THE DOCTORS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 612, 5 June 1876, Page 3

THE DOCTORS.

lo the Editor of the Globe.

Sir, —As editors in the whole may be considered a class of wild beasts, only fit to be fired at in their wild state by some Gord on Gumming or cooped up in a cage when tamed, under the supervision of some Wombell, where they are often stirred up with a long pole for the better exhibition to the public ; and where each and all requires to he fed with food according to their various natures. If you happen to send a wrong feed to one by mistake, which does not agree with his “ natur,” unless he is starving, he is almost sure to reject it ; and if you scud a well-cooked dish of the right sort that you think will meet his appetite, unless ho is pretty hungry at the time. That being proverbially the best sau<’e be is equally sure to turn from it; indeed, I often wonder where all the rejected stuff goes to, if it goes to the dogs the}’’ must bo well supplied ; but above all dishes that is served up daily in the editorial menagerie of the Globe there is none detested so much by the various animals as that of personality. And now, Sir, with your kind leave, I will raise the odious steam, against “ Pater fainilias,” who rose in arms against me in your issue of the 30th nit. He calls mo witty, well, I am very thankful to him for the new appellation, as f considered myself anything but worthy of the name of that noble gift, being always considered a slow going coach by the common tribe of bipeds, and never could get beyond a snail at a gallop. But I am afraid he has made a great mistake by giving me the tide, and if he has, I don’t care much, as I would not give one dunce of common sense for the weight of all the wit that ever was brought upon the English stage ; so, if I am a wit, as he represents, lie will see by this statement that I am no comedian.

But I think I have said enough about the wild beasts and myself, peradveuture too much. I will now offer a word on the stirring points at issue, and as I have found out by experience that mild language won’t do

to bo used in the southern hemisphere. 1 might as well begin with a vengeance, something similar to the fish wife (Mrs Modesty) that beat Daniel O’Connell in his oratory in the streets of the Irish capital. I think his description of the Christchurch doctors may be compared to a pound of butcher’s meat, where there are fifteen ounces putrid and one ounce sound, or, in other words, to a page or two of romance, where there is the same proportion of truth and fiction ; at any rate, be the proportion as it may, it has a strong scent from the production of the author of Waverley. I was thinking about replying to his observations consecutively, hut that system would occupy too much in your little journal, so I will take them zigzagly for the sake of briefness. He says there is no method as to charges amongst the medical community, and that they are charging too much for their professional attendance. I am rather doubtful of the the verity of the former clause. If it is true, I may mention for his information, that the same system prevails to a great extent in the old country, and the public there, I think, derives great benefit from it. Why ? Because the doctor has a good idea where five shillings has to do the work of a pound, and they make their charge accordingly; indeed I have known many instances where they gave the attendance for nothing. I have never been bled here yet by any of them, either in body or purse; nevertheless, there is something strikes me very forcibly that they arc not entirely destitute of the humanity of those that I have described at home.

With regard to th« other parts of his letter which treats of tyranny—cases of emergency —no ordinary man of a family dare change his doctor—a man at practice persuaded to attend a case with a loaded pistol at his head - mind made up to attend no new cases —and all the other cases that he did not enumerate. These might do for the foundation of some new novel; but they won’t weigh much in the scales of the keen-eyed discerning public, I will now bring this long rimarole to a close by asking you a question, and one that has something to do indirectly with all the correspondence that has been issued on the matter. It is as follows :

Can you (or any of your readers) tell me the age of quackery ? I have no conception as to when it but I fancy it is a good deal older than trades-unionism, which was brought into being by the Sheffield cutlers sonic twenty-five or thirty years ago. Is it as old as the currency of gold, silver, or bronze, or can it bo traced as far back as the Jewish or Mosaic dispensation; however, whatever response I may get, I may venture to anticipate that it exceeds the age of that of mushrooms. I find by referring to the almanac that it is eighty years on the twenty-first of the forthcoming month since Robert Burns cast off the coat of mortality, and he left strong evidence behind him to prove that it was rampant in his day. In a word, if the law tolerates it here or elsewhere in the colony, you may depend that the churchyards will soon be well manured with the buds and roots of poor frail humanity. I have nothing to say against any man working for a high or low wage, if they do it lega'ly with ability and attention. 1 will wind up with the following sentiment, which is after the style of the bard of Avon, and which runs thus “ I have written far too much, and said far too little. Yours, &c, VERITATI ADHAERETO. Christchurch, June 3rd, 187(1. [We insert the foregoing as an example of what might be anticipated from the pen of a Sunuyside lodger.—Ed. Gl<>jik.]