Having lately perused, in the 35th Number of the Medical Gazette, some observations "on the mechanism of the act of vomiting," by Dr. Marshall Hall, in which, after controverting the different opinions which have been entertained by physiologists on this question, he endeavours to prove that vomiting is an effort, not of _inspiration_, but of _expiration_, and advances this opinion as having originated in himself, I beg, through the medium of your Journal, to refer that gentleman to Richerand's Physiology, where, on the subject of vomiting, page 70, he says, "Sometimes the action of the muscular fibres of the stomach is quite inverted; they contract from the pylorus towards the cardia; and this antiperistaltic motion, in which the contractions act with more force and rapidity, and in a manner decidedly convulsive, produces vomiting. The action of the abdominal muscles then connects itself with that of the stomach; the viscera are propelled upwards and backwards, by the contraction of the large muscles of the abdomen; _the diaphragm ascends towards the chest; if it descended, in contracting, the œsophagus that passes between its two crura would be compressed, and the expulsion of food through the cardia could not be effected_. It is also observed, _that during expiration only, any thing can pass from the stomach into the œsophagus_." Again, on respiration, page 147--"_In every effort of expiration_, as coughing and _vomiting_," &c. Here, then, we see that Dr. Hall's views, as far as regards vomiting being an effort of expiration, have long since been advanced by Richerand. The profession are certainly much indebted to Dr. Hall for his corroboration of these views; at the same time he should not have taken to himself the merit of having first suggested them. Sir, Your most obedient servant, A SUBSCRIBER. CHARACTER OF THE LANCET. _To the Editor of the London Medical Gazette._ Dec. 19, 1828. SIR, The events disclosed during the late trial in the Court of King's Bench, must fill every well-disposed mind with astonishment and horror. The moral aspect of the case is marked by every feature capable of exciting a sense of shame for our profession, and of sorrow for our kind. Can it be that a publication conducted in the spirit of the extracts produced at the late trial of Cooper against Wakley should be fostered and encouraged by a large proportion of the medical public? Is it indeed true that no feeling of loathing and disgust should have induced the purchasers of the Lancet to protest against its glaring injustice, its undisguised ferocity and malignity?