John Lizars, Esq, surgeon, against James Syme, Esq., surgeon, Monday, 26th July 1852 : (before the Lord Justice-General and a Jury).

Date:
[1852]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: John Lizars, Esq, surgeon, against James Syme, Esq., surgeon, Monday, 26th July 1852 : (before the Lord Justice-General and a Jury). 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.

    27/56 (page 27)
    Lizars, a want of veracity, and at the same time, a clisreputalile character in the estimation of the whole medical profession. That is a grave charge to make, and you will not readily adopt it. What I have to ask you, and it is a duty which I know you will discharge, is to look to the whole of the documents before you, to see what is the true nature of the statements, and what is the posi- tion and the circumstances, and the views, which may be supposed to have influenced the party to make the statement complained of; and here on the part of Mr. Syme, I disclaim any disrespect to the pursuer. There was a controversy between them, and there were publications by each of them, and having especial exclusive refer- ence to the position of the parties. I ask and invite your attention to sale what is the statement that I make. We are told, that a cer- tain London Editor would not insert the whole contents of the letter which was sent to him by Mr. Syme, and in order that the omitted matter should appear, he obtained its insertion in the ' Medical Journal of Edinburgh.' What is the libel 1 It arises from the publication of a review of a book, in reference to the details of a controversy, arising from a new mode of treatment of a severe and afflicting disease, which Mr. Syme believes, and I am war- ranted in so stating it, to be a discovery of great importance. In regard to this there are certain statements by Mr. Lizars. He writes a book, and an Editor in London makes allusions to it, and Mr. Syme's letter in reference to it says, ' I have only to-day happened ' to see your Journal of May 16th, which contains some statements ' that certainly should not have remained so long unnoticed, if they * had been known to me sooner. ' You say * a fierce paper war has arisen between the two Edin- ' ' burgh professors — Syme and Lizars but you must, or at least ' ought to know, that I have not addressed a single word upon the * subject in question to the so-called ' professor,' [regarding him as ' long placed beyond the pale of professional respect and courtesy.'] That is the statement contained in this letter, an assumption im- plying this, that these parties were active in their written contro- versy. The letter says, ' You must, or at least ought to know, that ' I have not addressed a single word upon the subject in question * to the so called ' professor,' ' &c.—(See above.) Now, what is it that is to be explained in tlie first place ? It is to be explained that Mr, Syme was not a party to the controversy, and the reason and cause of his individual silence is explained by the party himself.