“Who will, for him, may boast of sense,
His better guard is impudence.”
In the early part of the present year I addressed letters to several
gentlemen who figure in the list of patrons to the advertising
Spectacle quacks, and enclosed a copy of the advertisements in which
their names had appeared as giving unqualified approval to the
trickster’s _invention_.
From the specimens I have given of such advertisements it is
unnecessary to give a verbatim copy again here; and as the truths which
this correspondence elicits apply to one and all of the puffing tribe,
I have omitted the names of the individuals particularly alluded to,
my object being to expose a _system_ of villainy, and not to denounce
_one_ or _two_ rapacious creatures, while the rest of the clique escape
detection.
Therefore, although many of the remarks in these pages may seem to
have only a local or particular reference, they are applicable to the
whole tribe of _locusts_, and describe the species too definitely to
admit of mistake. The characters sketched are not caricatures, but,
unfortunately for the eyes of her majesty’s lieges, really exist _in
propriâ personâ_.
Feeling assured that the Duke of Wellington would rejoice to see an
exposure of such tricksters, I forwarded to him a copy of Spectacle
Secrets, and the following acknowledgment was promptly returned:—
_Walmer Castle_, _Nov. 11, 1838_.
The Duke of Wellington presents his compliments to Mr. Cox, and has
received his letter and the work referred to: he is much obliged to
Mr. Cox for the communication.
* * * * *
Copy of a Letter to FREDERICK TYRELL, Esq.
SIR,—The advertisement enclosed frequently appears in the daily and
weekly newspapers, to which, as your name is attached, I beg to direct
your attention, and solicit an answer to the following questions at
your earliest convenience.
1st.—Have you proved the superior efficacy of the Spectacles, (as
stated in the advertisement), and consider they merit your unqualified
approbation?
2nd.—Will you oblige me by stating what peculiar advantages you
consider them to possess over the usual Spectacles, manufactured by
the London opticians?
3rd.—Does your approval extend to all the Spectacles sold by the
advertiser, or to those which he designates Amber Spectacles only?
I remain, Sir, yours obediently,
GEORGE COX.
To Frederick Tyrell, Esq.
* * * * *
Mr. TYRELL’S Reply.
_17, New Bridge Street, Blackfriars._
_January 29th, 1838._
SIR,—In reply to your letter respecting Mr. —— I have to state, First,
That I am not acquainted with any institution which is designated “The
Royal Eye Infirmary,” to which he states that he is optician. The
Royal Ophthalmic Hospital, in Moorfields, is sometimes so called, but
Mr. —— is not optician to that institution.
Secondly, That Mr. —— has not any permission from me to make use of
my name in advertisements, as approving of any glass, spectacles, or
other articles he may either manufacture or sell. And thirdly, That I
do _not_ consider his glasses to be in any respect superior to those
manufactured by other persons in the trade.
You are at liberty to make use of this communication in any way you
deem proper to counteract Mr. ——’s advertisements.
I remain yours respectfully,
FREDERICK TYRELL.
To Mr. George Cox.
* * * * *
J. Hodson, Esq., consulting Oculist to the Eye Infirmary, Birmingham,
resolved upon coming to London to give me his disclaimer, rather than
incur any chance of misrepresentation from an unjustifiable use being
made of his signature, he being an entire stranger to me before I
addressed him upon this subject.
He authorizes me to state that Mr. —— has no authority or right
whatever to make use of his name. About four years since a man came
to his surgery, and introducing himself as the inventor of roseate
tint preservers and amber spectacles, showed him a pair in silver
frames, and, expatiating upon their wonderful properties, mentioned
the names of several leading surgeons and oculists who had inserted
their signatures in a book which he handed to Mr. Hodson, who, without
suspecting the design of the knave, added his to the list, for the
same reason, he said, that folks do so at a watering place, a library,
or as having visited or seen some particular exhibition—in fact,
because it was customary to do so. Four or five days afterwards the
same individual called again, apparently in great haste, and requested
Mr. H. to lend him two sovereigns, as he had immediate occasion for
that sum. He produced a pair of amber spectacles, and said, “I will
leave these as security until I return the money.” Mr. H. began now to
suspect the fellow, and guessed it to be very unlikely that he would
trouble himself to redeem the Spectacles (worth about twelve shillings)
if he succeeded in raising two pounds upon them; he therefore referred
him to a pawnbroker in the neighbourhood, whose business it was to
enter into such arrangements, which were, clearly quite foreign to his,
Mr. H.’s practice.
