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

  • Lizars, John, 1787?-1860.
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 Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    43/56 (page 43)
    over the civilized world ; he sends it to London, and to a journal which is circulated amongst thousands and thousands of individuals, many of whom, with all their knowledge of controversy and of medical books, never even heard of the names of Syme or Lizars before. He knew that that was what he was doing — that he is not publishing this para- graph to a limited circulation, but putting it into the hands of every body, whether professional or not professional, for many unprofessional men read such books, and might know nothing of the circumstances out of which it had arisen. The conclusive answer to such a plea is this — that the intelligent Editor of that journal, Dr. Taylor, when he read the paragraph in question, refused to publish the words in brackets, as- signing as his reason, that they would come under the English law of libel. After striking out these passages, he publishes the letter in his Journal, and adds a note, that he had left out certain passages, because he considered them to come within the English law of libel. Mr. Syme reads this—he sees that that paragraph had been rejected by an Editor of great knowledge and experience, on the ground of its libellous character; and is he entitled to come now to a Court of Law and say, that he meant them to be understood in a way which is not libellous at all, and not in the sense which the words naturally bear. Was this rejection of the article by Dr. Taylor not a thing to make him carefully read over the letter, and to vary the paragraph that Dr. Taylor did not choose to insert? Could any proceeding be more reckless—and could any proceeding look more malicious — that after the .interval of more than a month, he publishes it in his own journal, verbatim et lite- ratim, as it stood at first ? and he tells you that he so published it, be- cause it had been refused insertion by the Editor of the Medical Gazette, on the ground that it would be subject to the English law of libel! Mr. Syme with that before his eyes, chooses to be so adventurous, and says, I am determined to take the risk of it; I will publish it in my own book as it originally stood; libel or no libel, it shall go forth to the world. There is not one word of modification—not a sentence to say that Dr. Taylor might have misunderstood his meaning; and are you to take the explanation from him now as to the meaning he intended to attach to it ? that he meant to say this, ‘ that after what had taken place between ‘ Mr. Lizars and me, I do not find myself called on to enter into any ‘ controversy with him.’ Could he not easily have said that ? I can- not see the shadow of an excuse for his publishing this without a word of explanation, that that was his meaning. I do not believe that that was his meaning. I do not believe it is possible to imagine, that he could suppose the words were used in a sense which they do not bear, or that the world would so consider them. A more natural explanation is this, that his prejudice was so strong, that it blinded his better per- ception. Now, no doubt, the conductors of this Journal arc men of the