arguments, however, in favour of quarantine are built upon the supposition of its being a contagious malady; consequently the proof that it is not contagious will, we apprehend, in the opinions of reflecting men, be sufficient to do away entirely with the supposed necessity of the present system of vexatious imprisonment, even under any modified or improved form. For with respect to the disease, in its sporadic, endemic and epidemic forms, no one will pretend that the lazzaret can be of use; nor, on the whole, can they be looked upon as safeguards against infection. In the case indeed of those within the cordon, they may, to a certain degree, prevent the chance of coming within the sphere of infection, in individual cases; but, on the other hand, they increase tenfold the chances of infection to those confined in the lazzaret, and by the concentration of plague cases within a limited space, they have a tendency to create a focus of infection, to taint the atmosphere in the vicinity of the lazzaret, and so to propagate the very disease they were intended to repel.

This being premised, we apprehend, by proving that the plague is not contagious, or, if contagious, only slightly so-or, what is the same thing for all practical purposes, improbably contagious-that we shall have satisfactorily disposed of the merits of the quarantine system, even in the opinion of its stanchest advocates.

Now, in the first place, the opinions of all the individuals before alluded to are opposed to the idea of its being contagious. There is indeed one exception, an exception which, if any, may be said to prove the rule; for though his experience was extensive, we find, from his own admission, that the whole course of it tended to controvert his own opinion. When asked if he had witnessed any case of contagion, he answers, no: when questioned more particularly as to the case of sexual intercourse, he answers, no. He had also tested the nature of the disease in his own person, and his personal conspires with his professional experience to stultify his own opinions.

We lay more particular stress upon the opinions of these individuals with respect to the point at present under discussion, because such men, and such men only, have the opportunity of extending their observation over a number of cases sufficiently large to enable them to take a just average; at

the same time that they have every facility afforded them of observing those petty, and in themselves trifling circumstances, upon which the solution of the question depends,-of connecting in short, in each particular case, the links of that chain of circumstances from which alone the power of forming the nice distinction between instances of contagion and instances of infection can be derived.

There is also another circumstance under which these men were placed, which forms the very strongest corroboration of their testimony: they commenced practising on patients who had contracted a disease generally believed to be contagious; in fact, with preconceived notions of its contagious nature. It is therefore possible that inattentive practitioners might, under such circumstances, blindly cherish their old opinions in spite of facts, which, in order to produce their proper effect, required a certain degree of advertency, a certain application of judgement in the observer. It seems however morally impossible that they should ever come to the opposite opinion, except by such a process as the following; by observing, that throughout the course of their own experience, and that of others on whom they could rely, among the whole number of those patients who had come within the sphere of infection, the proportion of those who had been in actual contact with diseased persons was not greater than of those who had merely been exposed to infection.

We challenge then our antagonists to show how any practitioner, already prepossessed in favour of the contagious nature of the malady, could, with any degree of probability, be supposed to arrive at a contrary conclusion, except by the process above described. If however it be granted that this is the foundation of their altered judgement, is not the process, we beg to ask, a truly logical one? are not, in fact, their opinions founded on the strongest argument of which the case will admit ?

We shall next proceed to consider the facts brought forward by Dr. Bowring and Mr. Holroyd tending to substantiate the previous opinions. We must however confess, as we wish to treat the question with perfect fairness, that we do not attach much importance to the instances which are adduced; not indeed that they, either in number, variety

or cogency, fall short of our reasonable expectation of what could be adduced within the compass of two short pamphlets, for they supply us with repeated instances in which those who lived in quarantine contracted the disease; on the other hand, they give the particulars of many cases of continued and repeated contact, where, notwithstanding, the individuals so circumstanced escaped contagion. With regard to the physicians themselves, they supply us with accounts of medical heroism, of which the details are scarcely sufficiently delicate for unprofessional ears; suffice it to say, that in the instances cited they tested the contagious nature of the malady as completely as it could be tested, and yet escaped uninjured.

All these cases, however, are in our opinion open to an objection of considerable weight; in strict argument, they only prove what happened in those particular instances. It is not fair to draw an inference from them in prejudice of the existence of contagion; for what is proved concerning contact in these cases might be proved concerning infection in other cases, and indeed actually is proved in the particular cases adduced, inasmuch as contact necessarily implies proximity. No one however doubts that the plague is infectious, and to a great degree. In order to be of any real value in argument, the cases adduced ought to have comprised a considerable proportion of the whole number of those who escaped infection. On that supposition, if it appeared that as many or nearly as many had resisted both contagion and infection as had escaped the danger of infection alone, then it would have been fair to infer, that contagion either did not exist at all, or, if at all, to a very inconsiderable extent.

