« FöregåendeFortsätt »
their not having been before published, we know not; as, we are much mistaken, if the greater part, and indeed the whole *, be not extracted verbatim froin Lord Chesterfield's Letters, lately published.
* * * An Examination of a Charge brought against Inoculation by De
Haen, Raft, Dimsdale, and other Writers. By John Watkinfon, M. D. 8vo. is. 6d. Johnson.
On the publication of this pamphlet we received the following letter; which supersedes the necessity of our entering on a particular review of it, ourselves.
To the Authors of the London Review. « Gentlemen, • In your Review for May 1776, page 404, you introduced some account of Baron Dimsdale's “ Thoughts on General and Partial Inoculation ;" to which you added your opinion, “ that the increase of deaths by the small-pox, is owing to the indiscreet use of inoculation;" and conclude, with the Baron, in discouraging the inoculation of the poor at their own houses, “ as fraught with dangerous consequences to the community."
“ The institutors of the plan for general inoculation, sensible that the best institutions were liable to cenfure, had carefully confidered the objections that might be urged against it; and referred to experience for the full refutation of them. Dr. Watkinson, the ingenious author of “ An Examination of a Charge brought against Inoculation," and physician in ordinary to the dispensary for general inoculation, has collected the result of this experience; which, I doubt pot, will have more influence with you, than the mere opinion of any individual.
“ After producing numerous testimonies in favour of general inoculation, Dr. Watkinson offers the following declaration, which I shall transcribe, as it coincides with my own experience.
" To these testimonies, the number of which might have been " greatly augmented, I shall beg leave to subjoin my own. I have “ paid particular attention to the point in question, since the establish“ ment of the dispensary for general inoculation; and can with truth " affirm, that a fingle instance has not yet occurred in that charity, in
which the contagion has been spread by an inoculated patient. " Where the chance of spreading it has been apparently great, I “ have been very strict in my inquiries. In many cases the circum“ Iances have been such, that if the apprehenfions of a celebrated “ inoculator were well tounded, the distem per muít inevitably have * been communicated.
“ Some have been inoculated in narrow streets, in the midst of " those who were obnoxious to the small-pox; and others in litrie " courts, where, according to the common opinion, the danger of “ communicating the disease was inuch greaier.
“ In the latter case, the patient has tometimes been kept in a little “ room on the ground floor, the door of which opened directly into
* We except the editor's notes, in which is inserted a very injurious and We believe groundless reflection on Mr. Pulteney, afterwards Earl of Bath.
.“ the court, and in the day-time was feldom Thut. Before this door, es and within a few yards of the person inoculated, a number of chilu dren have continued to play during the whole course of the disorder ; 6 and, as has been already affirmed, without receiving the infection;"
“ From my office in the General Difpenfary in Aldersgate-ftreet, I have had numerous occasions of viewing the fatal effects of the natural Imall-pox among the poor, most of whom live in confined courts and garrci allets, and whose houses contain as many families as rooms. V/hen the natural small-pox breaks out in any of these miserable habifarions, the progress and fatality of it are almost incredible : I have known two-thirds of the iniected die by the disease, and this has more than once induced me to propose inoculation to the furvivors in such clofe unventilared places, as the only means of stopping both the progrefs and fatality of infection; and I can add, that I have never been difapointed. When you reflect upon the important advantages to coinmunity of general inoculationy and the deserved reputation of its antagonist, I doubt not bur you will excuse the length of this letter, and my expreslions of approbation of Dr. Watkinson's very ingenious and liberal delence of a practice, in which we see " human ingenuity oppoling itfelt to the ravages of a dreadful disease, and the medical art triumphing, as it were, over the power of death."
JOHN COAKLEY LETTSOM. We are much obliged to Dr. Lettiom for his friendly communications : he may recollcet, however, that we inserted long fnce a letter from a guvernor of the hospital for inoculation, in which Baron Dimidale's opinion, on whose reasoning and representation of facts ours was then founded, was controverted. The London Reviewers are not indeed so wedded to any opinion, as not to change it, on better information or the fanétion of luperior judgement.
ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.
** We are equally Aattered by the Letters of Minotus and W. FEAIN; the one approving of our selection of copious extracts, the other giving the pretcrence to our own occasional criticisms.-As it is our intersit, however, to accommodate our work to all parties, we merit kes leare to adopt exclusively the advice of none, and that for the raion which we adopt from the lasi-mentioned correfpondent, i monet ut fcias qund facis, ille landat monenido.
The Covefponderit, who is difpleated with us for not having rericted Mr. Murphy's Comedy, entitled, know your own Mind, which, he fats, 12 adreriled to months ago on the covers of the Monthly heriew, is reered to the subor of the Advertiserent, for the rea. ion of its not being yet publishel. Of him, also, he may possibly learn diat it is ar pieient not intended io be published,
Mr. Mar may have any of the Numbers of the 3d and 4th Vojumes of the London Review, of Mr. Evans, the Publisher,--Vol. I. and II. teios enxirely out of privi, caunot be had, till they are reprincd; which will be done wuh all contenient expedition.
Archaeologia : or Miscellaneous Traits, read at the Society of Anti
quaries. Vol. IV. 4to. il. is. in feets.
It is with a pleasing reflection, much to the credit of British literature, that we see the memoirs of this respectable society make lo promising and elegant an appearance in print. Not that we entertain so high an idea of the importance of antiquarian relearches as is conceived by many; especially of such as relate to simple discoveries, that afford room only for fruitless investigation and vague conjecture. Of greater estimation, indeed, are such as serve to elucidate antient history, and point out the sudden revolutions, or trace the progreslive changes, in the manners of mankind. To this purpose tend several of the Papers contained in the present volume, which is illustrated by twenty-five detached plates well engraved by Bafire, besides a number of smaller designs imprinted on the sheets of letterpress,
ART. I. An Account of fome Remains of Roman and other Antiquities in or near the County of Brecknock in South Wales. By John Strange, Efq;
This account is a continuation of Reiparks on the same suh. jet, published in the ist volume of the Archaeologia, in which the writer expressed his diffidence of the opinion, generally received among the Icarned, that the principality of Wales lupplies very few remains of Roman Alitiquities. In the present paper, Mr. Strange gives his reasons, for thinking those remains much more numerous than they have been generally Vol. V. ;. . Ti
been thought : taking an opportunity to correct a double miltake of Doctor Stukeley's in his Itinerariuni Curiosum; in which that writer implicitly follows Camden in fixing Bullaeum at Buahlt, and placing it in Radnorshire instead of Brecknockshire, to which it properly belongs.
Art. II. On the Term Lavant. By the Honourable Daines Barrington.
In this paper, the author censures as groundless a conje&ture of Dr. Stukeley's, that the original name of the river Lavant, passing by Chichester, was Autona. The term Lavant, he says, is applied in Suflex to all brooks the channel of which is dry at particular seasons.
Art. III. An Enquiry into the Nature and Cause of King John's Death; wherein is shewn that it was not effe&ed by Poison. By the Rev. Mr. Pegge.
This is a curious article, on a subject of so much importance in English History, that we are persuaded our readers will think themselves obliged to us for a pretty copious abstract of it.
Mr. Pegge sets out with an apology for reconsidering a subjeet, which was apparently settked by Rapin and his learned annotator Morant; the foriner of which declares that the story of the poison is improbable, to which the latter adds that it is not mentioned by any historian that lived within fixty years of the time.
- Hence," says he, “ one would imagine there could be no occafion for re-confidering this point: but the late Mr. John Lewis of Margate, partly in vindication of his favourite William Caxton, and partly from the forwardnefs of his zeal against Popery, has endeavoured to puzzle the cause, and to invalidate the aliertions of the judicious Frenchman, and his learned Englislı annotator ; so that it is become absolutely necessary to review this particle of our hittory, and to bring it to a new hearing.
