of Mrs. MK, a lady diftinguished in the literary world for her piety and her learning, and for her difpute with the cclebrated Dr. JoHNSON, on the right of private judgment in matters of religion. Admiral WOLSE, LEY, who was with Lord Lyttleton when thefe extraordinary events occured, verbally narrated them to Mrs. K-, who wrote them down, in his prefence,, for Mr. W——— S—of this city, who was in England in the year 1798." FELIX. Nov. 16, 1804. FOR THE ANTHOLOGY. TO THE EDITORS OF THE BOSTON REVIEW. Gentlemen, IN No. 10 of your work is a paper, containing remarks upon a difcourfe of Dr. Howard, before the Humane Society. We know not who the author is; but think him worthy attention. He appears to be a man of medical experience, and well informed in the theories of refpiration and animal heat. But we think he has mistaken the theory of Dr. Howard, or does not understand ple.' Dr. Howard does not ap pear to believe or to fay any fuch thing. He does not fay, animal heat is independent of, if that be what you mean by difting from, the refpiratory procefs. If I underftand him rightly, he fays, that animal heat is not produced by evolution of caloric from oxygen to the blood in the lungs ; but that animal heat is produced and preferved by animal action, animal action by refpiration, and refpiration by evaporation of the galles from the fkin and lungs. We do not fay this theory is true; but we think it fimple, ingenious, and philofophick. Dr. Howard does not fay, that animal heat is "dependant upon a fubtle, incomprehenfible, and unintelligible principle. His meaning appears to be, that, when the inte gral corpufcles of an animal fibre are made to vibrate, they, like other matter, grow hot, and communicate calorick to bodies in contact; and is not this beat animal heat? it. The pleafure which I receiv-and as the former exifts firft, it ed from the performance myfelf will, I hope, ferve as apology for fome obfervations. muft operate first.' There is great difference between faying there is no reason,' and there is no vifible reafon, Why the contact of air fhould contract the intercoftal muscles, and not the abdominal at the fame time, may be difficult to explain. But it is a fact, that no part of the human furface can be touched with cold air, or cold water, without preducing immediate infpiration, Though cold water be poured directly upon the abdominal mufcles, the intercoftals will contract and enlage the thorax. We must therefore grant, that either the mechanifm is fuch, that the thorax would be enlarged, though the abdominal and intercoftal mufcles were to contract together, or, if the intercoftals alone contract, that this partial affection depends upon fome fympathy of mechanifm or nerves, which anatomy nor philofophy has yet elucidated. As for the diaphragm, I do not myself believe it contracts at all. But if it do contract, it is, as Dr. Howard fays, its elevation, and not, as anatomical authors fay, its depreffion. For if the diaphragm contract, while the ribs diftend, they must counteract each other. But, fince no contraction of the diaphragm feems neceffary, we think it does not happen. Elevation of the ribs mult deprefs it to a plane, and contraction of the abdominal muscles prefs it to a cone. Whether Dr. Howard means that the contraction of the abdominal mufcles is in confequence folely of the propagation of any flimulus, or only from mechanical diftention, is difficult to comprehend from the expreflion. It has not that remarkable clearnefs, fo confpicuous in the reft of his difcourfe. Fact,' you fay, fhows that evaporation is not the caufe of the first contraction of the ribs. The words are : Is it true, that evaporation is the cause of the it will not the lefs infpire. On 'the contrary, when, in the newborn infant, the action of refpira'tion does not commence of itfelf, it is fometimes promoted folely by plunging the infant under warm water, where no evaporation can take place.' Sir, as you are fo fond of facts, let me fprinkle your face, first with cold, and then with warm water, and you will feel the difif an infant,' you fay, ference. You 'be covered, at the inftant it Put but your lefs infpire'? I fee nothing in the fact, Sir, but dereliction from all principle. If any part of the body be left expofed, the contact of cold air, or cold water, to that part will raise the chest and produce infpiration. Another of your objections is : That, as heat promotes evapo • first contraction of the ribs ?ration, hot air fhould be better Fact fhows, that it is not. For, • if an infant be covered, at the • infant it emerges into the air, for refpiration, than cold air.' For my part, I fhould think, that hot air would heat the lungs falt er than cold air, and that cold air would cool the lungs falter than hot air. According to the modern theory, hot air fhould be preferable to cold air, becaufe it would heat the lungs fafter; but, if the intention be to cool the lungs, which is according to Dr. Howard's theory, cool air muft be preferable to hot air. Dr. Howard obferves, that the diftinctions of latent and fenfible heat were invented for the exigences of their employers. You lament for the fcientifick repu*tation of our country, that fuch expreffions fhould be put forth by a literary and medical character.' We think it is to his honour. What though many philofophers and the whole body of modern chemists agree in the doctrine of latent and fenfible, Is there an abfurdity in philofophy, medicine, religion, or politicks, which authorities have not fupported? Your lamentations, Sir, if fincere, are foolish. Heat is a fenfation, and fenfation is never latent; it is always fenfible. If there be Latent and fenfible heat, why not latent and fenfible found, latent and fenfible light, latent and fenfible pain? Latent heat is, in plain words, cold heat, and fenfible heat is, in plain words, hot beat. This is the doctrine fo much contended for. One question you afk is-Why fhould carbon and hydrogen pafs out more eafily than oxygen can pafs in? The answer is, becaufe the carbon and hydrogen in the velfels are not in an aeriform ftate; the oxygen infpired is. The fame carbon and hydrogen, after they have paffed out, could no more re-enter the fame veffels,than the fame quantity of water, in a ftate of vapour, could re-enter the fame veffel. Through the whole of the paragraph from which this queftion is taken, there is confu fion and mifreprefentation. You fpeak of numberlefs cafes of new born infants, who have been