every British legislator: while the Irish representatives will inform and guide the legislature, in the best means of improving the local and peculiar advantages of the country. The temper of a legislature which, by its local and moral situation, will be removed from the initation of little passions, will more wisely consult the peace and welfare of the people, than one whose contiguity to scenes of outrage and disorder, the result of religious and political animosity, must sometimes give to their measures the colour of resentment, of revenge, or of jealousy. The executive power, at the same time, will be rendered more strong by being made more simple.

In shewing that an union would impart to Ireland considerable advantages in point of commerce and manufactures, Mr. D. displays a great fund of extensive information. Among a

variety of other interesting matter, we find here what seems a full refutation of the doctrine that a compact exists between this country and Ireland, on the subject of the linen manufacture. If such a compact did exist, Mr. Douglas shews that it was dissolved by an act of the Irish parliament itself. This is a favourite topic with Mr. Foster, and it is not the only posi tion of that gentleman which Mr. D. attempts (and, we think, successfully) to refute. He at least makes it highly probable that the increased prosperity of Ireland, since the year 1782, did not arise exclusively from the arrangements which were then made, but from the operation of collateral causes ;-and he labours to prove, (somewhat indeed on special-pleading principles,) that the right then asserted by Ireland to have a parliament of its own-its sole legislature-is perfectly consistent with the incorporation of the two legislatures. Under this head of his argument, Mr. Douglas lays down some very interesting positions, the direct contrary of which have been zealously asserted by Mr. Foster and other Irish antiunionists. Such, for instance, is that which asserts that Ireland possesses, or will acquire after an union, equal advantages for carrying on the pottery, and the iron trade, with Great Britain herself; and that the superior advantages, supposed to be possessed by England in regard to fuel for manufactures, either do not really exist, or, if they do, give her much less advantage over Ireland than is commonly believed.

Of the advantages which an union may produce to the sister country in respect to Morals and Civilization, the picture here drawn is very flattering: but of future events, which are to depend on the probable operation of untried causes, where shall we look for a faithful description? We wish and hope that án union will introduce, as Mr. D. promises, settled habits of morality and true religion, in the room of the blind supersti

N 2

tion

tion and fanatical rage now too commonly to be found among the different sects in that country;-an uniform submission to law;-and that which is essential to the attainment of those great ends, the mitigation and gradual extinction of the spirit of disturbance, insurrection, devastation, plunder,. and massacre, which has prevailed among the Irish peasantry, with more or less violence, but almost without intermission, as far back as we can trace their authentic history:' but to those who know how pertinaciously national habits are retained, it will probably appear a very sanguine speculation, to expect the extinction of such vices as these, and the introduction of the opposite virtues, from the slow and doubtful operation of a new legislative arrangement. The bare probability, however, of an approach to this happy change, may alone perhaps warrant the experiment.

Mr. D. endeavours to prove that, notwithstanding the opposition at first made to an union, the majority of the Irish people are not adverse to it :-but, granting that they were, he insinuates that the administration should yet press the measure, if persuaded of its wisdom. It was,' says he, by virtue of the manly and steady disregard with which the administration of 1707 treated the hostility and violence of the Scotch opposition to an union, that one of the most fortunate political transactions recorded in the annals of the world, was brought to a happy conclusion.' We cannot agree with Mr. D. in the general sentiment which he adduces this fact to support;we rather adopt that other maxim of his to which we have already alluded;-namely, that the representative (and we think also the minister of a nation) does not perform his duty, nor consult the true interests of his country, who does not pay a respectful attention to the opinions of his constituents, and those which prevail in general among the different classes of his fellow subjects;'-and that this predominant sentiment will be in most cases the best and most prudent guide to follow.'

Having considered the advantages which are likely to result to Ireland from an incorporation of the two legislatures, Mr. Douglas proceeds to inquire what inconveniencies may result from it to Great Britain. This is a very delicate part of the subject, and which Mr. D. very delicately treats. He touches it with a light hand, and certainly does not fully answer the objections which have been made on this head. He reckons three instances, in which it is supposed that this country would suffer by an union. The first, the removal of capital; which he answers by shewing that there is a great redundance of capital here, and which (he says) may be without injury employed

in Ireland :-but is it not a question, whether, if a large redundance of capital be employed in Ireland, it must not, as far as it goes, raise a competition in manufactures; and, if the interests of the two countries be considered distinct, (as the objection, with Mr. D.'s mode of answering it, evidently considers them,) must not that be a considerable inconvenience?

Two other evils which Mr. D. enumerates are, one, the possible inconvenience which may follow from the House of Commons becoming too numerous, and therefore probably tumultuary, by the addition of 100 members to the existing number:-the other (which we certainly have never heard mentioned, nor could we believe at this time of day that any Englishman would seriously utter it) is, that the habits and turn of the Irish representatives were likely to lower the standard (as it were) of British representation :-that they would corrupt and contaminate the whole mass.' We should have thought that Mr.Douglas would have noticed such a remark only with the smile of contempt; and we are sorry that he has deemed it deserving of a serious answer. It would have been more worthy of his talents, perhaps, to reply to a very serious quere which is very commonly made on this subject, but which he passes in silence; viz. whether the introduction of one hundred Irish members into the British House of Commons, most of whom will in all probability be favourable to ministerial measures, will not throw such weight into the scale of influence, even now scarcely equipoised, as will give a preponderance in favour of the executive power, that may be fatal to the British constitution?

