
48/70 page 48
![wliicli may be found in Letter No. 4, App. to Dr. Bennett’s letter, and Letter 16, p. 24, ante. He therein again allots to me the autumn attendance, and hints at certain terms for our future “ co-operation,” but “ which,” he adds, “ it is not necessary to mention.” Clearly, if those “ terms ” had constituted a part of the award, it was of all things most “necessary” to state them, for they were the most essential part of it. I applied to him by letter (No. 15) for his written award on that point, but he took no notice of my request (p. 25). 4. Dr. Bennett having stated what Mr. Syme’s award was, goes on to say (Letter to Patrons, head of p. 2);— “ Dr. Laycock made an endeavour on the 1st August to obtain the Wards before accenting the agreement in writing [which had never been offered], failing in this, he, on the 4th August, in a letter to Dr. Christison, wrote, ‘ Mr. Syme has intimated that his award includes the whole. I therefore accept it as it stands.’ In consequence of this definite agreement of Dr. Laycock, I surrendered to him the Clinical Wards as soon as it was communicated to me, and paid him one-sixth of the winter fees, to which otherwise he was not entitled.” Again, in the succeeding paragraph. Dr. Bennett further states— “ Having, in consequence of his acceptance of Mr. Syme’s award, obtained the Wards and one-sixth of the fees, on the distinct understanding that in future he and I were to lecture separately and simultaneously, he [Dr. Laycock], when the answer from the Managers was received, raised various objections, and, on the 6th November, the very day he, on the faith of the agreement, was allowed to commence his own course of Clinical Lectures, urged the Patrons to interpose and prevent mine, publicly repudiated that agreement, and declared that it had not met with his con¬ currence !” If words and phrases have a meaning, these circumstantial state¬ ments must in the judgment of all honourable men be considered as nothing less than a charge that I have swindled Dr. Bennett out of one-sixth of the winter fees of last session. The entire charge turns upon a quibble upon the meaning of the word “whole,” as miserable as it is discreditable. What are the facts of the case ? 5. In a letter I addressed to Mr. Syme on August 4th last (No. 15, p. 24), I ask him for his award in writing, and most particularly request him to “ include that portion of it which refers to the pro¬ posed division of the course.” The only answer I got to this appli¬ cation is the note from Mr. Syme, No. 18, p. 25. There the half of the autumn sixth (not the whole) is allotted to me by Mr. Syme, that they may “ fully equal any other claim” on my part. Now, the only “other claim” I made was made in Letter 17 as to a share of another sixth of the winter fees, which Dr. Bennett, in breach of our arrangement, insisted](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30563240_0048.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
