DR. GRANVILLE.
TO THE EDITOlt OF THE SPECTATOR.
Si R,—The general tone of candour which the columns of the SPECTATOR display, induces me to believe that you will spare me a corner in your next number, for the purpose of correcting an error into which you have been led. I allude to the remarks on the correspondence between Dr. Granville and Professor Pattison relative to the charges which have been preferred by the former gentleman against the Council of the University of London. You state that "these charges were arranged and coloured by Dr. Granville in such a way as to produce their greatest effect; and he even answered for their correctness. In making this assertion. you are borne out by Mr. Pattison's letter which appeared in the Medical Gazette of the 27th of Sep- tember, and in which he says—" Dr. Granville remarks, in concluding his account of these transactions, 'my statement is made up of facts of which I have a certain knowledge, and of reports, of the correctness of which I can vouch.' " But " to err is human ;" and Professor Pattison, however ex- cellent as a lecturer on anatomy, seems subject to the same accidents as his fellow mortals. He has, in fact, made a "false reading ;" and if you will refer to the following Medical Gazette, you may find his recantation in these words—" I find I committed an error quoting an expression of Dr. Crolville's. He says his information is derived partly from circumstances within his own knowledge, and partly from reports, for the accuracy of which, he states cannot vouch.' From the hurried manner in which my answer was sent to press, I find I mis-quoted this expression, and have given it I can vouch.' " And if you feel inclined to pursue the subject still further, the worthy Doctor's hook may be very profitably consulted. In a note appended to his statements respecting Meckel, lie thus delivers himself —"I have another, and I trust an equally praiseworthy motive for the al- lusion ; it is that of all■n-ding an opportunity for explanation to a public body implicated in what certainly does not appear, as it has been represented to me, (and 1 will vouch for nothing beyond it) to be the most straight-for- ward kind of dealing."
The case, therefore, stands thus :—Dr. Granville in two instances ex- plicitly states that he does not answer for the correctness of that which Professor Merkel had told him : Professor Pattison quotes, or rather mis- quotes, one of these passages ; and, by omitting (accidentally no doubt) a certain little negative monosyllable, apparently convicts Dr. Granville of falsehood : the Professor corrects his mistake, through the same channel in which it appeared ; but (unfortunately in this ease) "what is writ is writ" —volat irrevocabile verbum. You, Mr. Editor, are not, it would seem, " constant reader," perhaps not a reader at all, of the aforesaid medical publi- cation; your eye catches at the bane, but the antidote reacheth you not ; the Professor leads on, the Editor follows, and Dr. Granville stands before the readers of the SPECTATOR as the author of a contemptible fabrication.
With respect to the Doctor's last testimonials, you proceed to say—" No one else would regard papers which had failed of their effect." Now it appears to me, Mr. Editor, that the colouring which the unlucky lapses of the Professor had given to Dr. Granville's general veracity, has induced you to view Auspiciwa the .statemeats of the latter vatie,maA QA this paint, True it is that the Doctor complains of the loss of certain papers ; but cer- tainly not of " the loss of papers which had failed of their effect." Mr. Coates indirectly admits that the papers alluded to never reached the members of the Council. How then can they be said to have failed of their [We did not see the number of the Medical Gazette here alluded to. Dr. Granville's case is not much mended. No man is entitled to print grave charges on the authority of reports for which he "cannot vouch," when the means of correct information lie within his reach.
[When we said that the Doctor's papers had "failed of their effect," we only meant that the opportunity for using them with effect had passed.—Em] EXPENSE OP CLASSES AT THE LONDON UNiVEnSITY.—The academical year lasts, generally speaking, eight or nine months ; and some of the professors teach every day, three or four hours; others five times a week, toil two hours a-day. But we shall better show the length of the courses of lectures by comparing some of them with similar courses at seminaries famous for the eminence of the professors, and the diligence and success of their teaching. At Guy's Hospital, the two courses of anatomy occupy each 1(10 hours of instruction, and cost the pupil 9 guineas ; the two courses of the London University occupy 120 hours each, and cost 71. Chemistry at Guy's is taught in two courses of 50 hours each, and for 6 guineas ; in the London University, it is taught in two courses of twice the extent, or 100 hours each, and the fees amount to 71. A first course of Materia. Medica at Guy's occupies 34 hours, and costs 3 guineas ; at the London University, it occupies 80 hours, and costs 31. The fees of classes required by the rules of the College of Surgeons and Apothecaries' Company, to he attended by candidates for diplomas, are at Guy's 45 guineas, at the University 41/. to a student nominated by a proprietor, and 461. 10s. to one not so nominated ; but for these sums he will have had at Guy's 766 hours of teaching, and at the University 1030, supposing the course of Surgery, which is not announced yet, to be only as long there as at Guy's. No com- parison can be instituted respecting the course of lectures on general sub- jects ; we are therefore obliged to examine the instructions afforded in the medical schools, and we have purposely chosen the one of greatest cele- brity as the standard.—Edinburgh Review.
Previous page