We have dwelt thus long on this article, because the subject is certainly of the last importance to both countries; and because the character of the author, and the intrinsic merit of the work, entitle it to a great degree of consideration. and respect. We reckon it among the best productions on the subject of a legislative union; and we deem it the most able answer that has yet been given to the ingenious arguments of the speaker of the Irish House of Commons.

ART. VIII. Biographia Medica; or Historical and critical Memoirs of the Lives and Writings of the most eminent Medical Characters that have existed, from the earliest Account of Time to the present Period; with a Catalogue of their Literary Productions. By Benjamin Hutchinson, Member of the Medical Society of London, of the Physical Society of Guy's Hospital, and of the London Company of Surgeons. 8vo. 2 Vols. pp. 510, and 546. 16s. Boards. Johnson. 1799.

WE

E have seldom experienced a greater disappointment than on taking up this compilement. From the critical reading

N 3

reading promised in the title-page, which the history of literary physicians would furnish in ample store, we flattered our expectations with much pleasure and information:-but, after having examined the work, we are forced to observe that we have never met with more meagre and unsatisfactory details. This defect seems to have proceeded, in some measure, from the compiler's solicitude to introduce as many personages as possible into his work but he ought either to have enlarged his limits, or to have shortened his catalogue. As the title announces a selection of characters, he could be under no obligation to notice any names which might not be rendered the vehicles of interesting narrative or remark. There is less apology to be made for this indiscriminate accumulation, as most of the articles are copied, or rather abridged, from former biographical works; and the compiler himself, after his introductory bow to the reader, scarcely makes his appearance in the course of two sizeable volumes.

In the biographical part, we observe great inattention to dates; which is an unpardonable omission in the slight, detached notices that constitute the account of each individual. As to criticisms, we have looked diligently through these valumes, without being able to discover any considerable number. With all its defects, however, this publication will prove interesting to young persons, just entering on the study of medicine; though they may find occasion to wish that the editor had given fuller details respecting the progress of opinions, and the rise of improvements.

In the very short account of the life of Hewson, we were surprised that no mention was made of his discoveries. We shall transcribe this unsatisfactory sketch, partly to support the censure which we have passed on some portions of this work, but chiefly for the sake of the admirable letter from Mrs. Hewson which it contains, and which none of our readers can peruse without sensibility.

Of the life of this very ingenious anatomist, no account had been printed, till Dr. Hahn, professor of physic in the university of Leyden, prefixed some anecdotes of him to a Latin translation of his works, published in that city. These anecdotes are contained in the following letter, with which Mr. Hewson's widow favoured Dr. Simmons, in reply to one addressed to her at the suggestion of the late truly ingenious Mr. Henry Watson, F. R. S. and surgeon to the Westminster infirmary. This letter Dr. Simmons transmitted to Dr. Hahn, who has given it entire in a Latin translation, and it affords so affectionate and just a tribute to the memory of Mr. Hewson, that our readers will be pleased to see it preserved here in its original form.

"Sir,

"I should think myself bound to grant any request introduced with Mr. Watson's name; but that which you make in the letter I received yesterday, needed no such introduction. A tribute paid to the memory of Mr. Hewson, is highly gratifying to me, and I can have no employment that will give me more satisfaction than that of assisting in any degree to the spreading of his fame. Mr. Hewson was born at Hexham in Northumberland, on the 14th of November, O. S. 1739. He received the rudiments of his education at a grammar-school in that town, under the Rev. Mr. Browne. His father was a surgeon and apothecary in the place, and much respected in that neighbourhood. With him Mr. Hewson acquired his first medical knowledge; being ambitious to increase that knowledge, he placed himself first under an eminent surgeon in Newcastle (Mr. Lambert), and afterwards resided for some time at London, Edinburgh, and Paris. His subsequent acquirements are sufficient to prove, that he visited those places with a true love of science, and desire of attaining eminence in his profession.

"I became acquainted with him in the year 1768. He was at that time in partnership with Dr. Hunter. Some similarity in our dispositions created a mutual esteem, and the equality of our situ ations made our union desirable in point of prudence. I had five months the start of him in age, no pretensions to beauty, nor any splendid fortune; yet I believe he was satisfied with the choice he made. We were married July 10, 1770. I brought him two sons. The elder was just three years old when Mr. Hewson died, which was on the first of May 1774, and I was delivered of a daughter on the 9th of August following. His last moments of recollection were embittered by the idea of leaving me with three children, but scantily provided for. The trial of my fortitude was different; the loss of affluence I did not feel for myself, and I thought I could bring up my children not to want it. However, by the death of an aunt, who left me her fortune, I became reinstated in easy circumstances, and am enabled to give a liberal education to my children, who I hope will prove worthy of the stock from which they grew, and do honour to the name of Hewson. Mr. Hewson's mother is still living at Hexham, and has one daughter, the youngest and only remaining child of eleven. His father died in 1767, and having had so large a family, it will be readily supposed he could not give much to his son, so that Mr. Hewson's advancement in life was owing to his own industry. A better son and husband, or a fonder father than Mr. Hewson, never existed. He was honoured with the friend ship of many respectable persons now living, and the late Sir John Pringle shewed him singular marks of regard.

"Mr. Hewson's manners were gentle and engaging; his ambition was free from ostentation; his prudence was without meanness, and he was more covetous of fame than of fortune. You will, I trust, readily forgive me, if I have been more prolix than you desired. It would be no easy matter for me to relate bare facts, without some comment, upon such a subject.

"I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, Kensington, Aug. 30, 1782. MARY HEWSON.” N4 •To