should not indeed, on the whole, find any material fault with Mr. Howard's tranflation, except that, the other having been just published before, it appears to be rather fuperfluous. ART. 17. An Elegy on the Demolition of the (two) Leaden Spires of Lincoln Minfter: diftributed in Lincolnshire, as a ChristmasBox, 1807, from the President of the Royal Society. To which is added a Parody, fent in return, as a New-Year's Gift, 1808. 4to. 6s. Hellaby, Bofton. 1808. Almost every stranger who has vifited the beautiful cathedral at Lincoln, for many years paft, has lamented the strangely dif figuring effect of the two weftern fpires. Incongruous, clumsy, ill defigned, and worfe executed, refembling nothing but very ugly extinguishers; they feemed to be the job of fome vile country plumber, in league with the carpenter, to deform the church for their own joint benefit. Yet, ftrange to fay, when tafte interferes to remove thefe long cenfured deformities, perfons are found, who, from a mistaken notion of their antiquity, and a ftill more blundering idea of their beauty, are defirous to have them preferved. These foolish errors feem to have produced an elegy on the demolition of the faid fpires, which fome person of better tafte and judgment has here parodied; printing the parody Aanza for stanza with the elegy. As the parody alone feems to us to speak any reafon, we fhall cite the two firft ftanzas of it. They who admire any kind of deformity, if fuppofed to be ancient, may exercife their wits, if they have any, in gueffing what the original stanzas were. "Adieu,-ye twin fifters, foul fpires, And the work of fome plumber obfcure. Some Purfuer of architectural innovation probably produced, or fuggefted, the elegy here parodied. ART. 18. POLITICS. Prefent State of the British Conftitution; hiftorically illuftrated, by Britannicus. 8vo. 182 pp. 45. Longman and Co. 1807. The mode of illuftration adopted by this author, is certainly the best calculated to imprefs on the mind the various changes which have taken place in the laws and government of this kingdom; and the events which, after many ftruggles, have finally established our prefent Conftitution. It has accordingly been chofen by feveral eminent writers, the refult of whofe la. bours has been fuch as to render the work before us, in a great degree, fuperfluous. Yet although the author cannot claim the merit of much fagacity in research, or novelty of remark, he has perhaps brought the facts which he relates into a narrower and more convenient space, than former works on the same subject will be found to occupy. On this account, his illuftrations may be useful to thofe who have not leifure for the perufal of more elaborate treatifes. Nor have we, throughout the earlier and greater part of this work, any material objection to make to the accuracy of this writer's statements, or the juftnefs of his obfervations. When the political opinions of the present times have not room to operate, he is fufficiently candid; his judgments are impartial, where popular prejudice does not interfere. The firft bias of this kind which we have to notice, is the revival of that vulgar, but now exploded, imputation on Sir Robert Walpole, of holding the opinion, that "every man has his price." If the experience of that able Minifter did not refute fuch a doctrine, his good fenfe would have forbidden the public avowal of it. Much of the political hiftory which follows has no application to the profeffed object of the author, the illuftration of the British Conftitution, and is ftrongly tinctured with the party politics. and prejudices of the day. He is inaccurate in reprefenting the firft Lord Chatham as having fucceeded to the Pelham administra tion, after the commencement of the war of 1756; for Mr. Pelham, the chief of that administration, had died fome years before, and the Miniftry had been, in feveral other refpects, changed. He adopts the illiberal and long fince exploded notion of the continuance of the Earl Bute's influence long after his re fignation (nay, even during the adminiftration of Lord North), an opinion which, we are convinced, was never ferioufly enter. tained by any well informed perfon, however convenient the report may have been found, as a pretext for popular clamour and invective. Confiftently with the politics which this author adopts, he is grofsly unjuft to the character of the great and venerable Earl of Mansfield; a judicial character which is daily rifing in the public opinion (if indeed it have not already attained an unrivalled eminence), and may bid defiance to a thousand fuch affailants as this author. In our own times he is, of course, hoftile to the adminiftration of the late Mr. Pitt, though he affects fome reverence for his memory. In short, we may juftly characterize this tract as containing juft, and, upon the whole, accurate remarks, fo far as they relate to the ancient conftitu tional hiftory of Great Britain; but as deformed by a prejudiced, and often unjust, account of later political events, apparently compiled from party pamphlets and newspapers. Hh z ART, ART. 19. few Obfervations on the prefent State of the Nation, 2s. 6d. Wilkie and Thefe "few Obfervations" (which appear to us to be both numerous and multifarious) glance occafionally at religious topics, but chiefly relate to the fubjects of Politics and Commerce. The prefent war is characterized by the Rev. author as difaftrous throughout its progrefs; and, fpeaking of its motive and principle, he questions whether "The impulfe of angry passions has not been mistaken for earneftnefs in our country's cause? whether the fpirit of pride, hatred, or revenge, may not have occafionally mixed with profeffions of national honour, and propofals for national fecurity ?" We cannot agree in any of these fentiments. To us it does not appear that a war can be termed "difaftrous throughout," in which (though our continental allies have been overcome or overawed) we ourfelves have been uniformly victorious on our own element; a war by which we have not only preferved our independence, but eftablifhed (by the bleffing of God) for ages to come, the pledge of that independence, our maritime fuperiority. Would the author advife us to rifk the lofs of thefe advantages, by following the examples of those wretched nations, whofe fovereigns have (in the revolu tionary phrafe) fraternized with the tyrant of France? Let him afk the King of Spain what he now thinks of that policy, after having given it a complete trial! Neither can we admit that, whatever may be the feelings of fome individuals, "the spirit of pride, hatred, or revenge," can be