quifhed. This author, however, appears to us to deserve praise for his public fpirit, and for many juit and forcible remarks. ART. 23. A Letter to William Wilberforce, Efq. M. P. on the Juftice and Expediency of Slavery and the Slave Trade; and on the best Means to improve the Manners and Condition of the Negroes in the West Indies. By Robert Heron, Efq. 8vo. 152 pp. 4s. Jordan and Maxwell, 1806. Almoft every advocate for the Slave Trade finds it neceffary to prefume, contrary to the fact, that the plan of Mr. Wilber force and the other diftinguished perfons, who would abolish that traffic, includes alfo the abolition of flavery. Thus, by a mistatement, they provide themselves with an argument, applying to this cafe the trite but juft maxim, that it is not lawful to do evil that good may enfue;" but viewing in a just light the intentions of the abolitionists, we confider them as endeavouring to do good in order that good may enfue; fince the continuance of the Slave Trade is not, we conceive, neceffary to the enjoyment of Weft India property, and fince the capital now employed in that trade might be diverted to other channels of commerce, or the individuals concerned in it receive an adequate compenfation. Yet upon this untenable ground refts much of the reasoning in the tract before us. The author attempts to prove, that "the relation of slavery, if not abused, is no way contrary to the laws of nature and religion." But his arguments go only to fhow, that inequality of conditions is neceffary; which no rational perfon denies and when once we admit the relation of master and slave (not servant) in its full extent, who fhall prevent the abuse of it? or has it ever been prevented in any age or country? The question, however, it must be repeated, is not upon Slavery itself, but upon the inhuman traffic by which flaves are procured; and, therefore, the reafonings of this author in favour of fuch a ftate, would, if jaft, (which they are not) have little application to the purpose. He next endeavours to fhow, that "the trade in flaves is not more unlawful than flavery, fimply confidered;" and lays down certain principles, in part juft, but in point of fact wholly inapplicable to the cafe. Who indeed can argue with a writer who fets out with an affumption, that the Slave Trade " proceeds upon the first principles of justice and utility?" who relies on its "not infringing the municipal laws of the country, within which, or the countries between which it is carried on;" as if the want of ail regular law, and certainly of all civilization, in Africa, was not the origin of this traffic; as if the propriety of its toleration by British laws was not the very point in question. Indeed this faine author, who juftifies the Slave Trade on the ground of its being allowed by the municipal laws of Africa, in a few pages afterwards afterwards admits (what indeed cannot be denied) that "the laws of nature, of nations, of municipal policy, have in Africa no porver." It would be fuperfluous to pursue this defender of the Slave Trade through his performance, confifting of a feries of idle declamations, unfounded affertions, and arguments which (fo far as they apply) have been a thousand times refuted. But what muft the reader think of a writer who urges against Mr. Wilberforce, "that fo many hair-brained zealots were the foremost champions of his caufe?" Among thefe "foremoft champions" were the two great orators and rival ftatefinen of the age, and almoft all the ableft and wifeft members in both Houses of Parlia ment. MILITARY. ART. 24. Letters to the Right Hon. William Windham, Secretary of State for the War Department. By a Field Officer of Volun teers. 8vo. 82 pp. 25. Egerton, 1806, It would appear that thefe Letters (four in number) were written, and perhaps published, while the laft Act of Parliament for regulating the Army was depending. Many additional and very important regulations are propofed by this author; who repre. fents the French military fyftem as highly conducive to every purpose of warfare, and propofes fimilar measures on our part, He approves the plan to which fo many perfons have objected, of enlifting men for a limited time; but propofes, that during war they may be retained till the clofe of it, advancing them, after the first term is out, to the privileges of the next clafs. With this qualification, he thinks the right of difmiffion after a limited time fhould extend to the whole army, upon the principle that the veterans of the Establishment should not have the mortifica. tion of feeing raw recruits enjoying fuperior advantages. In the fecond Letter, a measure is propofed refpecting which