serve, that it is not unnatural for a culprit to question the efficiency of the jury from which he has received the lash; and, if for the second, I can from great authority state, that "interdum vulgus rectum videt." Presuming that you will not be disinclined to render your work more popular, by occasionally admitting some of the lesser incidents of the day -the quicquid agunt homines-to the honour of Incorporation among the more solemn articles of science, criticism, or discussions on the exposure of quackery, which usually occupy your pages, I solicit a small corner for an anecdote now and then, which I promise you will be always short, and generally of the serio-comic kind. Since the appearance of your recent numbers, a deep melancholy, I understand, has been observed to pervade a certain body, of what descrip tion of quacks I will not make bold to say. Meetings were regularly called-your pages were read-gloom and silence prevailed. The assembly seemed, by the indication of their countenances, to consider themselves as lost: Et citò casurus jam perlucente ruind. The first person who broke silence was Sulcius, the informer: " My labours in denouncing delinquents, I see, will be all in vain. A diabolical conspiracy is on foot: our rights and privileges are invaded: our ancient and respectable fraternity is treated with a sacrilegious freedom hitherto unknown: our secrets are laid open and ridiculed; and we are not even allowed the satisfaction, as formerly, of depositing them quietly in the grave. Amongst our revilers, some writers in The Medical Observer hold a principal rank. But the question now seems to be respecting the best mode of defeating the machinations of all those monsters, who, under the stale pretence of public good, would perforate our very vitals. I propose, then, that when we cannot réfute, the arguments of our opponents, which may not un frequently happen, we endeavour to vanquish them by dint of names or nick-names. For this purpose, let us fasten upon some of their weaker outposts for instance, one of our most assiduous defamers, in The Medical Observer, I have discovered, knows nothing of Latin, which he affects to quote. He says: "De quid non apparentibus, &c." Now, Gentlemen, it is very plain that the preposition de governs the ablative case, and that quo, qua, quo is the ablative of quis, quæ, quod vel quid. I therefore pronounce this opponent ignorant of even the rudiments of Latin, from whence it follows, as a matter of course, that his English cannot be good for much, that he can know nothing of medicine, and that consequently he must be a blockhead, and therefore unworthy of the smallest notice. Q. E. D. I conclude by proposing that we should give him the nick-name of De Quid." Caprius, another informer, next rose: "God is my judge," said he, " that I wish as much as any one to punish delinquents against our body; and if proofs of my zeal were wanting, they would be found in the eagerness with which not only myself, but my brother, have searched for documents, by which, from their own pens, we could condemn them. But although I agree with my friend Sulcius, that the writer he alludes to is a man of consummate ignorance, yet, as every school-boy might find that out, I much doubt whether the discovery would be deemed worthy of the greater triumph, or even of an ovation. What, however, I should most apprehend, from adopting the system of nick-names, is a retaliation that would turn the laugh against us more completely than before. Supposing, for instance, we were to call this miserable writer De Quid, might he not, in return, call us by the detestable name of Qui Tams? And, in that case, would not our assembly ever afterwards be distinguished by the epithet Quitamiensis?” Several other gentlemen delivered their opinions. At length up rose the knight Pipedo: " I am of opinion, Gentlemen, that the more you stir it for the rest of the sentence I refer you to Sancho. Recollect that we have recently had enough of that stirring. For divers weighty reasons me thereunto moving, I wholly concur with Caprius and the other gentlemen who have spoken on that side of the question, that silence will be our wisest course. Supposing our criticism to be no less just than it is able, respecting which I am not very clear, the only effect of publishing it would be to shew that we acknowledged an antagonist, whose erudition and talents we had affected to call in question, as capable of giving us a Quid pro Quo," |