mander in chief, who amid such arduous circumstances could preserve his own authority, and finally establish the triumph of his country.

Since the date of my last, we have had the virtue and patience of the army put to the severest trial. Sometimes it has been five or six days together without bread; at other times, as many days without meat; and once or twice, two or three days, without either. I hardly thought it possible at one period, that we should be able to keep it together, nor could it have been done, but for the exertions of the magistrates in the several counties of this state, on whom I was obliged to call, expose our situation to them, and inplain terms declare that we were reduced to the alternative of disbanding or catering for ourselves, unless the inhabitants would afford us their aid. I allotted to each county a certain proportion of flour or grain, and a certain number of cattle, to be delivered on certain days, and for the honour of the magistrates, and good disposition of the people, I must add, that my requisitions were punctually complied with, and in many counties exceeded. Nothing but this great exertion could have saved the army from dissolution or starving, as we were bereft of every hope from the commissaries. At one time, the soldiers eat every kind of horse food but hay. Buck wheat, common wheat, rye, and Indian corn composed the meal which made their bread. As an army they bore it with the most heroic patience; but sufferings like these, accompanied with the want of clothes, blankets, &c. will produce frequent desertion in all armies, and so it happened with us, though it did not excite a single mutiny.'

In 1780 a considerable French force under Count de Rochambeau was sent to the assistance of the Americans, but the wretched state of the republican army prevented, for a time, any effectual co-operation with their new allies. The orders of congress were very little regarded by the thirteen provinces, who exercised a sort of independent sovereignty, and paid no farther obedience to the central government than seemed to suit their convenience or was agreeable to their inclinations. No plan had yet been adopted for placing the army on a permanent footing; the soldiers were inlisted only for a short period, and the majority who returned home were -obliged to be replaced by new levies at the end of the year.

I hoped,' says Washington in the year 1780, but I hoped in vain that a prospect was opening which would enable me to fix a period to my military pursuits, and restore me to domestic life. But alas! these prospects flattering as they were have proved delusory.'

The treachery of Arnold was fortunately detected or it would probably have proved fatal to the cause of American independence. When André was taken prisoner,

'Arnold had the presumption to write a threatening letter to General Washington on the subject. The general deigned not to answer his letter, but he conveyed to him his wife and his baggage. The merits and the fate of André gave a darker shade to, the baseness and treachery of Arnold, and he became an object of public detestation and abhorrence. 26 André," observed General Washington in a letter to a friend, "has met his fate with that fortitude which was to be expected from an accomplished man and gallant officer; but I am mistaken if at this time Arnold is undergoing the torments of a mental hell. He wants feeling: from some traits of his character, which have lately come to my knowledge, he seems to have been so hackneyed in crime, so lost to all sense of honour and shame, that while his faculties still enable him to continue his sordid pursuits, there will be no time for remorse.'

Arnold was the only American officer who, during the war, deserted his banners, and turned his sword against his country.

In 1780, congress, instructed by experience and incited by the repeated remonstrances of the commander in chief,came to the determination of adopting a permanent military establishment. But notwithstanding this the state of the army was one of aggravated wretchedness in the winter of 1781. They were almost destitute of clothing and provisions, and they had remained almost a year without pay.

Without marmuring,' says the author, they long endured their accumulated distresses. But the fortitude of the firmest men may be worn down. Disheartened by their sufferings, despairing of relief, and dissatisfied, that their country did not make more effectual exertions for their support, the spirit of mutiny broke out with alarming appearances.

The Pennsylvania line stationed at Morristown, with the exception of three regiments revolted. On a concerted signal, the noncommissioned officers and privates turned out with their arms, and announced the design of marching to the seat of congress, there to demand a redress of their intolerable grievances. The mutiny defied opposition. In the attempt to quell it, one officer was killed, and several dangerously wounded. General Wayne, in a threatening attitude, drew his pistol, the mutineers présented their bayonets to his breast and said, "General, we love and respect you, but if you fire, you are a dead man. We are not going to the enemy, on the contrary if they were now to come out, you should see us fight under your orders with as much alacrity as ever; but we will no longer be amused, we are determined on obtaining what is our just due."

(To be continued in our next)

ART. IX.-Remarks on the Frequency and Fatality of different Diseases, particularly on the progressive Increase of Consumption: with Observations on the Influence of the Seasons on Mortality. By William Woolcombe, M. D. 8vo. Longman. 1808.

IS it a fact, that consumption, which is deemed the scourge of the British isles, is progressively on the increase? This has been strongly insisted upon by Dr. Heberden in his work on the increase and decrease of diseases, founded upon obser vations taken principally from the London bills of mortality. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the total annual mortality being estimated at 21,000, Dr. Heberden has stated the deaths from consumption at 3000, or in the proportion of 1 to 7; in the middle of the century at 4,000, or as 1 to 5.25; and at the end at 5,000, or as 1 to 42.

Dr. Woolcombe remarks that two objections occur to the increase of the relative mortality, as a measure of the real increase of consumptive mortality.

