« AnteriorContinuar »
massaered the Turkish prisoners taken at Jaffa, he gives full credit: but to that of the poisoning of the French who were sick in the Hospitals, he thinks that no belief is due.
Throughout these volumes, the writer has depicted Bonaparte in colours much more favourable than those in which we apprehend he would now represent him. Historians, when they describe living personages, ought to bear in mind the fames answer of Nero to the Roman senate in his good days,
quum meruero."—How pleasing is it to be called a moment from contemplating this restless Despot, to view a character which united all that was great and gond in our nature ! we mean that niost enviable and greatest of his cotemporaries, George Washington. We think that Mr. B-Isham is more cautious in his praise of this renowned patriot than he should have been : we cannrt admit that · Washington was betier adapted to defensive than off-nsive war:' the affair of Trentham, and the catastrophe, at York town, ill agree with the supposition ; and we are not aware of the grounds which warrant him in limiting his reach of penetration and ardour of enterprize.' Let his slender means be considered, and his atchievemenis be set against thein, and we shall be sensible that no mind was ever more indebted to iis own resources, nor any man ever victorious over greater difficullies.
Mr. Belsham has inserted an elaborate narrative of the war of the My ore ; which is highly favourable to the late Goverpor-General, Lord Wellesley.
The memorable speech of Mr. Pitt, in the parliamentary discussion occasioned by the pacific overture of Bonaparte when he attained the consulship, is here severely criticised, The ability displayed in it was universally admitted at the time, but it was considered more as a display of oratory than as a correct statement of facts. Nearly three years had elapsed since the termination of the iniquitous and treacherous career of Bonaparte in Italy ; yet in all that time British subjects in general had reseived no other accounts of it than such as proceeded from revolutionary authors; the harangue of Mr. Pitt, therefore, produced no effect beyond the circle of his devoted partisans; and Air. Belsham does not appear to have been undeceived when he penned the present narrative, since he represents Mr. Pitt's statements as originating in misrepre. sentation and malignity; whereas, as far as they regarded the progress of the French General in Italy, they fell very short of the truth. It is no more than justice lo Mr. Pitt to admit that his conception of the principles, views, and aims of the French chief, was extremely correct : but the public had not been prepared for the information, and did not give to it the credit which it deserved. That Mr. Belsham should have been ignorant of these matters, at the time of writing this history, is to us a matter of some surprize.
On the subject of the dispute with the Northern powers, in regard to belligerent and neutral rights, the question is very fairly and intelligibly stated by Mr. Belsham : but we by no me2os concur in the violent and unqualified censure which he pronounces on the measures then adopted. It must be al. lowed that, if England had been imperious, the neutrals had acted fraudulently to a prodigious extent. The author lays great stress on the universal consent given to the principles of the armed neutrality : but it will be seen that the parties were all either weaker belligerents, or interested neutrals.
He fairly admits, however, that this consent is not binding on England; and that she has sull the right of asserting the former principle, even at the hazard of war. It is to this point that the question ultimately resolves itself. If neutral privil-ges are pushed so far as to operate as succour to an enemy, a belligerent has undoubtedly the right by violent means of putting a stop to the intercourse, if that power deems it expedient to proceed such lengths.
In treating of the scarcity of provisions in this country, Mr. Belsham displays much information and truly enlightened views. The conduct of the chief magistrate of the metropolis in that difficult crisis was universally applauded; and Mr. B. describes it with due praise.
Considerable discriminacion and ability are also manifested by the historian, in examining the several steps of the nego. tiation which ended in the peace of Amiens. lis authors had the countenance of the greatest names on that occasion : but this circumstance does not prevent Mr. B. from representing in a just light the weak parts of the transaction.
Though in these volumes Mr. Belsham may have been more sparing of harsh terms than in the preceding portions of his history, some have still escaped him which had better have b:en omitted. Altogether, we meet with nothing in these concluding pages, which calls on us either to add to or alter the observations wbich we have on former occasions applied in the work. If its auhor be too much the partisan, we can. not overlook that he is the supporter and follower of that denomination of Englishmen, under whose administration the country has ever most flourished; and who have cherished and protected those principles, to which it owes its pre-eminence among nations, and all its chcicest blessings of society.
