Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

man that is bent double with cramp and rheumatism, is never attacked suddenly, but slowly and insidiously. Yet in all these cases the discerning physician beholds the result as clearly from the first, and be fore a single complaint is uttered, or even felt, as when the mischief has worked itself into maturity.' pp. 106, 7.

We have heard it remarked, that tea is a slow poison,-so slow that it takes from sixty to seventy years to develop its fatal effect on the system. We suspect that the chronic af fections produced by the Tread-mill, will require a period scarcely short of this, in order to their development. It is some satisfaction, however, to find, that they are not of a more formidable nature than those to which the old age of the husbandman is subject. The reformed convict, therefore, when he feels the lumbago tugging at his loins as the sad remembrancer of a twelve month's apprenticeship to the Tread-mill some thirty or forty years before, may console himself that he would have come off no better, had he spent his youthful strength at the plough. Cramps, rheumatisms, and paralysis, are, alas! among the ordinary ills that flesh is heir to; and we seriously doubt whether the Hand-crank mill itself, in its most improved state, will ever present an efficient security against such chronic affections among the labouring classes. If the discerning physician who beholds the result as clearly from the first as any second-sighted seer of the North, can really promise so much for the said crank-mill, we should deprecate its introduction into prisons as, in effect, a bounty upon crime. What are the honest and industrious to be exposed to ruptures, cramps, lumbago, poisoning, in following their respective callings, and shall the only species of labour which presents a security and antidote against all such acute attacks or chronic diseases, be confined to houses of correction? How manifestly must this tend to make gaols and reformatories atractive to the commonalty!?

But are there no chronic affections which the discerning physician sees are likely to be called into action by the labour of the Hand-crank mill? Are there no specific complaints induced by the healthful and vigorous acts of thrusting, pulling, 'heaving, and bearing burdens,' to which the manual labour of the crank-mill is stated to be analogous? How comes Dr. Good to have overlooked this question? The fact is, that apoplexy, hæmoptysis, aneurism of the aorta, the carotid and subclavian arteries, (diseases of a far more dangerous kind,) are more likely to occur in the discipline of the Hand-crank mill, than aneurismal or varicose swellings, or sanguinous discharges in the Treadmill exercise. In the case of consumptive persons,

[ocr errors]

we should deem the latter the safest mode of labour; and ruptures are certainly not less endangered by violent muscular action of the upper limbs, than by the labour of the treadmill. Dr. Good says, that by the rotatory action of the cranks, the prisoner will render his joints more lithe and plastic than ever, and may, perhaps, call many muscles into action, and employ them with ease, whose existence he has never before dreamed of.' The frequent use of the feet is quite as likely to give the performer a knowledge of muscles whose action he never before dreamed of, as the frequent use of the hands: to deny the effect of exercise and habit in the one case, and to insist upon it in the other, is absurd and contradictory. As to the horror in which the Tread-mill is said to be held, those who know any thing of the character of the persons for whose special use it is intended, will sufficiently understand why nine or ten hours' hard labour should be regarded by such persons with dread and dislike, without having recourse to images of terror and torture. Hard labour will never be rendered palatable to those whose idleness has led them into crime, not even by the Hand-crank mill itself. Both modes of discipline may be advantageously employed. Both may become objectionable when pushed to excess. The dispute respecting them seems very much like raising a question as to which is the best exercise, dancing or dumb-bells. Either, we should say, may be hurtful, while both are good in moderation. Sir John Cox Hippisley is too grave a person to dance; it would be natural that he should prefer the dumb-bells. And were he to apply to his physician for his opinion on the subject, Dr. Good would doubtless deprecate as an absurdity, a scheme of exercise in which, while the feet perform all the labour, the hands and the arms are in utter idleness. Dancing, he might say, produces cramp, profuse perspiration, weariness, thirst, endangers snapping the Achilles ⚫ tendon, varicose swellings, and what not. For such tortuous attitudes the limbs were never designed: it is a most unnatural exercise. And what chronic affections such tiptoe mirth' has been the means of developing, is too well known to be insisted on. No; what is wanted is, an exercise that shall call into alternate action different sets of muscles, by the double labour of hand and leg;' if, therefore, a man chooses to dance, let him dance on all fours.

We think the public are much indebted to Sir John and Dr. Good for bringing forward all their ingenious objections. It is most desirable that such a subject should receive a full discussion; and we repeat, that we know no class of men much more useful than the objectors. We respect most highly Sir John's well-meant perseverance, and applaud Dr. Good's inVol. XX. N.S.

2 T

trepidity of opinion. They will, we trust, take our freedom in good part, and give us credit for sincerity when we say, that they have made out the best case they could versus the Treadmill, and if they fail in carrying their point, it is not their fault as counsel. We have done our duty in summing up the evidence, and leave our readers to agree on the verdict.

Art. VIII. Report of the Proceedings of the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, in the Case of Principal M'Farlane. 8vo. pp. 84. Glasgow.

1823.