recovered by inflation from the human lungs. Many of them,' you fay, would have perifhed, if left for a few minutes to prepare a better apparatus. Inftead of attempting to blow air into the lungs of a child, who nev er refpired, I can, from the best authorities, advise you to pour cold water upon its cheft, to intate the membrane of the nofe, or even to whip the child, rather than force air where no cavity is yet formed, and where none can be formed, until the intercostals are made to contract. Ought not ev ery phyfician, now a days, to be afhamed of this practice? But, Sir, you are mistaken in the fact. You cannot inflate the lungs of an infant, who never refpired, unless you put a cannula under the epiglottis. There is no cav ity there. If you blow air into the mouth of a child, who never refpired, the air must pafs, where nothing refifts, into the child's ftomach; and, when the tomach and bowels are blown up, if you can lift up the epiglottis, a little air may enter the trachea, or if you blow hard enough, iuto the lungs; but not before. Af ter all, I cannot but think it would pafs off a pofteriore. We lament for the fcientifick repu tation of our country, that fuch expreffions fhould be put forth by a literary and medical chatafter.' We appeal to the pro 6 feffors of our inftitutions, and to the faculty at large, to decide, whether air, which has been refpired, if it could enter the lungs of an infant, who never refpired, would not as certainly extinguifh life, as it does flame. Should you wish to know, why mechanical ftimulus, as irritation of the fchneiderean membrane, or whipping, as well as evapora tion produce contraction, we thail be happy to attend to your inquiries. We hope Dr. Howard will excufe thefe obfervations. They were not meant in vindication of his difcourfe. It needs none. It is like the man, elegant as it is modeft, and contains as much fcience, as we ever faw in any medical work of its fize. BIOGRAPHIA AMERICANA; MEDICUS. OR MEMOIRS OF PROFESSIONAL, LEARNED, OR DISTINGUISHED CHARACTERS IN THE UNITED STATES. V. Continued from p. 546. Communications for this article will be extremely acceptable to the Editor. RICHARD MONTGOMERY. Mr. Editor, FOR THE ANTHOLOGY. IN the last number of the Anthology there was an account of Gen. Montgomery, a man eminent for his fervices and his worth, which is very incorrect in certain circumstances; and in the whole, more adapted to fill a column of a newspaper, than to be preferved in a work valuable for its biographical sketches, as well as other literary treafures. In biography we expect to be entertained, but we ought not to mingle every common report with things that are just and true. Its object is to inftruct, not merely to amuse. And a facred reverence for truth will induce a writer to avoid repeating even doubt ful ftories, especially thofe which have been fairly contradicted, and which are only introduced to give an intereft to the narration, or a luftre to favourite characters. We have heard much faid of the humanity of Gov. Carleton, who commanded at Quebec in 1775, when a body of American troops made an attack upon the city, and when the brave Montgomery fell. This gallant officer deferved every token of refpect from the citizens of America; whether the British officers had the fame reafon to esteem him, we pretend not to fay. They might fuppofe he deserved lefs from them, on account of his being once in their army, and then joining warmly with thofe who made refiftance to their government. The fact is, that Carleton paid no refpect to his remains; that he was buried without any marks of honour; and that even a coffin was procured by the officious benevolence of private perfons, who could ftrew only kind wishes over his grave. For a confirmation of what is here afferted, we may find an accurate flatement in the 1ft Vol. p. 111, of that valuable work, the Collections of the Maffachusetts Hiftorical Society. An accurate Fellow of the Society thus introduces it :"Many falfe reports having been published, both in this country and England, of General Montgomery's being buried with the honours of war, we have procured the following true account from a gentleman, who refided many years in Quebec, and obtained fome of the particulars from the British officer, who commanded the guard, at the time General Montgomery's body was fhown to the American prifoners. In printing it, our object is not to depreciate the reputation of General Carleton, whom we believe to be a humane, as well as brave officer, but merely to fet a part of the hiftory of the United States in its true light. "The fpot where General -Montgomery fell, is a place a little above Frafer's wharf, under Cape Diamond. The road there is exceeding narrow, and will not admit of more than five or fix people to walk abreaft. A barrier had been made across the road; and from the windows of a low houfe, which formed part of it, were planted two cannon. At his appearing upon a little riting ground, at the diftance of about twenty or thirty yards, they were difcharged: He and his two aids de camp fell at the fame time, and thence rolled into the river upon the ice, that always forms in the winter upon its fide. The next morning, a party being fent out to pick up the dead, he was difcovered among the flain. He was immediately taken to the prifon, where the Americans werd confined, as they denied his death; upon which they acknowl edged him, and burst into tears. The fame night he was buried by a few foldiers, without any kind of diftinction whatever, at the corner of the powder house, near Port Louis. The lieutenant gov ernour of Quebec, Mr. Cramché, having ferved with him in the British army, was induced, by the perfuafions of a lady who was afterwards Mrs. Cramché, to order him a coffin; but made in the roughest manner. The other ouicers were indifcriminately thrown, with their clothes on, into the fame grave with their men. As there was a great quantity of fnow on the ground, and the earth was frozen very hard, it was impoffible to dig the graves very deep; of courfe the bodies were but flightly covered. On the thawing of the fnow in the enfa ing fpring, many of them appeared above ground, and became offenfive. They were however again buried on Gen. Carleton's being made acquainted with it. Gen. Montgomery's grave cannot be diftinguifhed, as there is no ftone placed to point it out. "Thefe facts are known to ev ery perfon, who was in Quebec at the time of his defeat." November 18, 1804. HISTORICUS. |