which would offend the heart of innocence, or the eye of delicacy. Addressed, as the poem originally was, to professional men, there was, perhaps, little cause to complain of too great a licence in this particular. The circulation of the work proving, however, to be by no means confined to the medical profession, and promising to be still less so in future, it has been the author's study to savour this to the more general palate, as well as to enlarge the scope of its objects. Of one, among other advantages, which may generally be derived for the improvement of second editions, viz. the criticisms of monthly journals, the author is in a great measure deprived. Two only (the Antijacobin and Monthly Register) have yet committed the deeds of Dr. Caustic to the test of their tremendous ordeal. The sweet drops of their approbation, which, in their great clemency, they have allowed him to taste, instead of the bitter pill, which the trembling poet feared might have been his dose, inculcates a hope of a survival of the affray, without a broken heart through his own chagrin, however great his danger of a broken head through the chagrin of others. Thus far I had proceeded in remarks, which are applicable to this second edition only, and hesitated some time, before I resolved on the expe. dience of pursuing my observations, and offering something like an explanation of the motives, which led to the present publication. This delay has enabled me to mention a third review of the first edition (by the British Critic). Like the former two it has indulged Dr. Caustic with encomiums on his ' ingenious burlesque,' his humorous notes,' his happy ludicrous compounded rhymes, and 'many other qualities to insure no trifling success in doggrel verse,' &c. but, like itself, it has honoured Mr. Perkins with a torrent of abuse and malicious falsehood. To have hoped, by any thing that might be said in this Introduction, to alter the conduct of those, against whom the animadversions contained in the Poem are directed, would be vain. Others, however, who seek after truth with more disinterestedness, and with whom truth, when known, may be subservient to some good effect, may have their inquiries facilitated by a simple detail of a few plain facts. The discovery of Perkinism, and the ascertainment of its utility in the cure of diseases, have been objects of the authors most critical and cautious investigation. This investigation, terminating in a conviction of its great importance to mankind, and its high clains to a rank among the choicest blessings to humanity, has placed him on the alert to watch its progress, and to feel an anxiety for its success. He has of consequence been roused at the disgraceful attempts made by the combined energies of prejudice and self-interest to prevent the use, nay, even the trial, of the efficacy of the Metallic Tractors. Opposition, honourable in its views, and fair in its means, to discoveries of great pretensions, is not only commendable, but almost indispensably necessary to the developement of truth. Such opposition, like friction to the diamond, proves its hardness and increases its lustre. But when, as in the present instance, every avenue to truth is defended by scorpions, who endeavour to frighten you back by their hisses, or assail you with their stings, it cannot be unjustifiable to attempt to clear the passage by whipping away the reptiles. The author, however, would not presume to represent that he has accomplished this task. But, if he has failed in his attempt, he is not yet discouraged. They have thrown the gauntlet in an untenable cause, and, as his quiver is yet full of arrows, he will be justified in shooting folly, malice, and ignorance, whenever they appear in any guise to combine against this important discovery. The writer would, however, caution against any supposition that the whole medical profession, many of whom are stars of prime magnitude in the hemisphere of science, are enemies to Perkinism, or would make use of any unjustifiable means to oppose an improvement in the art of healing. Indeed no person can hold the more honourable part of the profession in higher estimation than the author of the following Poem. A concise sketch of the history of Perkinism, since its first introduction into this island, will render evident what has been the nature of the 1 opposition to the Metallic Practice, inasmuch as it will show that it resolves itself into two heads, viz. Ridicule and Malicious Falsehood. These, when called into action even by men of moderate talent, who are compelled by interest to extraordinary exertion, are no impotent engines, employed against the weak, however inefficient they may prove with men of penetration and independence. I shall proceed to the proof of my assertion relative to the character of the opposition to Perkinism. I shall draw my facts from the several writers own acknowledgments and Mr. Perkins's answers, both of which have long been the subject of my attentive observation. At the head of that part of the opposition, to be classed under ridicule, may be mentioned certain proceedings in the Bath and Bristol Infirmaries; the former under the direction of Dr. Haygarth, a physician of Bath; and the latter conducted by Mr. Smith, a surgeon of Bristol. These have been the grand rallying points about which every minor assailant has taken his stand. But it is unnecessary to recapitulate them here, as they are sufficiently enlarged upon in the second and third cantos of the following Poem. Before quitting the subject, however, I would briefly mention, in addition to what is there stated, that Dr. Haygarth, who condemns Perkinism on his own experiments, does not appear to have ever used the Tractors a second time on a patient, and Mr. Smith, whose virulent observations and necroman B 2 tic manœuvres constitute three fourths of Dr. Haygarth's evidence against the Tractors, admits, before he closes his communication, that he never tried them. This last Gentleman candidly acknowledges that he played the part of a necromancer' in his ridiculous pranks in ridicule of Perkinism. Next in order comes the writer of the article PERKINISM' in the Encyclopædia Britannica. How far I am justified in ranking this attack under the head of ridicule, will be learnt from the remark of the writer himself, who says, ' to treat this disco' very with seriousness would disgrace the profession of a scientific critic.' The whole attack is accordingly a strain of ridicule, invective, misrepresentation, and misquotation, which, in the opinion of some, has not much honoured the profession of a scientific critic.' This writer copies, among others, the attack of the Monthly Review, which shall next claim our attention. None has enjoyed, in a higher degree than the author of this Poem, the effusions of wit, which sometimes decorate the pages of the Monthly Review; but still he regrets that a journal, which might so eminently promote the cause of literature, should so often sacrifice every thing to a good joke. They have certainly been very witty at the expence of the Tractors, and I have, myself, joined in the laugh, whenever it has appeared to be the object of the critics to utter a smart, but not a malicious thing. But I apprehend that no honestly disposed person has derived that lasting |