The advice given by Sir W. Blizard may not be out of place here: “Be the plainest man in the world in a Court of Justice; never harbour a thought that if you do not appear positive, you must appear little and mean for ever after; many old practitioners have erred in this respect. Give your evidence in as concise, plain, and yet clear manner as possible; be intelligent, candid, open, and just, never aiming at appearing unnecessarily scientific. State all the sources by which you have gained your information. If you can, make your evidence a self-evident truth: thus, though the Court may at the time have too good or too mean an opinion of your judgment, yet they must deem you an honest man. Never, then, be dogmatic, or set yourself up for judge and jury; take no side whatever, be impartial, and you will be honest. In Courts of Judicature you will frequently hear the counsellors complain when a surgeon gives his opinion with any of the least kind of doubt, that he does not speak clearly; but if he is loud and positive, if he is technical and dogmatic, then he is allowed to be clear and right. I am sorry to have to observe that this is too frequently the case.” =Liability of Medical Men to reveal Professional Secrets.=--The question has arisen how far a medical man is bound to reveal the secrets confided to him in his professional capacity as medical attendant. This question was raised by Mr. Cæsar Hawkins in the trial of the Duchess of Kingston (11 Harg. St. Tri. 243), before the House of Peers, and decided by Lord Mansfield thus: “Mr. Hawkins will understand that it is your (the other Peers) judgment and opinion that a surgeon has no privilege, where it is a material question in a civil or criminal course to know whether parties were married or whether a child was born, to say that his introduction to the parties was in the course of his profession, and in that way he came to the knowledge of it. I take it for granted, that if Mr. Hawkins understands that, it is a satisfaction to him and a clear justification to all the world. If a surgeon was voluntarily to reveal these secrets, to be sure he would be guilty of a breach of honour, and of great indiscretion; but, to give that information in a Court of Justice, which, by the law of the land, he is bound to do, will never be imputed to him as any indiscretion whatever.” However objectionable it may be to the medical witness, and be considered by him a breach of professional confidence, to reveal in a Court of Law secrets known but to himself and patient, and regarded as sacred, he has no privilege but to reveal them if demanded as evidence, unless the evidence be such as might incriminate himself. This is not the ruling in most Continental countries, where the medical man claims the same privileges of secrecy as the priest in confessional. 3. EXPERIMENTAL