A reply to a recent publication against him, purporting to be the "Report of the Committee of the London Infirmary, for Curing Diseases of the Eye."

  • Adams, William, Sir, 1783-1827.
Date:
1818
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A reply to a recent publication against him, purporting to be the "Report of the Committee of the London Infirmary, for Curing Diseases of the Eye.". Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    15/51 (page 9)
    an individual—what else than eager personal malignity, than systematic professional jealousy ? For, be it remem- bered, that this controversy originated with the Medical Officers of the Infirmary. They were the first to attack, without receiving from me the slightest offence or injury. They assailed me under the pretence of solicitude for the fame of Mr. Saunders, whose fame i had never injured. But what peculiarly aggravates the conduct of my adversaries— their assault was made at the very outset of my professional career, when I was comparatively unknown, and, when they obviously calculated upon destroying my prospects of pro- fessional success. Dr. Fane, in the name of the Special Committee, sets out by saying, They do not consider it consistent with the nature and principles of the Institution, to enter into a contest with any individual, and that it will not be ex- pected that they should undertake the work of Medical Controversy. It would, on the first view, appear strange, that any of those persons who had voluntarily undertaken this work, and pronounced their verdict upon medical sub- jects in 1814, should now so materially alter their line of conduct and mode of expression, thus condemning their own former proceeding. But the change is accounted for by my proof that the opinions formerly promulgated by them were wholly destitute of truth and justice, as indeed, those Medical Officers well know, is now universally ad- mitted throughout the profession. If the Medical Officers and their friends had, in 1814, thus declined to under- take the work of Medical Controversy, I should not have felt it necessary to publish my Letter to the Directors of Greenwich Hospital, to which the recent Report pro- fesses to reply. This Report classes the subject for discussion, under the four following heads : — 1 st. The general direction and