local causes contributed at least as much to the production of the fever at Gibraltar in 1813 as contagion. Of the remaining sixteen, the majority have absolutely and positively denied the existence of any contagious property in this fever; and the rest have declared their belief that it is not naturally or properly a contagious disease, although several of them are inclined to believe that it may (as they suppose to happen with most other diseases) acquire a contagious property by crowding, filth, &c.'

On this important question of contagion, one circumstance very forcibly strikes us; viz. that those persons who admit its existence still limit it to some particular states of the body, or some peculiar condition of the seasons or of the atmosphere; which very much embarrass our inquiry, and render it extremely difficult to make any observation that may be decisive. This is also essentially a different method of proceeding from that which we pursue with respect to the typhus, and other acknowleged contagious fevers of the more temperate latitudes; where the liability to receive the disease, although much greater at some times than at others, still is merely a difference in degree, and not an absolutely different train of actions. With respect to authority, although it is difficult to reject some testimonies that are brought forwards in favour of the doctrine of contagion, still the mass of evidence is greatly on the contrary side; and the facts adduced by the non-contagionists, though they may be said to be negative, are in reality more direct than those which are alleged on the contrary side of the question. As far as Dr. Bancroft's work is concerned, we will not say that the perusal of it has perfectly convinced us of the truth of his opinion: but we can certainly state that he has defended it very ably, has satisfactorily answered the most powerful arguments of his opponents, and has added many positive proofs of the validity of his own doctrine.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters consist principally of discussions on particular cases in which the yellow fever has occurred, and which have been regarded as proving its contagious nature, or some other point respecting it which Dr. Bancroft is disposed to controvert. The subjects of these chapters are as follow; of the production of yellow fever on board of vessels by the foulness of their holds, with instances of the Regalia transport, and of the Childers and Antelope, ships of war; and an account of the epidemic fever at Sierra Leone, in Africa:' of the epidemic fever in Spain from 1800 to 1804; with an abstract of Dr. Arejula's chapter on its supposed contagious nature;' of the epidemics at Gibraltar from 1804 to 1814, with proofs of its

local

local origin, and non-contagious nature;'-'of the epidemics in Spain from 1810 to 1814; also at Stony-Hill in Jamaica from 1808 to 1816, and in Barbadoes in 1816. All this part, however, we are compelled by want of room to pass over; and we shall only remark concerning it that it displays the same acuteness in detecting the weak points of his opponents, and in taking every advantage of the circumstances which are in his favour, that we have noticed in the author's former chapters.

Dr. Bancroft subjoins to these chapters a few pages under the title of Conclusion; in which he reverts to some of the principal facts and arguments that have been employed, in order to disprove the existence of contagion in the yellow fever. He remarks, and certainly with justice, that the believers in contagionare bound by the laws of evidence, as well as the rules of logic, to prove the affirmative. He then continues;

This indeed has been attempted, particularly by Dr. Pym; but my readers will, I trust, have been convinced that his, and all other, attempts have wholly failed, and that there is not a single diagnostic symptom, or other peculiarity, among all those which have been alledged to give a distinct character to this disease, which is not either illusive, or capable of being applied with equal truth to other forms of marsh or miasmatic fever. With equal justice may we require that those, who assert this supposed form of fever to possess, and to have been imported and propagated by, a contagious power, should prove the affirmative, and both explain and ascertain the time when, and the means or vehicles whereby, as well as the places whence, such importations were made. But all endeavours to do this have only served to betray a lamentable want of truth in the explanations and allegations employed for this purpose. It must have been highly incumbent on those, who contend for such importations, first to establish that the disease actually possessed a contagious quality at the places from which the importations are asserted to have been made; because, without this quality, any importation would have been impossible.'

To suppose the existence of contagion is convenient for those who are too indolent to inquire, or who want the qualifications necessary for accurate discrimination: it is an obvious, easy, and imposing expedient to remove in appearance almost every diffi culty, as it accords with the prejudices and apprehensions of the greater part of mankind, who are prone to believe that all diseases are contagious when they become generally prevalent; and, however erroneous the belief may be, it is often extremely difficult to

prove the contrary, because contagion depends upon a cause or quality not cognizable by the senses.'

An argument or mode of reasoning has been employed in this controversy which is scarcely legitimate: but, as it has been adopted on both sides, it was incumbent on Dr. Bancroft not to pass it over unnoticed: we refer to the moral or po litical effect of the doctrine. The contagionists have attempted to shew that their opinion, although possibly false, is more useful than the contrary idea, prevents much mischief, and can do no harm. D. B., however, warmly opposes this position, and we think points out its futility: the passages in which he insists on this view of the subject are too long for us to quote, but are deserving of a very serious consideration.