there are not, we believe, two opinions, i. e. that the number of our light troops fhould be greatly increased. He indeed carries his dread of the fuperiority of our enemies in this respect fo far, as to apprehend that the very circumftance of England's being a clofe country, would operate in their favour. We trust that, as they would be the affailants, this could not be the cafe. Yet this author's reafonings on the fubject are worthy of attention; and his propofal of turning a great proportion of the Volunteers into light corps, meets our approbation. The third Letter contains a plan for a home army, confifting of the prefent Militia and the Volunteers, the former to be the first and the latter fecond battalion of fuch an army. Whether a fcheme of this kind be practicable or not, it is for the wisdom of our fatefmen and principal commanders to determine. We fee many difficulties in the accomplishment of fuch a measure; but certainly it is a defirable object to combine and affimilate, as much as poffible, with each other our various defcriptions of military force. In the fourth Letter the author compares the admirable regu lations of our navy with our military fyftem, to the manifeft dif advantage of the latter; inafmuch as no trial of abilities, no length of fervice (three years excepted) nothing but money is neceffary to elevate a man to the highest ftation. To remedy thefe defects, he fuggefts a plan which does not appear to us impracticable. At all events the topic which he has treated is of the highest importance, and the errors which he has pointed out have long been a fubject of rational complaint. Not the least of these is, we believe, the prefent intricate fyftem of army accounts; which ought either to be fimplified, or put into other management than that of military officers. An increase of pay to them, in lieu of perquifites, is, with great reafon, fuggefted by this author; whofe zeal and public fpirit, combined with ftrong fenfe, entitle his fentiments at least to a candid and attentive confideration. ART. 25. On a fubject fo interefting as the Defence of the Country, the opinions of all officers of rank and experience are highly defirable; and we therefore hope the fuggeftions of this writer have received due attention from the Minifter to whom they are addreffed. We pretend not to great judgment in military affairs; but if fome affertions in this pamlet are accurate (and we do not fee how the author can be deceived in them) they require the immediate confideration of Government. He afferts, for inftance, that there is a defect in the organization of our artillery, although our artillery-men are equally expert and brave, and our officers equally fcientific with thofe of the enemy. For we, in general, ufe short fix pounders, which carry only 804 yards, inftead of long fixes, which carry 1,003 yards; whereas the French eight pounders, ufed generally in their fervice, carry 960 yards. This ought furely, if the calculation is juft, to be immediately altered. But the author's principal object is, to recommend an intrenched camp on the fouth fide of London, in order to protect the capital, in cafe of a battle being loft in Kent or Suffex; in the latter of which counties, he conceives the enemy would land. He gives the plan of thefe fortifications; and further fuggefts the expediency of training the Volunteers of fix counties (namely, of Effex, Suffolk, and Norfolk on the north fide of London, and Kent, Suffex, and Hampshire on the fouth) as irregulars, and par ticularly as riflemen. There are feveral other propofals in this work, which our limits do not permit us to detail, but which may may probably deferve the confideration of those who regulate the military concerns of this kingdom. MEDICINE. ART. 26. A Letter to Mr. Birch in Anfwer to his late Pamphlet again Vaccination. By a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, London. 8vo. 38 p. p. 1s. 6d. Murray. 1806. We know not why this gentleman chooses to conceal his name. He appears to be well acquainted with the subject, and has given a complete answer to the very flimfy reasons alledged by Mr. Birch, for continuing his oppofition to the cow-pox. The quef. tion whether the cow-pox would ultimately anfwer the views of its patrons, and the wishes of the public, whether it would prove a complete fecurity against the infection of the fmall pox, without introducing any other difeafe, into the conftitution, could only be refolved by time, and experience. Dr. Jenner, and a host of refpectable perfons, engaged in the practice of vaccinating, declare that every day brings fresh evidence, both of the efficiency and innocency of the