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 author's most critical and cautious investigation. This investigation, terminating in a conviction of its great importance to mankind, and its high claims 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 metallick 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 development 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

3

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 opposition to the metallick 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 acknowledgements 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 necromantick 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 discovery with seriousness would disgrace the profession of a scientifick critick." 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 "scientifick critick." 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 expense of the tractors, and I have myself joined in the laugh, whenever it has appeared to be the object of the criticks to utter a smart, but not a malicious thing. But I apprehend that no honestly disposed person has derived that lasting satisfaction from their "quips and cranks," which he would have experienced from a learned and candid investigation of the merits of Perkinism.

In their last attack on Mr. Perkins, alluding to the consequences of an unlucky kick, they advise him to avoid the use of the tractors on horses, and wittily suggest the prapriety of his confining their application to bipeds, and among others would beg to recommend geese to his polite attention. But whether the gentlemen intend to offer themselves, or some other bipeds of the same species, but of less hissing notoriety, as the subject of experiment, they have not informed us.

But ridicule, as before observed, has not been the only weapon with which Perkinism has been assailed. Falsehoods, BASE, WILFUL, and MALICIOUS, have been propagated with the like benevolent intention of extirpating this intrusive practice. I say base, wilful, and malicious, because they carry with them the marks of barbarous design. At the head of this list should be named a masked writer, whe has found access to the pages of the British Critick. Surely there will not be found many, among the more civilized inhabitants of this kingdom, who will approve of an attempt to brand with infamy those acts in a PERKINS, which immortalized a HoWARD. But such has been the attempt of the writer in question.

Dr. Elisha Perkins, the înventor of the metallick tractors, and the father of the present proprietor, it is known, like Howard, sacrificed his life in the cause of humanity. The latter ended his days with a malignant fever at Cherson, while visiting the sick and in prison. The former lost his life with a malignant fever at New York, caught whilst engaged in the benevolent office of hunting out, and offering medical assistance to the poor, in their dreary and distressed habitations, during the rage of that dreadful scourge, the yellow fever. Both alike left the calm enjoyment of domestick ease in this godlike employment, and both equally pursued the object with no other expectation, or wish for reward, than the consolation of relieving the

distressed. But it was reserved for the conductors of the British Critick to offer their pages to a wretch, who could conjure up an infamous falsehood, with a view of casting a sneer at the philanthropist and covering with disgrace his benevolent acts.* After such a specimen of the liberality of the conductors of this journal, with respect to the metallick tractors, it did not surprise me to find, that although they were so condescending as to grant that this poem had merit, as an "ingenious burlesque," &c. still they pro

* Dr. Perkins entertained the opinion that powerful antisceptick remedies had not been sufficiently tried in that putrid disorder, and these it was that he was solicitous to put to the experiment. The particulars of his death were (as appears from Mr. Perkins's correspondence with Messrs. Rivingtons, since published) in possession of the editors of the British Critick. That journal, however, gravely asserts in its preface to vol. xx. "it is a curious fact, we have lately learned, that the American inventor fairly duped himself on the subject of his tractors. He died, we are told, of the yellow fever, with this useless operation performed on him at the moment." The atrocity manifested in the invention of this falsehood is equalled only by the subsequent conduct of the editors, in refusing, when convinced of its injustice, to correct their statement.

After numerous applications on the part of Mr. Perkins, they dismiss the affair by the following shuffle. Among the addresses to correspondents in the number for August 1800, is the following. " Mr. Perkins's letter we have handed over to our correspondent, whom it more immediately concerns." The editors were cautious to avoid mentioning what Mr. Perkins this was, or the subject of his letter! But to close this specimen of the honesty and impartiality exercised towards the metallick tractors, the explanation or vindication of this "correspondent,” although frequently demanded, has not only never been given, but from that time the tractors were forbidden to be advertised for sale in that Review, with this pretence, on the part of the publishers, that they had just come to a determination of admitting no more advertisements of medicines (the tractors then are medicines!!) it is necessary only to add, that soon afterwards, March 1801, this Review was stuffed, as usual, with the advertisements of quack medicines. See the numbers of the British Critick, already mentioned, and Perkins's Cases of Successful Practice, page 21, second edition, for the particulars of this nefarious attempt.