Correspondence between Mr. Granville Sharp Pattison and Dr. N. Chapman : also, A refutation of certain calumnies published in a pamphlet entitled "Correspondence between Mr. Granville Sharp Pattison and Dr. Nathaniel Chapman".

  • Pattison, Granville Sharp, 1791-1851.
Date:
1821
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Correspondence between Mr. Granville Sharp Pattison and Dr. N. Chapman : also, A refutation of certain calumnies published in a pamphlet entitled "Correspondence between Mr. Granville Sharp Pattison and Dr. Nathaniel Chapman". Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    14/104
    ticularly as it proves to be anonymous, that it is a mere fabrication. What is the precise standing of Dr. Ure in Glasgow, or how it was affected by this public event, I have no means of accurately determining. But it i3 not true, as averred by Mr. Pattison, that covered with disgrace, he was expelled from the city. 1 find from the periodical journals, that he continues to be in full communion with the scientific men abroad—retains his professorship— and taat within the present year, he was honoured by the attendance of a large collection of the most eminent citizens at a lecture in which he displayed his splendid experiments in galvanism. That nothing appeared to his prejudice on the memo- rable trial, we have a right to infer from the fact of the divorce having been granted, as it is the established practice of the British court9 of law, to withhold such re- lief, where the parties are equally culpable. Even Ma- jesty itself, we have recently seen, has been compelled to \i*ld to this imperative dictate of justice, and inexo- rable usage. Though not directly connected with my subject, it is perhaps ri'ht, that I should say a word or two in refer- ence to Mr. Fattison's boasted discovery, since my name has, and will probably be still more, brought into discussion. Two or three months ago, I gave to Dr. Gibson a certificatet stating that Mr. Pattison had ac- knowledged to me his familiar acquaintance with Colles' book, and that the fascia therein described differed es- sentially from the one claimed by h mself, as he would show when he entered on his dissections. At this, I understand, he was greatly provoked, and has accused me of misrepresentation. In reply, 1 will repeat, that I have a most distinct recollection of the fact, having often mentioned it, and that 1 am borne out by the testimony of Dr. Hays and Dr. Edward liarton, who heard him on another occasion avow his having read the book previously to his comiug to this country There is however, some circumstantial pn>of, which, while it sustains me, convicts him of a deliberate at-