Mr. Hodson has ever since regretted having (though inadvertently)
given his signature, which, as the reader will perceive, is solicited
as a mere matter of form, and is then made the most unwarrantable use
of, involving the parties in many dilemmas, and exposing them to the
ridicule and reprehension of every intelligent observer.
The fact is, if one signature of an eminent person can be procured by
dint of false representation or plausible pretence, the rest follow as
a matter of course; thus Mr. Hodson signed his name, seeing that some
of the “heads of colleges” were there inscribed. Mr. Soden, of Bath,
gave his signature because Mr. Ledsam had given his; and Mr. Ledsam
signed because Mr. Hodson had done so.
Mr. Alexander, Oculist to the Royal Family, was waited upon by one of
the crafty crew, whose object was to get his signature at all hazards.
The fellow fawned and entreated, but was sternly resisted by Mr. A. who
showed him the door, and declared, if he presumed to make use of his
name, in his quack advertisements, he would set a solicitor to work
immediately.
Copy of a Letter from ROBERT KEATE, Esq., Surgeon in Ordinary to Her
Majesty.
_Albemarle Street,_ _July 17, 1838_.
SIR,—Although I do not consider myself bound to reply to the questions
put to me by you, being in utter ignorance of the use which you
propose to make of my answer; yet I can have no hesitation in saying
that I think Mr. —— has been guilty of an unpardonable liberty in
publishing my name, without my sanction, and more especially in
appending it to the document (a copy of which you sent to me), and
to which I have never affixed my signature. I was requested to look
at M ——’s amber spectacles, and I saw no others; and looking through
them on a day when the sun shone brightly, they appeared to me to
soften the light more than crystal or pebbles; and seeing the names of
many eminent surgeons and oculists attached to various certificates,
I wrote and signed what I have stated above, and I believe no more;
namely, that the amber spectacles seemed to _soften the light_ more
than the pebbles.[16] I am not aware of having seen any other sort;
and certainly I have not ventured to sign my _approval_ of these, or
of any others.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
ROBERT KEATE.
To Mr. George Cox.
I could give the disclaimers of other gentlemen who have been trepanned
into giving their signatures, which are afterwards so pompously paraded
by the testimonialed and certificated adventurers; but these will
suffice to illustrate the working of the system.
“A wise physician, skill’d our wounds to heal,
Is more than armies to the public weal.”—POPE.
I cannot but feel gratified, that this correspondence, while it has
substantiated my arguments, affords an opportunity for those gentlemen
to explain the real truth of the matter, and to exonerate themselves
from the contaminating connexion, which appeared to place their
reputation for that “quality called honesty” in jeopardy.
I have received several impromptu effusions from humorous
correspondents in different parts of the kingdom, where I have been and
unmasked the impositions of spectacle cheats. One says—
“They _make_ not spectacles, you say;
With that I can’t agree,
Both wife and I have worn their trash,
Now spectacles are we.”—QUIZ.
Another—
“A celebrated chemist has ascertained, by very accurate analysis, that
there is enough brass in the countenances of the spectacle men of
Duke’s Place and Petticoat Lane to make spectacle-frames for all the
spinsters in the neighbourhood.”—SATIRIST.
I have, of course, laid myself open to the furious and vindictive
hostility of those quacks, whose nefarious practices are exposed,
and whose career will be checked in proportion as this treatise is
circulated and dispassionately perused. But, secure of the approbation
of all my readers who will avail themselves of the information
contained in these pages, I may conclude with satisfaction, since
Friends I have made whom envy must commend,
And not one foe whom I would wish a friend.
THE END.
R. COTTLE, PRINTER, BASINGSTOKE.
FOOTNOTES:
[16] When the eyes are distressed and overwhelmed with light, _any_
shade or screen is viewed with satisfaction. Coloured glasses “soften
the light” more naturally, and present to the eye equal and parallel
surfaces: parasols, veils, and even opaque substances, may thus be said
to shield the eye, and “modify bright and strong light,” but it would
be as ridiculous to consider these as fit mediums for the ordinary
purposes of vision, as it is to select amber for the purpose.
Transcriber’s Notes
pg 43 Changed: and the eminent individval himself
to: and the eminent individual himself
pg 45 Changed: ground in a pecular manner
to: ground in a peculiar manner
pg 45 Changed: the only real original manufacter of them
to: the only real original manufacturer of them
pg 49 Changed: received from the first familes
to: received from the first families
pg 60 Changed: charge according to the gullibilty of his dupes
to: charge according to the gullibility of his dupes
pg 61 Changed: being to expose a system of villany
to: being to expose a system of villainy
pg 62 Changed: The Royal Opthalmic Hospital, in Moorfields
to: The Royal Ophthalmic Hospital, in Moorfields