IN N our last Number, we briefly explained the circumstances of this interesting case, in noticing the Speeches delivered before the Presbytery of Glasgow, on the motion for inducting Dr. M'Farlane into the ministry of the High Church. On the 5th of October, the business came before the Synod, Dr. M'Farlane having appealed against the sentence of the Presbytery; when, after the minutes and other preliminary matter had been gone through, Mr. Patrick Robertson, an advocate from Edinburgh retained on the part of the appellant, opened the proceedings. In a somewhat dexterous speech, he contended, that the Presbytery had nothing to do, when a presentation was laid before them, but admit whosoever was offered to them, being properly qualified,' and that the statute which bound them so to do, prohibited all discussions. He represented them as having defied the General Assembly, and went so far as to affirm, that, were such principles generally acted upon, there would be an end of all law. This language was sufficiently plain, and, one would have thought, not very palatable to the ministers of John Knox's Kirk. But the speech was warmly eulogized by Drs. Taylor and Ranken, the latter of whom warned the court against listening to speeches on the opposite side. There is a great tendency in man,' he said, to take umbrage at the laws as they stand. In fact, it ' is in human nature, to find fault with God himself: "The carnal mind is enmity against God." Thus, politely intimating that, in refusing to induct Dr. M'Farlane, the Presbytery had acted in rebellion against God and man. This was standing up for Divine right and passive obedience with a vengeance; but, as it involved a most scandalous aspersion on the Presbytery, the speaker was very properly called to order by Dr. M'Gill, who, with Mr. Burns and Dr. Chalmers, had signed the official Reply to Dr. M'Farlane's Appeal. After some confusion, occasioned by a sage intimation from a Mr. Fleming, that he who called a person to order, ought to be turned out,

[ocr errors]

which drew down loud and long hisses from the galleries, Dr. Ranken finished his speech. He was followed by a Mr. Lapslie, who taxed the Presbytery with ingratitude to the King, in refusing to induct his Presentee, after the King's family had been so kind to the College of Glasgow. The reverend Gentleman expressed his opinion that the discussion had already been most hurtful to religion. In England,' said he, we all know what dreadful consequences are produced from rash speeches.' And then the said Mr. Lapslie, with great vehemence of gesticulation, suiting the action to the word, invoked the name of God Almighty not very reverently, in venting his hope that the speeches might turn out to good.' In conclusion, the reverend gentleman vindicated himself from being an enemy to the Church of Scotland. 'I,' said he, who opposed the introduction of the organ, shall I be called an enemy of the 'Church of Scotland? I, &c. &c. On the conclusion of this ludicrous tirade, the Moderator called upon the Presbytery for reply. Dr. M'Gill then rose. He shewed that the circumstance on which the whole case rested, had been carefully kept out of view.

It was not because Dr. M'Farlane was without pastoral qualification, but because, from the peculiar circumstance in which he was placed, he was disqualified in hoc statu; and it was for the principle of the thing-from a determination on the part of the Presbytery, to resist the absolute power of patrons in attempting to force Presentees upon them, that the Presbytery had acted.'

The loud cheers from the audience which this manly declaration drew forth, explain the imbecile apprehensions expressed by the preceding speakers, relative to speeches from the other side. Dr. M'Gill's argumentative address will not admit of detached extracts; it is temperate, manly, and eloquent. Dr. Chalmers followed, and boldly maintained the independence of the Presbytery.

If,' said he, the right of presentation be enough, why not put forth the ultimatum of the law? Why send a few of their eloquent pleaders from the Parliament House? Why send one of their best and most talented orators to plead this cause? Why not rather send from the metropolis a party of huzzars from the castle, to bring to order this refractory Presbytery, these refractory ecclesiastics-and perhaps seize a few of the ringleaders?'

'I abominate,' continued he, the paltry and pusillanimous argument that has been put in the learned Advocate's mouth-disrespectful to the king! Why, his majesty well knows, that the Presbytery of Scotland is eminently loyal to his throne-he well knows, that a feeling of deep loyalty is by no means hostile to one of deep religion -and, while all Scotland is looking on, during this painful proceed

ing, his majesty well knows, that while every heart is panting, and every mouth repeating "God bless him!" an equal sensation of devotedness to their religion and its purity, their church and its independence, is actuating all bosoms. (Cheers with difficulty repressed.) The only thing his majesty could feel displeased at, was, that his name should be used as a scare-crow to terrify the Church from doing its duty. It was an attempt to fasten a political odium upon those who supported his side of the question; who thought that pluralities were wrong, but who were as leal-hearted as the learned and honourable Principal could by possibility be. This is a mere bugbear to frighten children. It smells of feudalism all over. Were it known with what fond interest all Scotland is now looking on the discussion before us, and how dearly her people love the Church which is planted among them, sovereignty would smile complacently. The Rev. Dr. concluded by hoping, that the warmth of discussion had not betrayed him into expressions which would hurt the feelings of any gentleman present. pp. 56, 57.

After Mr. Muir had spoken on the same side, Mr. P. Robertson replied; the parties then retired from the bar. Several ministers now shortly delivered their opinion, and Mr. Burns, in conclusion, addressed the Moderator at considerable length. We must make room for the opening and concluding paragraphs of this admirable address:

"Moderator-I am not one of those who entertain fears as to the probable results of such a discussion as the present. I know of no bad effects which have as yet flowed from it, either in regard to the parties more immediately interested, or in regard to the public at large. A great deal has indeed been said by the speakers on the opposite side, about popular clamour' being excited; and we have been told, that the whole population of the west has been kept in a kind of ferment,' or combustion.' It is true, that whatever powerfully affects the public good, or the interests of individuals, must necessarily produce a deep impression on the general feeling, and men must feel strongly, according to their private prepossessions, and the convictions of their conscience and judgment. But, Sir, we live in a free country; and free discussion, on points affecting the best interests of the country, can never be injurious in the end; and all great public measures must be preceded by enlarged freedom of discussion.

"Nor can I see any evil as likely to result from the publication of the sentiments of the different speakers on both sides of the argument. A most extraordinary doctrine has indeed been taught us this evening; that it is illegal, unbecoming, and altogether improper for any member of the inferior courts to allow his sentiments to reach the eye of the public, through the medium of the press, until the supreme court has given its decision on the question. Who ever heard of such a doctrine in the procedure of any court, civil or ecclesiastical? Is is possible to prevent the publication of our sentiments? or would any good end be saved by the attempt to do so? And if they must be

« ForrigeFortsett »