Some of the facts however, incidentally adduced, are of a nature sufficiently extended to serve as proofs of the absence of contagion. A case is brought forward of an infirmerian. This individual, whilst suffering from plague, had touched about 200 hospital patients, who from the weakness of their constitutions must have been supposed peculiarly liable to suffer from such contact. None of the patients however actually did catch the disease. This then would have been a remarkable circumstance, even if the plague were only infectious. If however we suppose, according to the received opi

nion, that contact greatly increases the danger, it becomes almost miraculous. Another fact is brought forward. More contagionist-physicians, more who used precautions against coming in contact with their patients, caught the malady, than even of those who ambitiously courted contact in all its forms. It is most singular again, on the supposition of the contagious nature of the malady, that, though several instances are adduced where sexual intercourse did not transmit the disease, the experience of none of the physicians to whom the question was put could supply them with a case of the contrary description. There is another point, which has really an important bearing on the question at issue. These individuals, extensive as their experience undoubtedly has been, and anxious as they evidently were to apply every possible test to the disease, could produce no single instance of the transmission of the disease by inoculation alone, in a case in which there was no room for infection. These facts we take to be of importance, and such as will go a considerable way towards producing conviction in any unprejudiced mind.

In order, however, to relieve what we fear will be by many of our readers considered rather an uninteresting subject, let us glance for one moment at the entertaining account given by Dr. Bowring of the arguments employed by some of the Levantine contagionists: they will serve at the same time to amuse, and to give us some idea upon what slight, unsatisfactory, and even ridiculous grounds, a notion, which has once put itself in tow with popular belief, may maintain its influence: he writes as follows:

"The plague breaks out in a house-the strictest quarantine has been kept. Invention is immediately on the rack to discover how the plague has penetrated. In cases reported to me at Alexandria and Cairo, where it was not pretended that the door had been entered or any communication taken place with the town, the entrance of the plague was thus accounted for. First, in an instance where a very timid person, a contagionist, who was attacked and died of the plague, had shut himself up in his chamber, it was found that his son had for his amusement let up a kite from the roof of the house, and it was supposed that the kite-string had been touched by a bird, which bird was imagined to have come from an infected part of the city: the plague entered the house down the string of the kite, and the son's father became the victim."

There is originality in this. Accounts of birds destroyed by kites are usual: this, however, is the first time within our recollection that we have heard of a bird pouncing upon a kite and then carrying off an old gentleman.

"In another case, where the plague had entered a house kept in the strictest quarantine, a cat had been seen to spring into a basket of clothes, thence to leap into the window of the house in question. It was said, the clothes belonged to some family which probably had the plague; but at all events the cat was the only intruder which had violated the cordon, and was therefore the introducer of the disease.

"In a third instance an Arab girl had hung a shirt out of the window to dry, the plague attacked the house, and I was told there could be no doubt that somebody in passing the street had touched the shirt, and was thus the cause of the introduction of the malady. Often have I heard its introduction attributed to dogs! cats!! rats!!! and even flies!!!!"

Dr. Bowring proceeds to ask, " If the plague be thus introduceable, what quarantine regulations can guard against it?" As this question, in spite of their ingenuity, may prove rather puzzling to the Levantines, we beg leave to suggest one or two expedients. With respect to dogs, nothing can be easier than to put up Pickwickian notices addressed to the animals themselves, warning them not to trespass on the premises in quarantine on pain of prosecution. As again cats are in the habit of intruding when the window is open, we recommend the Levantines to adopt the simple expedient said to have been suggested to a certain noble lord, when he complained of the flies entering when his mouth was open,—viz. to shut the same. With respect to rats, we have still less scruple in dealing with them: they are for the most part Norwegians, and therefore aliens; they are neither an industrious nor indeed honest part of the population; they only contribute to swell the number of the petty depredators, who are too dexterous even for the new police: why not issue a general edict of proscription? that, as they are said to have transported themselves hither of their own accord, they may be transported back again on compulsion. The flies, however, are the most insidious enemies. The Levant, it seems, from Dr. Bowring's account, is plentifully stored with peris, vampires, dgins and ghosts: we apprehend, however, that the Levantines must deeply regret the circumstance, that the more ancient deities, who presided over the destruction of