For FEBRUARY 1807.
MEDICAL, &c. Art. 12. An Answer to Dr. Moseley, containing a Defence of Vaccina
tion By John Ring, Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and of the Medical Societies of London and Paris. 8vo. pp. 290.
6s. Boards. Murray. Mr. Ring, who has proved himself one of the most zealous advo
cates of vaccination, here undertakes to repel the violent attack of Dr. Moseley, by turning the weapons of his antagonist against himself, and assailing him with that species of declamatory wit which occupies so large a part of the doctor's own pages. He has certainly been in some degree successful, and has occasionally made some fair hits : : but, on the whole, we cannot commend this method of conduct. ing a controversy, even when it may be justified by the previous outtages of the enemy
This volume is not, however, deficient in valuable matter of a different kind. We have been ainused with the account which it gives of the opposition manifested by some individuals, against the small, pox inoculation, at its first introduction into this country: on which occasion, the noted Sir Richard Blackmore was particularly prominent, aided by Mr. Tanner, one of the surgeons of St. Thomas's hospital. They asserted that the preventative power of inoculation was contrary boih to reason and experience, and that more deaths occurred after the operation, than from the disease in its natural form; and they boldly accused those persons of falsehood wlio maintained the contrary opinion. Some extracts are also given from a sermos preached by a Mr. Niassey, in 1722, in which he proceeded, in the most abusive strain, to declain again t the crime of inoculation. He endeavoured to prove that the smail pox was the disease with which Job was afflicted, and that the Devil was the inoculator; and he afterward seriously laid it down as a principle, that it is impious to at. tempt to alleviate or remove any of the disorders which are sent from God to afflict mankind. Even so late as the middle of the last cen. tury, a cry was raised against inoculation, by two physicians of considerable éminence; who adduced many instances of i's failure. and of the evils which ensued from it.-- Fio:n these documents, the friends of vaccination will perceive that their pred cessors had to encounter at least an equal share of prejudice and illiberality with themselves.
Mr Ring then proceeds to examine the value of the evidence which has been cited by Dr. M. seti y against the vaccination; and he particularly adverts to the case realed by Dr. John Sims, in which a person received the small-pox who was said to have previously been iwice affected with inc casual cow pox. The well-known pamphlet of Mr. Goldson is ako noticee; and the case of a child of a Mr. Bowen, who, after several unsuccessful attempts at variolous inoculation subsi quently to vaccina:ion, became at length infected. On these and other similar occurrences, Mr. Ring offers a number
of judicious observations, and displays considerable address in obtaining an authentic statement of the transactions. In some instances, he has it in his power to shew that Dr. Moseley's account is completely erroneous, and in others that it is essentially defective. Altogether, we think that Mr. Ring's performance possesses considerable merit : but we should have bestowed on it more unqualified commendation, had it less resembled the work of Dr. Moseley,
Observations on Vaccine Inoculation ; tending to confute the Opinion of Dr. Rowley and others. By Henry Fraser, M.D. &c. 8vo. 28. Highley.
We heartily commend the zeal which Dr. Fraser displays, but we are sorry that we cannot bestow equal praise on the execution of his design. We are indeed obliged to acknowlege that this tract appears to us remarkable solely for a pompous style, which is altogether inconsistent with its subject. The only part of the pamphlet which can be considered as interesting is the attempt to prove that the cow-pox does not originate from the grease of the horse : he animadverts with some severity on the conduct of Dr. Jenner in adopt. ing this idea ; and he considers it to have been one of the principal obstacies to the general diffusion of the practice of vaccination. Art. 14. Vaccina Vindicie; or, Vindication of the Cow-pox: con
taining a Refutation of the Cases and Reasonings on the same, in Dr. Rowley's late extraordinary Pamphlet against Vaccination, in Letters to Dr. Moseley, by Rohert John Thornton, M.D. &c. Nos. 1. and 2. 8vo. 15. 61. each. Symonds.