We shall sum up our account of this volume in a few words. It is a work of great ability; the author is equally dextrous in refuting his antagonists and in establishing his own opinions; and, if some points yet remain for farther examination, or require a greater body of evidence before they can be regarded as completely established, still his arguments are so cogent that no opponents should assume the contrary hypothesis without pointing out the source of his errors, and manifesting how he has been mistaken in his facts or has deduced a wrong conclusion from them. Any opinion which we thus give in Dr. Bancroft's favour must be regarded as the more material, because we acknowlege that the apparent respectability of Dr. Pym's work, and the opportunity which we conceived he must have had for ascertaining the truth, biassed us very strongly in his favour; and, though we were perfectly aware of some weak points in his publication, yet it altogether made a strong impression on our minds. Our conviction at present is that no discriminative characters have yet been detected by which the yellow, ardent, or Bulam fever can be distinguished from the violent forms of the bilious remittent; that we have no proof of its being contagious; that the human body is liable to more than one attack of it; and that the various epidemics which have occurred in the West Indies, America, and Spain, since the year 1793, are not essentially different from those which appeared before that period.

ART.

ART. VIII. Report from the Select Committee on the Poor-Laws; with the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed July 4. 1817. 8vo. pp. 240. Clement.

.

ART. IX. An Inquiry into the Nature of Benevolence, chiefly with a View to elucidate the Principles of the Poor-Laws, and to show their Immoral Tendency. By J. E. Bicheno, F.L.S. 8vo. pp. 145. 4s. 6d. sewed. Hunter. 1817. ART. X. Considerations on the Poor-Laws, and the Treatment of the Poor; with Suggestions for making the Public Annuitants contributory to their Support. By One of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace. 8vo. pp. 64. Ridgway. 1817. SELDOM, perhaps, has the truth of the old adage, “it is

much easier to find out a fault than to mend one," been more forcibly displayed than in the discussions which, from time to time, but particularly within these few years, have taken place respecting the justice and policy of our system of poor-laws. Many-it may be a majority of those who have entered into this discussion have contented themselves with coming to a conclusion, which, on all subjects, it requires no great portion of time, of labour, or of brains to form, that the whole system is radically defective; - and there they have stopped, forgetting that the whole utile of their lucubrations must be confined to the proposition of something like a radical cure for so radical a disease. This, however, some of them have suggested in the very obvious and sweeping expedient of annihilating all legislative enactments on the subject, and leaving the poor to shift for themselves, or to depend on the casual hand of private charity: but here they have again overlooked one of the most important of the lessons which experience is daily giving to us, that the duty which in theory is incumbent on every body soon becomes in practice the duty of none.

It will tend to simplify our arguments, on this momentous point of political economy, if we clear our ground by inquiring, in the first place, whether mankind are under any obligation, moral or religious, to administer to the wants of such of their fellow-creatures as are not in a situation to provide for their own. That they are not so bound generally, and without limitation, but only on a due and deliberate discrimination of the objects of their charity, has been strenuously maintained by one of the authors before us; and, in support of his own views of the nature of benevolence, as applicable to the principles of the poor-laws, he has entered into the examination and refutation of the four following propositions, on the affirmative of which he conceives (we

12

shall

shall not pause to examine how correctly) those principles entirely rest.

I. Almsgiving is an absolute duty, without regard to the character of its objects.

II. Every human being, unable to labour, has a right to

sustenance.

III. Every human being, able and willing to labour, has a right to receive employment, or the wages of labour.

IV. and lastly. The virtue of charity is capable of being enforced by legislative authority.'

On examining the validity of his objections to these positions, it is not necessary for us to follow Mr. Bicheno through his elaborate investigation of the principle of benevolence, as exhibited under its different modifications of mercy, pity, compassion, commiseration, condolence, &c. Nor do we mean to dispute with him the truth of his proposition that the species of charitable relief, which has for its primary object the improvement of the mind or the correction of the vices of our fellow-creatures, ranks infinitely higher in the scale of utility and duty, than those which apply themselves solely or principally to the removal or mitigation of their bodily, sufferings. We will even go farther, and freely concede to him that, in the distribution of our alms, it is our bounden duty to exercise the best discrimination which the emergency of the case will admit : - yet will the position for which he contends remain precisely as untenable as it was before. For the illustration of our argument, let us suppose the case of two objects, the one worthy and the other unworthy of encouragement, presenting their claims to our assistance at a time when we have the means of relieving only one of them. Here we are required to exercise that discrimination, which would unquestionably direct us to give the preference to the worthier object: this is a duty which every principle of reason and of common sense points out: but would any man seriously contend that, where we had the means of relieving the necessities of both these applicants, supposing those necessities to be alike urgent, we should be justified in giving a double share to the one, and in leaving the other to perish from want because he was less deserving of our bounty? Yet this line of conduct would be the practical result of the principles maintained in the pamphlet in question.

We will next suppose that the worthless object is alone soliciting onr assistance, and is a profligate wretch who has again and again abused our bounty to pander to his own base appetites, and of whose amendment we have no longer REV. MAY, 1818. a hope:

F