cow-pox. The multitude of failures, with which the public has been alarmed, and the extraordinary and and dreadful difeafes, faid to have been introduced into the conftitution by the virus of the cow-pox, have only been seen, by Mr. Birch, Dr. Squirrel, the late Dr. Rowley, Dr. Mofely, and perhaps a few others who early conceived fo invincible a prejudice againit the practice of vaccination, that none of them ever engaged in the business. As therefore they have had no experience, it can be no offence, we prefume, to fay they may have been impofed upon, and deceived. The eagernefs with which they liftened to every ftory, tending to difcredit the cowpox, and the facility with which they credited whatever was related to them, rendered them in a particular manner liable to impofition. That they have been imposed on is clear from hence, that the number of failures, and of bad cafes, has diminished, in proportion as the number of perfons inoculated with cow-pox matter, has increased. The publication therefore of the obfervations contained in the little work before us, and in the ingenious remarks of Mr. Moore, which form the fubject of our next article, will be received with pleafure, as by expofing the faife ground on which the objections to cow-pox inoculation have been founded, they may remove the prejudices, which have been propagated," with too much fuccefs, againit that practice. ART. 27. Remarks on Mr. Birch's Serious Reafons for uniformly objecting to the Practice of Vaccination. By James Moore, Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, in London. 22 p. p. 1s. J. Murray. 18c6. 8vo. It will be needlefs to recapitulate the arguments ufed by this fenfible and fpirited writer, in refutation of Mr. Birch's Serious. Reafons, for objecting to the practice of vaccination. He suppofes, and on good ground, that Mr. Birch inftead of having well weighed, and confidered, all the reafons that have been urged for and against the practice of vaccination, which the title to his book feems to intimate, he has in reality taken very little pains to obtain information on the fubject. This Mr. Moore proves by referring to various parts of Mr. Birch's book. He therefore, in conclufion, advifes him to employ that portion of his time, which he devotes to study, in an attentive application to the works of Dr. Jenner. As foon as he is thoroughly matter of their contents, he will unquestionably," Mr. M. adds, "be prompted by humanity to beftow the benefits of vaccination on fome finiling infant, to preferve it from peril; and if he once begins, his his fuccefs will infallibly lead him to continue the practice. By following this path, he will efcape from the meagre herd of antivaccinifts, and will mix with those refpectable, and useful men, who adorn the fcience of medicine." We do not know whether Mr. Birch will follow this friendly counfel, but we may be allowed to hope, if he should be difpofed to publish any more of his fpeculations on the fubject, that he will fet about it with that seriousness and attention, which its importance to the public demands. ART. 28. Obfervations and Experiments on the Digestive Powers of the Bile in Animals. By Eaglefield Smith. 8vo. 77 P. Longman and Rees, &c. London. 1805. The bile has long been confidered as materially contributing to the completion of the digeftion of our food, and to the forma tion of chyle. The procefs was fuppofed to be begun in the tomach, by the gastric juice, which, from numerous experiments made by Spalauzani and other phyfiologifts, was imagined to act on the food as a folvent. This author, on the contrary, contends, that the food is only moistened and loosened in its texture by the gaftric juice, and fo prepared to admit the folvent power of the bile. The gaftric juice, he obferves, has little either of fmell or tafte, and is fecreted much too fparingly to be capable of diffolving the great mafs of food taken at each meal into the ftomach. The bile, on the contrary, is fecreted in large quantities,' and poffeffes fenfible qualities, obviously fitting it to performs fome important office. It is a perfect animal foap, highly acrid, eafily mifcible with water, and capable of decompofing fat and oily fubftances. But as food, conveyed into the ftomach of various animals, inclofed in tubes, in which were apertures to admit the juices of the ftomach, was found to be digefted, more or lefs, according as it had been retained in that vifcus, a greater or lefs portion of time, this effect has ufually been attributed to the gaftric juice; but this author, and apparently with more reason, fuppofes the erofion, or digeftion of the food, to be effected by a |