Review of Literature. 
of the bitten really imbibe the virus. And, 
by the way, itis more than probable that 
‘the number would be very considerably 
diminished, if the terror could be super- 
seded, and the imagination kept quiet. 
So, also, in states of atmosphere unques- 
tionably impregnated with malaria, some 
are infected, and others breathe it without 
experiencing the same fatal effects. Both 
parties should remember, that though in- 
stances or examples, according to~ their 
proportionate numbers, are entitled to con- 
sideration in the argument of probabilities, 
yet their negative examples prove nothing : 
aud, in our opinion, the whole issue of 
the investigations has gone no farther yet 
than to a calculation of the probabilities for 
or against contagion. The balance of those 
probabilities is, we confess, very greatly on 
the side of the non-contagionists. However, 
itis no small triumph to the agitators of the 
question, that the discussion has exposed 
and demonstrated the inhumanity, the in- 
efficacy, and the absurdity of many of the 
expedients hitherto adopted, with a view to 
arresting the progress of supposed conta- 
gions ; expedients which there can be no 
doubt have, in many instances, contributed 
“as much to the aggravation of the direful ra- 
vages of the disease, as they have to the 
moral degradation and brutalizing of the hu- 
man character. 
*©We do not speak without weighing the import 
of the words we use, when we affirm that, in the 
whole range of physical and moral agencies, there is 
not one capable of producing in human beings, feel- 
ings and actions of such gross selfishness, and there- 
fore capable of rendering human beings so utterly 
base, as the belief of the common doctrine of conta- 
gion. The history of every epidemic furnishes but 
_too abundant evidence of this truth. ‘* I have seen 
the fears and credulity of many so wrought on,” says 
Dr.Mitchell, speaking even of the ordinary epide- 
‘mics of our own country, ‘‘ that the house where a 
fever patient lay sick was deserted and shunned by 
the very relatives.” ‘‘ These opinions respecting its 
‘contagious nature,” says Dr. Barker, speaking of 
the late epidemics which ravaged Ireland, ‘‘seem to 
have taken complete hold on the minds, even of the 
poorer classes, as appears by the practice so generally 
Sollowed by them of excluding from their families those 
who had sickened with fever.” 
** So convinced were the poor of the disease being 
infectious, that their conduct in many places towards 
itinerants, and, in particular, itinerant beggars, from 
being kind and hospitable, had become stern and 
repulsive; they drove all beggars from their doors, 
‘charging them with being the authors of their great- 
est misfortunes, by spreading disease through the 
country.” The causes whi h produced mendicants 
in frightful numbers, are thus explained by Dr. 
Barker. ‘‘ The better classes were disabled from 
giving employment to the poor: the poor, unable to 
pay their rents, quitted theirtenures, or were ejected 
from them, and assembled in wandering hordes.” 
And yet these are the unhappy beings against whom 
there was such a cruel combination, that ‘ con- 
stables were stationed on the highways to drive them 
away, and prevent them from entering the towns; 
finger-posts were put up in several places, warning 
them off; several catholic clergymen from the altar 
denounced the practice of harbouring them ; and in 
633 
Roscommon, the magistrate, attended by a physi» 
cian and the priests, went through the town and ad- 
monished the people not to harbour them.” During 
the prevalence of epidemic fever in America, we are 
informed, that the instances of ‘* the abandonment 
of the sick, even by parents and children, are often’ 
most horrible.” aI 
Can we rejoice too much in the extend- 
ed agitation of a question, the general evi- 
dence and general reasoning upon which 
have done so much towards the demonstra- 
tion of the absurdity of a large portion, at 
least, of those apprehensions, which thus 
extinguish every feeling of the human heart, 
and worse than brutalize our nature? Nor 
do we withhold our sanction to the cogent 
arguments of the W. R., p. 529, on the 
futility and inconsistency, generally speak~- 
ing, of our existing sanitary regulations ; 
but we cannot, therefore, agree, notwith- 
standing the ‘ demonstrations” of Dr. 
Maclean, in his “ Liverpool lecture,” that 
the Legislature “ must,”’ at least, without 
further eyidence and deliberation —nay, with- 
out preliminary negociation or understand- 
ing with other commercial states, “ repeal 
the remaining part of the quarantine sys- 
 tem.”” 
To-say nothing, that, in reference to 
legislative enactment, this ought not to be 
considered as a question of probabilities, 
but of certainties;—to say nothing upon 
the utter impropriety of balancing, for a 
moment, the trifling forty-days’ inconve- 
nience to a few merchants and ship-owners 
in the delay of removing their bales of 
merchandize from the freighted vessels to 
the warehouses of the owners, or to the mart 
in which they are to be disposed of, against 
even the most remote possibility of importing 
a pestilence that might half-depopulate the 
land—or even against the agitating appre-- 
hension of such a calamity,—let us reflect 
upon the commercial consequences that 
might result from the hasty and insulated 
abolition, on our part, of the existing qua- 
rantine ; which is not the law and usage of 
this country alone, but, under certain modi- 
fications, of all the mercantile nations .of 
Europe—of the world. Should England,. 
therefore, abolish the quarantine, however 
absurd and inefficacious, while the other 
commercial nations are yet unsatisfied of 
the propriety of such abolition: while the 
prejudices of those nations. upon the sub- 
ject still remain—or are politicly kept alive, 
perhaps (as in such case would be probable 
enough): would it not, in all likelihood, 
result as a consequence, that England itself 
would come to be considered as one of the 
countries liable to be a medium for the 
diffusion of pestilence ?—would not a new 
and more popular species of prejudice be 
created and excited against her commerce ? 
would not new, and more effective, restric- 
tions be imposed upon it in foreign ports ? 
would not the envying governments of 
Europe (all sufficiently hostile at heart) 
avail themselves of the specious a 
anc 
