of the cheap London press--is attested by _Punch's_ frequent citations, but he did not overlook its ineptitudes, some of which happily remain to refresh our leisure. [Footnote 23: On the occasion of _Punch's_ Jubilee, in 1891, _The Times_ remarked: "May we be excused for noting the fact that he (_Punch_) has generally, in regard to public affairs, taken his cue from _The Times_?" That was substantially true of _The Times_ under the old _régime_ when Delane was editor. Mr. Herbert Paul, himself a strong Liberal, writes in his _History of Modern England_ that "Delane's chief quality was his independence." Mr. Dasent, in his biography, gives good grounds for his assertion that Delane was at no time what could be called a party man, though his instincts were essentially Liberal, and notes that "if charged with inconsistency, Delane would merely remind his critics that _The Times_ was the organ of no party, and that every issue was complete in itself."] [Footnote 24: _Delane of "The Times,"_ by Sir Edward Cook, p. 281.] [Sidenote: _Quacks and Doctors_] But of all the professions, none looms larger in the early pages of _Punch_ than that of medicine. Here, again, a broad distinction is drawn between the heads of the profession and those who are preparing for it; between legitimate and illegitimate practitioners. Men like Harvey and Jenner are extolled as heroes and benefactors of humanity at large, and their recognition by the State is urged as a national duty. The maintenance of the status and dignity of physicians and surgeons, civil, naval, and military, is frequently insisted upon before and during the Crimean War. _Punch's_ tribute to the services of Florence Nightingale in reorganizing the nursing profession has already been noted. He was a strenuous advocate of the disestablishment of Mrs. Gamp, and a consistent supporter of the campaign against quackery, though under no illusions as to the possibility of its entire extermination:--