justly imputed to the nation, which approved the experimental peace of Amiens, and which, before it relinquished that experiment, endured fuch a feries of infults and aggreffions. The writer who fets out with fuch fentiments as thefe (were there no other fymptom of party prejudice in his work), cannot, we think, be deemed an unprejudiced or impartial obferver. But were we even difpofed to coincide with the political opinions of this writer, we fhould object to the declamatory ftyle of his Letter: for while he ftrongly paints the awful fituation in which this country is placed, affailed by fuch a hoft of enemies, he does not point diftinctly to any courfe of proceeding by which peace and fafety may be obtained and fecured. Vindictive measures" (under which term, we prefume, the late Orders of Council are alluded to) are reprobated, as tending, in the author's language, to "pull down the commercial edifice, and bury ourfelves beneath its ruins." The dif cuffion of this fubject would far exceed our limits. We will therefore only remark, that the author does not prove what he afferts; nor when he accufes his countrymen of "violating commercial honour and good faith," by the capture of what he calls "neutral "neutral veffels," has he attempted to fhow that those nations are intitled to the rights of neutrality, whofe governments have fubmitted to the tyrannieal mandates and prohibitions of our enemy. But what fhall we fay to a writer who, not contented with propofing to "divide," as he terms it, "the empire of the fea and land between England and France" (a meafure which, while it confirmed the fubjugation of Europe, would highly endanger our own) ftrongly inclines, if he does not exprefsly recommend "to offer up our code of maritime laws in part of payment of the price of peace?" Where is the fpirit of Englishmen fled, when a writer, of refpectable fituation and character, can mention fuch a fuggeftion in any terms but thofe of reprobation and difdain? The financial difficulties, and the preffure of taxes, arifing from the war, are alfo manifeftly exaggerated by the reverend author. Great as the latter may be upon fome individuals, they are not likely to be much increafed; unless the author's friends, when in power, deceived us in their fcheme of carrying on the war for feveral years, without any material increafe of the public burthens nor is this reprefentation confiftent with the picture. which he afterwards draws (in pages 52 and 53) of the general profperity of Britain. The latter part of this work (which relates chiefly to Commerce and Finance) is, we readily admit, more able, argumentative, and juft. The author differs from a late writer, who has endeavoured to prove that the profperity of our country is wholly independent of Commerce." As the pamphlet in queftion is now under our confideration, we will not in this place difcufs that much agitated queftion. It is, however, treated by this author with ability; and, what agreeably furprifed us, with perfpicuity. This latter portion of his work may perhaps refcue it from the neglect to which the confufed and empty declamations in the preceding part would, in our opinion, have juftly configned it. At the clofe of this letter the author has revived and strongly recommends a plan of finance, proposed by the Bishop of Landaff; namely, that a proportion of our capital fhould be applied to the redemption of the whole, or a confiderable part, of the national debt. As this propofal is not new, we will only add, that we coincide in opinion with those who have deemed it impracticable. ART. 20. The British Cabinet of 1806, or Memoirs of the illuftri ous Perfonages who compofed the late Adminiftration, with Stric tures on their Qualifications as Statesmen. 8vo. 55. Vernor and Hood. 1806. While this work was at the prefs, it pleafed his Majefty to make a change in the adminiftration. The characters are drawn up with great fpirit, and as far as a curfory examination of the contents, enabled us to judge with truth and moderation, Hh 3 ART. MEDICAL. ART. 21. An Account of the Ophthalmia which has appeared in England fince the Return of the British Army from Egypt. By John Vetch, M. D. Member of the Medical Society of Edinburgh, and Affiftant Surgeon to the 54th Foot. 8vo. 142 p. 6s. Longman, Hurft, Rees, and Orme. 1807. ART, 22. Remarks on the Purulent Ophthalmy, which has lately been epidemical in this Country. By James Ware, Surgeon, F.R.S. 8vo. 25. 57 p. Mawman.' 1808. The alarm which prevails refpecting a new and virulent fpecies of ophthalmia has occafioned the publication of the two abovementioned works. As they both treat upon the fame subject, they can with propriety be reviewed and compared together. Dr. Vetch fupports the generally received opinion, that this violent and contagious malady has been imported from Egypt; the proofs of which appear to us fatisfactory: for the disease first attacked our troops when in that country; and the regi ments who continue infected, either were in Egypt themselves, or have lodged in the fame barracks, or have communicated by fome means with the infected troops and hitherto it has spread very little among other claffes of men. Mr. Ware agrees with Dr. Vetch in confidering this a con. tagious difeafe, and in thinking that it proceeds from a fpecific poifon. He ftates, that it is fimilar to the purulent ophthalmia of new-born infants, arifing from fluor albus; or to the ophthal mia of adults which occafionally is excited by the matter of gonorrhea, or gleets. Mr. Ware expreffes himself with an unpleafant ambiguity: he appears to fufpect that the Egyptian ophthalmia is of the fyphilitic kind; yet does not care to commit himself by a frank declaration. It appears to us moft cer tain, that the difeafe in question, which has fpread with fuch malignant violence, is a new contagion here, and cannot be owing to caufes which have long been prevalent throughout Europe. A defcription of the difeafe is given by both authors. That by Dr. Vetch, though first published, is the moft minute and circumftantial. Iammation first attacks the external parts of the eye; it proceeds rapidly, and rifes foon to the highest degree. When unchecked, the tranfparent cornea foon becomes dim, ulcerates, and burfts, and viñon is loft for ever. The number of our brave foldiers, who have been ftruck with total blindness by this dismal malady, is great; though the medical officers of the army appear to have tried every known plan to cure the afflicted, and to ftop the spreading contagion. Dr. Vetch was witness to the inefficacy of the ordinary methods of treating ophthalmia. The antiphlogisticated |