F having decapitated their erstwhile companions during their execution for their

F having decapitated their erstwhile companions during their execution for their part in the Cato Street Conspiracy.23 Even so, in the absence of any firm evidence the Hope Fire Assurance Company suspected fraud and refused to pay out.24 Wakley, virtually destitute, was thus forced to relocate his practice and, after a couple of peripatetic years, he Sulfatinib biological activity settled in the rather less salubrious surroundings of Norfolk Street, off the Strand.25 It was here, in the heart of London’s publishing underworld, where Wakley first met William Cobbett. According to Sprigge: Cobbett was exactly the man to make an impression upon Wakley. . . . He was thirty years Wakley’s senior and had a life of chequered experiences behind him. . . . He was an eloquent propagandist and a practical man, in spite of the violent character of some of his political writing. In Cobbett’s company Wakley met other journalists and men of the reforming type, and he saw how instinctively these men turned to pen and ink for the redress of any wrong.26 The influence of Cobbett’s example on the RP5264 biological activity future course of Wakley’s career is incalculable, for as Sprigge maintains, `there can be no doubt that [it] counted for much inM. J. Wiener, `The changing image of William Cobbett’, Journal of British Studies, XIII , 2 (May 1974), 135?4; Nattrass, William Cobbett, op. cit., chap. 4; Gilmartin, Print Politics, op. cit., 180?4; J. C. McKusick, `William Cobbett, John Clare and the agrarian politics of the English Revolution’ in T. Morton and N. Smith (eds), Radicalism in British Literary Culture, 1650 ?1830: From Revolution to Revolution (Cambridge, 2002). 20Sprigge, op. cit., 31. 21ibid., 32 ?. Morning Chronicle, 28 August 1820, 3, col. E; Sprigge, op. cit., 37 ?. 23 In actual fact, the man responsible for decapitating the five conspirators was later identified as Tom Parker, a dissecting-room porter cum resurrection man. See Sprigge, op. cit., 46 ?0. 24Wakley took them to court and eventually received the sum of ?200; Sprigge, op. cit., 62 ?. 25ibid., 71. 26ibid., 71.22TheSocial HistoryVOL.39 :NO.Wakley’s resolution . . . that he would set the medical profession aright by publishing wherein it was wrong’.27 Certainly, when The Lancet first appeared on 5 October 1823 it was more reminiscent of the penny press than of its medical contemporaries: it was a mere thirty-six pages long, lacked a cover and cost only 6d. It also opened with a `bold and defiant preface’ in which Wakley outlined the journal’s principal objects.28 Stating that it had `long been a source of regret’ that the public, provincial practitioners and medical students had little access to the lectures given at the metropolitan hospital medical schools, Wakely announced his intention to publish a complete course of his former tutor Sir Astley Cooper’s lectures on the theory and practice of surgery. He also proposed to publish reports of important medical and surgical cases that occurred `in England or on any part of the civilized Continent’.29 From its inception, therefore, The Lancet figured itself as an organ for the dissemination and circulation of improving knowledge. Unlike other medical journals, however, this commitment to improvement was rooted in a radical discourse of openness and accessibility: [W]e shall exclude from our pages the semibarboarous [sic] phraseology of the Schools, and adopt as its substitute, plain English diction [my emphasis]. In this attempt, we are well aware that we shall be assailed by much interest.F having decapitated their erstwhile companions during their execution for their part in the Cato Street Conspiracy.23 Even so, in the absence of any firm evidence the Hope Fire Assurance Company suspected fraud and refused to pay out.24 Wakley, virtually destitute, was thus forced to relocate his practice and, after a couple of peripatetic years, he settled in the rather less salubrious surroundings of Norfolk Street, off the Strand.25 It was here, in the heart of London’s publishing underworld, where Wakley first met William Cobbett. According to Sprigge: Cobbett was exactly the man to make an impression upon Wakley. . . . He was thirty years Wakley’s senior and had a life of chequered experiences behind him. . . . He was an eloquent propagandist and a practical man, in spite of the violent character of some of his political writing. In Cobbett’s company Wakley met other journalists and men of the reforming type, and he saw how instinctively these men turned to pen and ink for the redress of any wrong.26 The influence of Cobbett’s example on the future course of Wakley’s career is incalculable, for as Sprigge maintains, `there can be no doubt that [it] counted for much inM. J. Wiener, `The changing image of William Cobbett’, Journal of British Studies, XIII , 2 (May 1974), 135?4; Nattrass, William Cobbett, op. cit., chap. 4; Gilmartin, Print Politics, op. cit., 180?4; J. C. McKusick, `William Cobbett, John Clare and the agrarian politics of the English Revolution’ in T. Morton and N. Smith (eds), Radicalism in British Literary Culture, 1650 ?1830: From Revolution to Revolution (Cambridge, 2002). 20Sprigge, op. cit., 31. 21ibid., 32 ?. Morning Chronicle, 28 August 1820, 3, col. E; Sprigge, op. cit., 37 ?. 23 In actual fact, the man responsible for decapitating the five conspirators was later identified as Tom Parker, a dissecting-room porter cum resurrection man. See Sprigge, op. cit., 46 ?0. 24Wakley took them to court and eventually received the sum of ?200; Sprigge, op. cit., 62 ?. 25ibid., 71. 26ibid., 71.22TheSocial HistoryVOL.39 :NO.Wakley’s resolution . . . that he would set the medical profession aright by publishing wherein it was wrong’.27 Certainly, when The Lancet first appeared on 5 October 1823 it was more reminiscent of the penny press than of its medical contemporaries: it was a mere thirty-six pages long, lacked a cover and cost only 6d. It also opened with a `bold and defiant preface’ in which Wakley outlined the journal’s principal objects.28 Stating that it had `long been a source of regret’ that the public, provincial practitioners and medical students had little access to the lectures given at the metropolitan hospital medical schools, Wakely announced his intention to publish a complete course of his former tutor Sir Astley Cooper’s lectures on the theory and practice of surgery. He also proposed to publish reports of important medical and surgical cases that occurred `in England or on any part of the civilized Continent’.29 From its inception, therefore, The Lancet figured itself as an organ for the dissemination and circulation of improving knowledge. Unlike other medical journals, however, this commitment to improvement was rooted in a radical discourse of openness and accessibility: [W]e shall exclude from our pages the semibarboarous [sic] phraseology of the Schools, and adopt as its substitute, plain English diction [my emphasis]. In this attempt, we are well aware that we shall be assailed by much interest.