Opinion delivered by Dr Duncan senior, in the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, on the 13th of September 1808, upon a charge against Dr Gregory, for wilful and deliberate violation of truth.

Date:
1808
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Opinion delivered by Dr Duncan senior, in the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, on the 13th of September 1808, upon a charge against Dr Gregory, for wilful and deliberate violation of truth. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    22/234 page 8
    hand, at first in writing, and afterwards in print, and that in both states it met with his approbation. Dr Hamilton indeed agreed with Dr Gregory in thinking, that the act 1754, respecting apothecaries shops, ought neither to have been repealed nor altered. But does it follow from this, that Dr Hamilton adopted the unjust and cruel opinion of Dr Gregory, that Dr Spens had acted from impure motives, and in a dishonourable manner? No, Mr President, I know from Dr Hamilton himself, that his sentiments on this subject were perfectly opposite to those of Dr Gregory. Dr Hamilton has publicly joined the other Mem- bers of the College in declaring, that Dr Spens acted from the pu- rest motives, and in the most honourable manner; and he has pri- vately spoken with great indignation of Dr Gregory’s cruel and scandalous abuse of his Fellow Members. What different motives may have led Dr Hamilton lately to absent himself from the meet- ings of the College, particularly when strongly urged to attend as an evidence in the present cause, I cannot pretend to say. But, from several different circumstances, it is my firm belief, that his absence has principally arisen from the outrageous conduct of Dr Gregory since the publication of his Censorian Letter. To point out all the inconsistencies and contradictions which Dr Gregory’s Defence contains, would be a tedious and unnecessary task. There are, however, two points, in which I am myself parti- cularly attacked. With regard to these, though foreign to the pre- sent question, the College will, I trust, indulge me with a few words. The first, Sir, is with respect to the Opinions of the Lawyers *, whom I consulted for my own private satisfaction, my Honourable Friends, Mr Henry Erskine, and Mr John Clerk. In consequence of the misrepresentations of Dr Gregory, I printed, some time ago,
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3