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.

    2/56 (page 2)
    ' 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.' Within the last eight months I have performed this operation * nine times in the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, in presence of * the largest class of surgical clinical students in her Majesty's ' dominions. These gentlemen can testify, that in no instance has there been bleeding, extravasation of urine, or any other ' unpleasant consequence, and that all the patients speedily and ' completely obtained the relief which they desired. As you say, ' that ' something more than the guarantee of IVIr. Syme's reputa- * ' tion is wanting, to assure the surgeon that he would be justified ' ' in having recourse to the proposed operation,' I beg to inquire * if you think the evidence thus afibrded sutBcient, and if not, * what further proof you deem requisite to establish the safety and ' efficiency of my operation ? I am, Sir, your obedient servant, ' James Stme. ' The Editor of the London Medical Gazette.' Then there is added a statement in these terms, by the con- ductor of the Journal: —« Certain parts of this letter which would ' fall under the English law of libel, have been omitted.' Now, Gentlemen, in some respects, that letter of Mr. Syme's, to this periodical was, to say the least of it, somewhat offensive so far as Mr. Lizars is concerned, but probably he would not have thought it worth his while to notice it, if the matter had stopped there; and you might have supposed, that after the significant warning which the defender received, that the omitted portion of his letter adcb-essed to this periodical would fall under the English law of Hbel, that he, or any candid man would not disregard this warning; but instead of this, after weeks of reflection and consideration, he deliberately proceeded to get the libellous passage of his letter, which had been rejected by this periodical, published in another periodical, in some measure under his own control. One can imagine, that a person under the irritation of the moment, whether there be suffi- cient ground of irritation or not, may do a thing that he would be sorry for immediately after, but it is not often that a gentleman in the position of the defender, a man of education, and occupying the status which he does occupy, would, after weeks of reflection, deliberately and wilfully proceed to libel his professional brother,