Narrative of the conduct of Dr. James Gregory towards the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh / drawn up and published by order of the College, in consequence of the various printed papers circulated by him relative to their affairs.

  • Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
Date:
1809
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Narrative of the conduct of Dr. James Gregory towards the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh / drawn up and published by order of the College, in consequence of the various printed papers circulated by him relative to their affairs. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by King’s College London. The original may be consulted at King’s College London.

    32/162 (page 16)
    la The Committee w.'vs appointed to revise the laws of the College, and to suggest such alterations as might seem proper. Every law consequently came under their consideration, and was open to their suggestions for change. The Committee was named, ac- cording to the common usage of the College, and they executed the task imposed upon them to the best of their judgment, and suggest- ed various important alterations on other parts of the laws, as well as the act 1754. Their report was drawn up in the usual style, and was presented, in every respect according to the ordinary form and usage of the College, first to the Council, and then to the Col- lege. Dr Spens, at the time he presented it, announced, both to the Council and to the College, that very important changes were suggested; and he proposed, that it should lie (and accordingly it did lie) on the Library table, till next quarterly meeting, for the perusal of the Members. At the next quarterly meeting, he fairly read out all those parts which contained the material changes | and no determination could possibly be formed respecting them,, till the third meeting, at the distance of three months. In all this procedure every thing was correct and proper, howr ever much Dr Gregory has attempted to distort and misrepresent it. He had not therefore the slightest grounds for alleging that the Report was smuggled into the College, and was concealed, or for complaining that he, or any one else, was kept ignorant of its contents. Dr Gregory*s account of the duty of the Committee, in regard to what they ought to have done, and what they ought not to have done, is not a little extraordinary. In his Review, he has laboured to prove that the Committee was proposed and packed by the Pre^ sident, in order to carry through a favourite project. But in his Defence, he says, that the appointment of that Committee to revise the former edition of the laws, and to make such alterations as might seem necessary to be laid before the College for their con- sideration, was unanimous.^'' And he adds, It was impossible it could be otherwise. All the copies of the former edition of our laws being exhausted, (which, as has already been stated, was by no means the case), it would have been absurd to object to having them reprinted; it would have been equally absurd to have objected to our laws being reprinted with alterations; it was evidently necessary^ in good faith, that all those alterations al- ready