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.
62/70 page 62
![2. It was on the following morning, then, under these circumstances, that Dr. Christison wrote ofQcially as follows :— 4.—Dr. Christison to F. Brown Douglas, Esq. 40 Moray Place, December 1857. Dear Sir—I particularly regret that I could not remain till the close of the long conference of the Medical Faculty with the Patrons of the Univer¬ sity on Saturday last, as I had been summoned by telegraph into Fife. From what occurred after my departure, it is necessary that my testi¬ mony be known as to the transactions in the Medical Faculty on 27th July last. On these, and not on any prior proceedings, the whole merits of the question, brought before the PatrOns by Dr. Laycock, really depend. I hereby declare, therefore, that I heard Mr. Syme read, as the arrange¬ ment, acceded to by Drs. Bennett and Laycock for the future teaching of Clinical Medicine, the three short clauses contained in Dr. Laycock’s pamphlet, page 27 : That Dr. Laycock and Dr. Simpson were both present; that these gentlemen, as well as the other members of the Faculty, concurred in the arrangements;—that having been made a unanimous resolution of the Faculty, Drs. Bennett, Laycock, and myself were empowered to prepare, and the Dean to transmit a memorial on the subject to the Managers of the Royal Infirm¬ ary, which was accordingly done. I hereby further declare that I revised the memorial, and approved of it; and that Dr. Bennett, to whom I sent it, told me he had sent it subsequently to Dr. Laycock, who returned it, without any dissent to him. If I am correctly informed, Dr. Laycock, after I left the conference on Saturday last, denied that he had ever concurred in the said arrangement. I have simply to express thereupon my great regret that Dr. Laycock should have allowed no fewer than half-a-dozen men of ordinary intelligence to misapprehend him so egregiously, that they imagined his opinion to be dia¬ metrically the opposite of what it really was. And I declare that I agreed on 27th July to the arrangement, because, among other reasons, I believed that it met with his approval and wishes.—I am, yours most faithfully, A. Christison. F. Brown Douglas, Esq., Chairman of College Committee of Town Council. 3. In my published statement, App. p. 44, sec. 2, Dr. Christison would read the following :— “ Professor Syme [Dr. Christison asserted] recommended an arrangement; Drs. Bennett and Laycock acceded to it; the Faculty of Medicine approved of it. A memorial in conformity with it, drawn up and approved by a com¬ mittee, of which Dr. Laycock was one, and an approver, was presented to the Managers of the Infirmary. The Managers gave their consent. But very lately Dr. Laycock denied that he concurred in the arrangement in question.Happily Dr. Christison appeals to something like evidence in support of these extraordinary assertions, for not one is strictly accurate.’’ These statements simply involve questions of fact that can be proved or disproved. The proof rests upon Dr. Christison. I deny that the](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30563240_0062.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
