509 
this meafure, the foldier was xot defrauded, 
as the Reviewer has thought fit to infinu- 
ate 5 as it made no difference, in’ point of 
fact, whether, in making his purchafes, 
he had to offer three of thofe penizy pieces, 
ora filver fixpence. So much, indeed, 
had experience convinced the cclonifts of 
the general utility refulting trom the Eng- 
lith having raifed the denomination of the 
currency, which the Reviewer condeicends 
to inform his readers is the proper lan- 
guage of political economy, that the pie- 
fent Dutch government requefted the cop- 
per-money might not be withdrawn from 
circulation on the furrender of the colony 
—and it was not withdrawn accordingly. 
They felt the advantage of being abie to 
purchafe a loaf of bread for two-pence, 
in preference to their being obliged to teke 
three loaves, which might be more than 
they could confume, for fixpence. I hope 
he is now fatisfied that government did 
profit by this tranfadtion, and that there 
was no unfairne(s in it, of which he ap- 
pears to be very fufpicious. 
- The fourth article is fo clear as to re- 
quire no explanation ; yet as it feems to be 
100 abfjurd tor the Edinburgh Reviewer, I 
would advife bim to lock up in his drawer, 
for feven years, the fir hundred pounds ke 
can {pare out of the profits of his labours, 
and place another hundred pounds out at 
intereft. At the end of this period he 
will have learned, from experience, which 
of the two modes is the molt profitable ; 
and that, while be purfues his fpeculative 
notions on political, it may not be amifs 
for him to pay fome attention to pradical, 
economy. 
Whether the explanation I have here 
given was neceflary to thofe who have ho- 
noured my publication with their perufal, 
I fhall not pretend to decide ; much lets 
to guefs at the motives which prevailed 
with the writer in the Edinbargn Review 
to pervert the meaning of fimple fadis, 
ftated, as I fill think, fuficiently ec!ear to 
be underfiocd by ail thofe who had not 
predetermined to put a faife conftruétion 
upon them. An obfervation made by 
this Reviewer, or by one of his brethren, 
on another occafion, will fhew, at leat, 
their fentiments on fuch occafions: ‘ In 
the cafe of an ancnymous writer we have 
not that fort of security againft mifate- 
ments which we enjoy where any one 
pleads a caufe iz propria perfona. An 
anonymous writer does net always coll- 
fider himfelf as anfwerable for the accu 
racy of his allegations and facts.” —Ex 
Iam, &c. 
pede Herculem! 
joun Barrow, 
« 
Mr. Addington on Vaccination 
[Jan T, 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
bi ie reports from different quarters: 
of perfoas having been afflicted with 
fmall pox after they had been fuppofed to 
have been rendered fecure from its attack 
by means of vaccine inoculation, have late-* 
ly excited in the public mind no inconfider- 
able degree of zlarm and anxiety. On this 
occafion it becomes defirable that fome ac- 
count cf the circumftances on which {uch 
reports are founded fhould be given to the 
public, through the moft eftablifhed and 
extenfive channels of general intelligence ; 
for whilit thefe reports are continuaily cir- 
culated in the daily newfpapers, opportuni- 
ties are afforded for two forts of mifre- 
prefentation, of which it is, perhaps, dif- 
ficult to point out the mof injurious. On 
the one hand, the zealous but injudicious 
friends of vaccination are fo eager to re- 
fute the opinions of thofe who entertain 
diferent views of the fubje& from them- 
felves, that they publifh to the world as 
-acknowledged faéts, thofe reprefentations 
which are haftily taken up more in com- 
pliance with their wifhes than their jude- 
ment: or whatis ftill worfe, they treat with 
a mof unbecoming illiberality, no* to fay 
abufe, thofe who have contributed to the 
difcuffion, by the communication of cafes 
which the writers confidered too important 
to the public welfare to be paffed over in 
filence. One author hasnot only been re- 
prefented as ignorant and prejudiced, but 
the moft unworthy and difingenuous mo- 
tives have been attributed to him, and his 
produétion ftigmatized as a ‘* poifonous 
and pernicious pamphlet,’ and I know 
not what befides. Such conduét is not lefs : 
difhonourable in itfelf, than injurious to 
the caufe it is intended to promote ; and 
Vaccination, if you willallow it to be per- 
fonified, may, on this occafion, exclaim 
with a fagacious obferver, ** Save me from 
my friends; I will take care of my enemies 
myfelf.”” 
Non tal: auxilio, nec defenforibus iftis, &c. 
On the other hand, fome who moft un- 
accountably, and in oppofition to the 
firongeft evidence, have retained their pre- 
judices againit a difeovery which, to fay 
the leat of it, promifes the moft important 
benefits to mankind, have feized, with a 
mof unbecoming avidity, on a few cafes 
whofe precife nature was yet undetermined, 
to found upon them a reprefentation of 
the whole fubject, tending, as far as it is 
believed, to deftroy the confidence with 
which Vaccine Inoculation has already 
been’ fo extenfively received, and which 
it has fo amply juftified and Ee. 
OQ 
