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.
56/70 page 56
![I had tampered with the minutes of the Faculty, “ so as to make two entries suit each other.” I now declare that this statement is entirely without foundation, and altogether unjustifiable, since the only alteration to which it can possibly have reference must be the substitution of “ arranged ” in¬ stead of “ arbitrated,” which was done to correct an error of his own by the secretary at a full meeting of the body. The former of these expressions referred to an agreement in regard to their lectures for the future, which was most positively and unequivocally entered into and publicly acted upon by Drs. Bennett and Laycock. This arrangement formed no part of my arbi¬ tration, which was limited to the division of fees, but constituted a prelimi¬ nary ground upon which I proceeded in deciding the pecuniary question, and bound Dr. Laycock to its fulfilment by every principle of honourable feeling and gentlemanlike conduct.— I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lord¬ ship’s most obedient servant. The Right Hon. the Lord Provost. James Syme. I had hoped Mr. Syme would have seen the great propriety of his not taking an active part in these unfortunate transactions, inasmuch as I had not introduced his name into the discussions, except in so far as was necessary for self-defence. He has decided otherwise, and I am therefore compelled to meet his attack on my character as I have met similar attacks from other quarters. (I.) Mr. Syme first charges me with having stated that he “had tampered with the minutes of the Faculty, so as to make two entries suit each other,” and “ declares that this statement is entirely without foundation, and altogether unjustifiable.” 1. Mr. Syme ought to be well aware that the word “tamper” is not used by me at all in reference to his conduct. This was pointed out to him at the conference of December 2d, and he explained that some persons had told him that he had tampered with the minutes. I was, therefore, clearly in no sense responsible for the word. I simply stated certain facts in self-defence as follows:— “ At a meeting of the Medical Faculty, held a few days after he had caused this entry to be made in the minutes [of 27th October], Mr. Syme procured an alteration to he made in the entry which he had caused to be made on the minutes of the meeting of 22d July, so as to make the two entries suit each other” {gntCy foot of p. 27). 2. This statement of facts is strictly correct in every particular. The following is the paragraph of the minute referred to as it ori¬ ginally stood:— ‘‘ Mr. Syme reported that he had arbitrated between Drs. Bennett and Laycock in regard to the clinical duties and fees, and that he considered matters to be now adjusted.” As to the source of this entry, I have only to add, that on Friday,](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30563240_0056.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
