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 propriety 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, who 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 inventor 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 im partiality 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.

nounced it an empirical puff, and the production of Mr. Perkins; and had the knavery also to misquote the title, by printing it PRACTICAL, instead of Poetical Petition, &c.

The next assailant of Perkinism, of whom I shall take notice, is Dr. James Anderson. This ingenious gentleman condescended to amuse the readers of his Recreations in Agriculture with the following falsehood, in proof of the falling reputation of Perkinism. "The price of the tractors is now reduced to four guineas the set!!" But perhaps a gentleman of Dr. Anderson's fertile imagination and inventive genius ought by no means to be confined within the boundaries of truth. Had the doctor been obliged to state useful facts, and probable theories, merely, his Recreations might possibly have been published in a sixpenny pamphlet, instead of the tedious and voluminous work he has contrived to botch together.

Another assailant of Perkinism is a Mr. Corry. One would, however, feel little disposition to censure this character, as his low situation in life exposes him to temptations, which, it is to be hoped, he would otherwise resist. This, however, is no excuse for his employers. In a book against quackery, he attacks the tractors most furiously, and in support of his opinion of their inutility, adduces a statement of a number of experiments, purporting to have been made by one Mr. Wilkinson, at Avondale, near Stratford upon Avon. Mr. Perkins has been at the trouble to ascertain the correctness of this statement, and has found that neither the said Wilkinson nor Avondale ever had existence!! In short, the whole is a fabrication.

I have to mention only one more of these gentlemen assailants. The late lord Henniker was a friend and promoter of the metallick tractors. He purchased at different periods, during three years, three sets for the use of his own family. Being a fellow of the royal society, and

considered a gentleman of superiour judgment and talents, the zeal with which he supported them, it may well be imagined, gave pain to many. Accordingly, at the death of that nobleman, some person conceived the idea of obliterating from the mind of the publick any impression which might have existed in favour of the metallick practice, in consequence of his patronage; and for that purpose the following paragraph was inserted in a biographical sketch of lord Henniker, in the Monthly Register, for April 1803.

'No one sooner adopted a prejudice, but no one more readily submitted it to that test, which suited it, and upon no one had an original prejudice less effect in dazzling a subsequent judgment. The numerous testimonies in favour of a celebrated nostrum induced his lordship to become a purchaser. Having obtained it, he immediately put it to the proof, and discovered its absolute inefficacy. His lordship immediately returned the nostrum, with a pecuniary present to its inventor. "You will consider as your own what I have already paid for your tractors. Employ the enclosed notes to embark in some more honest business, and no longer impose on the cre dulity of the publick."

From another letter in the Monthly Register of the succeeding month (May) it appears there never occurred between lord Henniker and Mr. Perkins any circumstance which could give the least colour for such a representation. To the time of his death he remained a firm advocate of Perkinism.

Two more assailants might be mentioned, but their deeds are already alluded to in the fourth canto of the

poem.

1