First it may be said, that the increase of consumption within the bills of mortality is no proof of its general increase in the kingdom at large; since this may be attributed to the operation of local causes; and, secondly, it may be stated, that an increase in the proportion of mortality from one disease to the whole mortality, is no proof of its absolute increase; since the apparent augmentations in the former may have arisen from a real reduction of the latter.'

To the first of these objections Dr. W. answers that there are no obvious changes which have taken place in the circumstances of the metropolis, to which this increase can be attributed; it is therefore probable that the variation of proportion which is found to take place in London, may be applied as a measure of increase and decrease to the whole kingdom. The local improvement in the metropolis has probably contributed largely to its general salubrity, and it seems improbable, at first view at least, that this circumstance should occasion an increase of mortality from one disease, and a diminution from all others. Dr. Woolcombe cites the register kept at Holycross and at Ackworth, in confirmation of the evidence of London bills of mortality. In the first the mortality from consumption was nearly doubled in the space of ten years in a small parish, where both the population and the general mortality was nearly invariable. At Ackworth there was an increase of oneeighth in ten years. But we think that in these observations,

the scale of observation was too confined to authorise any general conclusions. In calculations of this nature either very large numbers should be made use of, or if the registers of small parishes be referred to, at least it is requisite to establish an uniformity in a great variety of examples. But, secondly, is not the increase of consumptive mortality merely apparent, arising from a decrease in the general mortality? This is certainly possible. Let us assume that at the end of the eighteenth century the average mortality amounted to 1 in 40. It may be made to appear from an easy arithmetical calculation, that if we suppose there to have been no absolute increase of consumption, the general mortality in 1700 would have been 1 in 27 nearly.

'It is obvious,' observes Dr. W. that no such proportions of deaths as has been stated in these two instances, could have happened without such a corresponding augmentation in the population of the country, as is known not to have occurred, and is altogether extravagent to suppose.'

The following statement gives a frightful account of the ravages of this disease:

'From an examination of two parts of the sixth table it appears, that during the last half century the proportion of consumption to general mortality has been as 1 to 4.2. But as the consumptive mortality may be comparatively less in the country than in town, from which the grounds of the calculation have been chiefly derived, to avoid exaggerations let the proportion for the kingdom at large be stated to be as 1 to 5. If this be admitted as just, and if it be granted that the annual mortality is to the population as 1 to 40; while it is ascertained that the inhabitants of Great Britain amount to eleven millions, it will be found that the annual victims to consumption in this island are not less than fifty-five thousand per

sons.'

'It is a matter of some importance to ascertain how far the. southern parts of this island are exempted from the disease. On this head Dr. Woolcombe, who is resident at Plymouth, is competent to give very satisfactory testimony. To his work he has prefixed a table of the cases treated at the Plymouth public dispensary for seven years nearly. It appears that at this place the proportion of consumptive mortality is to the whole as 1 to 4.28. The phthisical mortality at Plymouth, it is said, has been of late years nearly one fourth less than in London and less by nearly one half than in Bristol. This last fact is, if true, very extraordinary. But may there not be an error in the construction of the tables? Dr. W. uses his own, in which we presume that he was very

careful to limit the term to genuine cases of phthisis pulmonalis. Had he consulted only parish registers, in which it must be presumed that most cases attended with great emaciation are denominated consumption, probably the difference would have been much less.

The evidence then in favour of the southern part of our island is very feeble. Nor do we believe that in fact any change of climate has the power of stopping the ravages of this insidious and cruel foe. But we cannot blame physicians for recommending the trial. Patients under the sufferings of a chronic and intractable disorder are restless; and their friends still more so. We are persuaded also that by removing to a comparatively mild atmosphere the disease is attended with less suffering, particularly from chills and fever. We once remarked this very strongly in the case of a lady, who lived the last months of her life in a cow. house. The disease went on uniformly to its fatal termination, as in other cases. But she almost entirely avoided rigour, and fever fits; and the uniform, tepid, and bland atmosphere was singularly agreeable and soothing.

On the causes of the increase of consumption Dr. W. does not offer a conjecture. If it be true (as indeed it seems probable) that at the same time the proportion of deaths to the whole population is diminished, or in other words that the country is become on the whole more healthy, we have little hesitation in asserting that the two phenomena are connected together as cause and effect. This may at first sight seem paradoxical. But let us suppose for a moment small-pox and all the contagious fevers, which cut off annually such multitudes absolutely annihilated. There would necessarily remain more victims of chronic diseases, the most common of which is pulmonary consumption. To determine the question, the first step is to ascertain to what is owing the improvement of the healthiness of the country. It is probably not the effect of any single cause. The improvement of agriculture, and the cleansing and widening of cities may have had much influence. We suspect too that the extended cultivation and universal use of potatoes has been very sensibly felt. We will not so far contradict the common opinion as to assert that vegetable food imparts as much strength as animal, though we suspect that this, like many other popular opinions is founded partly on prejudice, but it cannot be doubted, that those who are supported principally upon vegetables are less liable to fevers, and that fevers in such subjects are less fatal.

Dr. W. at p. 91, asserts that fevers are excluded from the London hospitals. In this he is mistaken. We believe most