When I had the honor of being appointed Professor of Anatomy and Surgery to the Royal College of Surgeons, I began my lectures, for reasons which I have fully explained in them, with an account of what I believed were Mr. Hunter's opinions respecting life; and to me, it would have seemed wise in the opposite party, to have suffered these lectures gradually to have sunk into oblivion. On the contrary, however, the opinions which I had promulgated were said to be absurd and untenable, and even ridiculed by a writer in the Edinburgh Review. When, af terwards, Mr. Lawrence began to lecture at the College, he adopted the same line of conduct; nor were his hostile and taunting expressions confined, as he says, to his first lectures. The theme of his exultation and raillery was introduced to enliven many others. In the published lectures will be found a varnished character of myself, in which, however, I clearly distinguish one truth, that of having always acted as his zealous friend; and surely the recollection of such conduct would have induced a generous mind to have glossed over also what it might have considered as my defects. When I heard those lectures, I told Mr. Lawrence, (for I had always spoken my sentiments to him with candor,) that he seemed, to me to have done a very foolish thing in attacking my opinions in a place where I felt obliged to defend them; and added, even the consideration of the impropriety of two professors in the same establishment differing with one another, ought to have restrained him. In my next lectures, which were designed more fully to explain Mr. Hunter's opinions, by showing to them very uncommon, may be useful in the general consideration of this subject. When I first attended St. Bartholomew's Hospital, one of the old surgeons was a most benevolent man, whom all the patients loved. There was a little boy of five years old, whom this surgeon was to cut for the stone. The boy complained loudly, and struggled much, during the introduction of an instrument, which was but a preparatory step to the operation. The old man patted the child on the cheek and said, "You know, my good little boy, that I would not hurt you if I could help it."-" I know it, Sir," said the child," and I will cry no more." He underwent a severe and tedious operation. flis teeth were clinched, his lips were working, yet no sound was heard. A few weeks ago, an emaciated and very sickly child of seven years hold was sent into the hospital to have a diseased knee removed. The case was indeed hopeless. When the little patient had become familiar with this new abode and attendants, and certain circumstances known with respect to his health which it was proper should be ascertained, I said to the child, for I knew not whether he had been apprised of his doom, "I suppose, my little fellow, that you would not mind having this knee removed, which has pained you so much, and made you so very ill."—"Oh, no,” replied he, " for mammy has told me that I ought." At the time of the operation he manifested neither hesitation nor opposition, nor did the voice of complaint issue from his lips.

the manner in which he had deduced them from the consideration of all the vital processes, I carefully concealed Mr. Lawrence from public view, by arguing against a party, by contending against opinions and not against persons: nor did I ever mention his name or words but in order to induce others to suppose that we did not differ in sentiments. The sentence to which I allude ran thus : "Comparative anatomy, also, as my brother professor very judiciously observed in his introductory lectures, furnishes abundant arguments to the natural theologian, by the evidences it affords of design, and of the adaptation of means to ends." When, however, I perceived that he was hurt by these lectures, I assured him that I did not mean personally to allude to him; and after consideration added, neither could I conceive how he could suppose that I did, unless indeed by identifying himself with those writers from whose works he had copied. I offered also to expunge the sentence above quoted. He replied, "No; I do not object to it you may do as you please." I therefore inserted the words without naming the author. Is it then generous in Mr. Lawrence to say, "that the quotation of his own words rendered it impossible for him to shield himself under the pretext of uncertainty," or to suggest that my lectures (which were excited as an act of self-defence) were meant chiefly as an attack upon his conduct and character? Is it becoming in Mr. Lawrence to hold me forth to public view as one blinded by national pre judice to the merits of persons of other countries? On the contrary, I consider all mankind as brethren, yet all brothers have not the same sentiments and dispositions. The sons of science may more particularly be regarded as of one family, and their residence in different countries cannot annul their fraternity. Yet surely it is allowable in me to suppose that the notions of our brother physiologists in France may have been influenced by the state of public opinion in that country. I am aware that what I have termed modern scepticism arose in a great degree from good feelings; from an abhorrence of the dreadful consequences of superstition and bigotry, and of those of tyrannical restriction and oppression. Yet in recoiling from one kind of error, the party seem to me to have run into an opposite one, and to have equally deviated from the mid-way path, which is trodden only by the unprejudiced and considerate. With respect to the subject of nationality, however, I wish to submit a sentence, which I remember to have heard in Mr. Coleridge's lectures, to Mr. Lawrence's consideration. There can be no sincere cosmopolitan, who is not also a patriot. Is it becoming likewise in Mr. Lawrence to point out what he considers as the weak parts of my lectures to general observation? Fortunately for me, indeed, he

is not to be my judge; for he is strongly prejudiced, and evidently angry the members of our profession in general are to determine the value of my humble endeavours to promote our professional knowledge and character, and in their decision I am ready respectfully to acquiesce.

THE

EQUALITY,

&c.

THE Constitution is no new subject. It has been written upon by lawyers and by politicians; some, to display its excellencies; some, to expose its deficiencies. I am sure that it has the one; and, possibly, it has the other.—But it has one qualification, which its greatest enemy cannot deny-EQUALITY. The law alone is absolute; and to that, the Constitution makes every one bend: the high and the low; the rich and the poor; the learned and the simple. The three parts of the Constitution,-the King, the Lords, and the Commons, are all alike under the law: neither can do wrong to the other parts, nor even do right without their concurrence. Such, not merely theoretically, but practically-such is the Constitution of Great Britain; claiming, for their own sakes, the attachment and the support of the people. There lives not in the whole empire, one individual, however poor, however humble, unto whom the Constitution does not extend its absolute protection; or against whom she shuts her sources of wealth and ad

vancement.

It is in this view-not regarding any abstract questions-it is in this popular view, that the people ought to consider it; and, comparing it with the state of other nations, gratefully to bless Heaven for their enjoyment of laws, whose equality no power can subvert, and for their privilege of advancement, which no power can repress. A Briton needs not any thing beyond integrity, talent, and industry, to share the highest wealth and the highest honors of his country: