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
Catalogue details

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.

    67/70 (page 67)
    statement to the same effect at the conference of Wednesday, De¬ cember 2. 11. Dr. Christison may say the minutes were not accurate, and had to be “ corrected.” Never was there a case surely in which the “corrections” were so interminable, but the minutes are, I think, correct in this particular at least; for when, on October 27, Mr. Syme confessedly places, for the first time, the actual terms of his alleged arbitration before the Medical Faculty, the entry clearly shows he had not “ stated” even “ the substance” previously. That entry runs, “ and he [Mr. Syme] now [on 27th October] positively affirmed that on these terms he arbitrated” {ante^ p. 27). Nor are these minutes of July 22d, even as “ corrected” on 3d November at the instance of Mr. Syme, more conclusive as to “the substance” being “stated” or any details being given. The “corrected” minute speaks of Mr. Syme having “ arranged,” but not of the “ arrangement” or its “ substance” (see this minute, ante^ p. 57). It is true, if another “ correction” were made, and only “ Mr. Syme” substituted for “ Dr. Bennett,” the minute would be conclusive in favour of Dr. Christison; but unfortunately for this theory, at the meeting of the Faculty, November 3, when Mr. Syme had made the other “ correction,” the minute was formally declared to be now “ correct.” 12. It was, then, upon his acknowledged vague and unsupported re¬ collection as to the proceedings of the meeting of July 22, that Dr. Chris¬ tison founded the strong, definite allegations which I controverted, and of which I have complained, and the question arises naturally. How it was that Dr. Christison fell into such grave mistakes ? Had he inquired of the “ six men of ordinary intelligence” to whom he refers, whether their recollection agreed with his own ? Clearly not. Had he inquired of the Dean, or looked at the minutes? No ; for it was from a conver¬ sation with the Dean, and an inspection of the minutes just before the conference met (if I am rightly informed), that Dr. Christison learnt into what an error he had fallen. Perhaps he had inquired as to the facts from some one or two of the other members of the Faculty present at the meeting? Neither can this be correct, otherwise they also would have set him right. (Compare Mr. Syme’s note, p. 65). Thus, then. Dr. Christison’s unquestioning reliance upon the accuracy of his memory has been the fertile source of much annoyance and grief to himself as an accuser, to me as the wrongfully accused, to our mutual friends, and to all those who take an interest in the welfare of the University and the honour and dignity of its Professors ; nay, if he had taken but the most ordinary precaution to be accurate, the second conference need not have been held, or this Sequel published.