These two numbers form the commencement of a monthly publication, written by Dr. Thornton, the object of which is to counteract the unfavorable impression produced on the public mind by Drs. Rowley and Moseley respecting the cow.pox. After having pointed out some of the extravagant and indecorous sentiments ad. vanced by these writers, particularly the former of them, Dr. T. proves, in spposition to their positive assertion, that the Jennerian society has taken every possible pains to investigate the supposed cases of failure. A committee of 25 practitioners was formed for this express purpose ; and from a very judicious report which they published, and which is inserted in the work before us, it appears that they executed their office with diligence and fidelity.
Dr. í hornton enters on the important task of examining the adverse cases of Dr. Rowley and the other opposers of vaccination. He selects some of those to which the greatest credit has been attached, and which have produced the most effect on the public mind; and, by referring to the practitioners who performed the inoculation, and who saw the cases during their progress, he has shewn, in the most satisfactory manner, that the statements published by Drs. Rowley and Moseley are defective in the most essential particulars, and that some of them are altogether without foundation -As friends of truth and humanity, we feel greatly obliged to Dr. Thornton for the zeal and perseverance which he has exercised this subject. In the title, Dr. T. writes Vindicia, instead of Vindicia.
Art. 15. Cow-Pock Inoculation vindicated and recommended from Mat.
ters of Fact. By Rowland Hill, A.M. I 2mo. 18. Darton and Harvey.
The reverend author of this pamphlet is well known to have been one of the most zealous advocates for vaccination, and, unlike some gentleinen of his profession, he has added knowlege to his zeal. Before he ventured to enter on the practice, he adopted every possible means of acquiring all the necessary information on the subject, and the pages before us afford a sutiicient proof that his endeavours were successful. The tract is principally desired for the perusai of the unprofessional, for which purpese it is wel adapted by its plain style and familiar mode: of illustration. It furnishes, however, one piece of information which must be interesting to every description of readers ; viz. the following account of Mr. Hill's own success in the practice ; • 1 sokinly assert that, having inoculated in different places not less (fewer that 4840 subjects, independent of 3720 and upwards who have been inoculated at Surrey Chapel School-Room, I have not, as yet, met with one single failure ; though, on the repetition of my visits, I have at all times made it a point to inquire with the utmost diligence in my power; nor yet, in any one point of view, have I seen any of those distressful consequences that have been brought forward with so much art and downright falsehood, to alarm the fears and terrify the imaginations of the public.'
We sincerely hope that this little work will have an extensive cir. culation ; since by this means the benevolent views of its author cannot fail to be materially promoted. Art. 16. Vaccination vindiccted from Misrepresentation and Calumy,
in a Letter to his Patients, by Edward Jones, Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, &c. 8vo. iMurray. 1806. Mr. Jones’s principal object is to refute the opinions of Dr. Squir. rel; whose positions are so extraordinary, and indeed so repuguant to every feeling of common sense, that we were inclined to question the propriety of making them the subject of a formal reply. Perhaps, however, it may be better not to let any publication, although ever so contempuble, pass entirely without notice ; especially where the opinions are advanced with so much confidence as in the work of Dr. Squirrel. 'i he present pamphlet forms a satisfactory answer to that of the author's opponent.
A Reply to the Anti- Vaccinists, by James Moore, Member of the Royal College of Surgeons in London. 8vo. Murray
1806. We think that this is decidedly the best treatise which has appear. ed in the course of the controversy; it is candid, judicious, and spirited. Without giving too much consequence to the antagonists of vaccination, the author fairly states the nature of their arguments; and without descending to any harshness or abuse, he fully refutes them. He justly observes that those who now oppose themselves with the greatest confidence to the cow-pox are the least able to form an accurate judgment on the question, because they made up their minds against it from the time of its being first proposed to the pub