say, the diseases for which the charms are prescribed _are cured_; and,
according to the mode of reasoning prevalent with prescribers, orthodox
and heterodox, they must be cured by them,--_post hoc ergo propter hoc_.
Unhappily for the scientific study of diseases, the universal
interference of ART _in an active form_ renders it difficult to meet
with _pure specimens_ of corporeal maladies; and, consequently, it is
often difficult to say whether it is nature or art that must be credited
for the event. This is a positive misfortune, in a scientific point of
view. Now, as there can be no question as to the non-efficiency of
_charms_ in a material or physical point of view (their action through
the imagination is a distinct and important subject of inquiry), it
follows that every disease getting well in the practice of the charmer,
is curable and cured by Nature. A faithful list of such cases could not
fail to be most useful to the scientific inquirer, and to the progress
of truth; and it is therefore that I am desirous of calling the
attention of your correspondents to the subject. As a general rule, it
will be found that the diseases in which charms have obtained most fame
as curative are those of long duration, not dangerous, yet not at all,
or very slightly, benefited by ordinary medicines. In such cases, of
course, there is not room for the display of an imaginary
agency:--"For," as Crabbe says,--and I hope your medical readers will
pardon the irreverence--

"For NATURE then has time to work _her_ way;
And doing nothing often has prevailed,
When ten physicians have prescribed, and failed."

The notice in your last Number respecting the cure of hooping-cough, is
a capital example of what has just been stated; and I doubt not but many
of your correspondents could supply numerous prescriptions equally