“ You will please to suppose ihe king to be at Linn in Norfolkg ir Oct. 1216-17, and to have it in his attention to remove thence to Lincoln, or Lindiey; atier which, tlie narrative of ihe attack and progress of his last illness is briefly this. In his road from Linn, it was nieieftary for the king to cross ibe wabes, as they are called, which part the two counties of Norfolk and Lincoln *, and there he very narrowly escaped drowning with his whole army; for betore he was quite gor over,' the ride coning up the river Wellstream, which overflows the walhes at high water, put him in reat danger, and though he escaped himself, he could not live his baggage, which was all swallowed up and toit. He arrived that night at Sivinelbead abbey t, where he
There wames are between a place called the Cross-Keys in Norfolk, and Fofdike in Hoilanci, in the county of Liricoln. Annut. on Rapin, and Biady, p. 516. As for the Wellfiream, fee Dr. Brady, p. 516. + R. Higden makes him dine there. This was 14 O&t. Brady, p. şió,
lodged, lodged, and began to be ill, or, as is pretended, was poisoned. How. ever, he set out thence next morning * on horse-back for Sleford t. but was forced to , betake himself to a litter. At Sleford he was severely handled by a dysentery, and next day was carried to Newark castle, where he died, as all our beit authors agree, a few days after ; his bowels were buried at Croxton li, in the county of Leicester, and his body at Worceiter g.”
Such is Mr. Pegge's fimple relation of the fact; which, he obferves, has been so misrepresented, by the Popish writers on the one hand and the Protestants on the other, that the truth of the matter cannot at this distance of time be competently judged of by relying on either. Laying aside prejudice and partiality, therefore, he proceeds to consider the evidence, on which it 'rests, in the following sensible and satisfactory manner.
King John died at Newark 18 Oct. 1216 **, and the next year Matthew Paris was old enough to be professed in the monastery of St. Alban's it. He may therefore be esteemed a contemporary historian, and the account he gives of the cause of the king's illness at Swineshead is this: “ Ubi, ut putabatur, de rebus à fluctibus devoratis tantam “ mentis incurrit triftitiam, quòd acutis correptus febribus, coepit gra4 viter infirmari;' infumuch that grief and anxiety were then thought to be the fource of the king's malady, and to have thrown him into a
fever. The tever, however, was afierwards increased by the patient's · own imprudence; for the author goes on, “ Auxit autem aegritudinis “ molestiam perniciofa ejus ingluvies, qui nocte illâ de fručtu perfico“ ruin, et novi ciceris * potatione nimis repletus, febrilem in se calorem " acuit fortitèr et accendit.”—But whether Matthew may be deemed a contemporary or not, Roger Wendover, who died A.D. 1236, and whom Matthew transcribes in the former part of his work ||!!, certainly was. And the narrative, no matter whether Roger's or Matthew's, is literally transcribed by Thomas Rudburne without the least impeachment or contradiction & S.
* According to Caxton, an English Chronicle cited by Mr. Lewis, John Fox, and my MS. Chronicle, he stayed two days at Swinelicad. But see Brady, p. 915, and Appendix, p. 163.
+ Sleford cattle and Newark cattle mentioned afterwards, were both of them now in the king's hand.
I P. Langtoft says he died at Hauche, but read Nau che, i. e. Nauerche, or Newark. : || The abbot of Croxton (perhaps Ralph de Lincoln, Willis Mitr. Abb. II. p. 109.) was his physician at Newark. M. Paris, p. 288.
$ Dr. Brady, p. 515. and Append. x, p. 164.
11 Cyder; Since M. Wekminster calls it pomarium, for which word fee Du Fresne. This part of tic country was famous for its pippins called Kirton-pippins. Fuller's Worthies in Lincolnshire. Dr. Brady, p. 517. calls it new Bracket; but see Fox, p. 333.
!!! Tanneri Bibl. p. 757. Wars, Prolegom. ad M. Paris. Sg Leland, Collect. II. p. 421.