A strange, and to me almost inexplicable mistake, has crept into page 344 of the review, where I am made to say what I certainly never did say that "the only use of food is merely to keep up a due degree of temperature in the animal system," as contradistinguished from the opinion of physiologists, who "refer the origin of animal heat to the act of respiration." What I do say is the same as that which physiologists say, that "the origin of animal heat is in the act of respiration." But I say more than they say; for I affirm that this is "almost the sole use of food;" and no writer that I have yet seen has advanced such an opinion. All the authorities I have quoted, Gregory, Rees, Thompson, Richerand, Magendie, &c., to whom a multitude of others might have been added, declare that food is designed " ad corporis jacturam reparandum;" "to supply new matter in place of what has been carried off. If my "doctrinal system" be wrong let it be exploded, and the sooner the better, for there are already many readers of it. And when this part of my Essay is disposed of, let them proceed to the new theory of animal heat propounded in it, and explode that too, if it rest not upon the foundation of truth. Why did not this reviewer step forth to defend the consecrated doctrine of Crawford? Perhaps he was aware" of his incompetency to do any thing like justice to the subject." But let us hear what he says, by way of objection, to my conclusion respecting the waste of the body. If he be a person "of grenadier height, and corresponding breadth of shoulders," as he says he is, his arguments might have been cast in a much smaller mould-“ Quid valeant humeri, aut ardua cervix ?" But now for his arguments, to prove that animals do waste. "As to the perfect analogy supposed to subsist between a mechanical and animated body"-query by whom so supposed? certainly not by me-" does the former not require frequent additions to repair waste? do the wheels never require oiling?" Well, I must confess that this objection, obvious as it is, certainly escaped me; though I am not quite sure that I ever before understood that "oiling" a piece of machinery was intended to make " additions" to it, or to "repair waste." I was simple enough to expect that a new pinion, a new shaft, a new wheel, or, at least, a new cog, would now and then-every other day, at farthest-have been necessary. But "oil," I perceive, though not exactly the same thing as iron, is capable, by "assimilation," of repairing any waste to which machinery is liable: still a butt of it would not go far, if shafts and pillars of iron waste any thing like as fast as the human fabric; for almost three pounds of food are required daily to keep in working condition an animal machine which weighs one hundred and forty pounds only! This point, however, I abandon as hopeless. But, flushed with victory, the Reviewer comes from "oiling" the machine to the paring of his "nails," and the loppings of his "hair." And he so fortifies his conclusions by the inductive philosophy, that there is no resisting him. Mark! how absolute he is: "We object," he says, "from our own experience, and that of many observations, that the nails grow as well as the hair." These are his very words. Such a piece of experimental knowledge deserves to be written on vellum, and to be deposited amongst the rarissima, the uniques, of the British Museum. Who could have thought that "the nails grow as well as the hair?" But, if any one deny it, here we have the authority of a writer in the Monthly Review, who affirms, that he knows it "of his own experience, and that of many observations.' Beaten again! I shall never shave myself without trembling, nor suffer the forceps to separate a hair from my head, without thinking what havoc I am making in my system. Here is waste indeed !—corporis jactura-quite sufficient to explain the necessity of four meals a day, "ad eam reparandam." I am almost afraid that this critical Sampson has all his wit in his locks, and that he had just been shorn before he sat down to the review of my Essay. But to pass by these insuperable objections brought against my "doctrinal system," let me endeavour to set myself right with the Reviewer upon a point-" a very important point," he says-respecting which I have "not spoken out directly or plainly." The point in question is, my own "corporeal size." It appears that the Reviewer is not "a Michael Cassio, a great arithmetician," any more than he is acquainted with philosophy, or dialectics; or he might, without a very troublesome equation, have deduced the size of my body from the information contained in the Essay. Of Cruikshank I say, page 84, that "perhaps he was a subject of twenty stone. Were I to be coated round with some eleven stone more of muscle and fatdreadful incumbrance !-my hand, probably, would not increase one third of its present surface," that is, bear the same relation to my body which Cruikshank affirmed of his own. Is this problem too difficult for him? Any one of the errand boys of his office would have given him the solution. The almost vulgar piece of wit, that broke out in the passage under consideration, if vernacular among the readers of the Monthly Review, wants the stamp of sterling purity, to give it currency out of that province. Something like it might, perhaps, be found at a certain place a little below London-bridge. But, sir, to clasp together the two ends of this string of critical pearls, which runs the length of nine pages, devoted to my little Essay, the Reviewer, in his last sentence, says, "We shall not attempt to weaken the effect of this very pretty theory." No! let it go, right or wrong; "eleven twelfths, or more," of it, we have never touched. Less than one twelfth has served to furnish a good half sheet of letter-press." Is this criticism? the criticism of the nineteenth century? I fancy that a few more such exposures would render the publication of the Monthly Review superfluous. In conclusion, I beg to remind this writer, that Reviewers are not now what they once were, papal autocrats of literature. If they wound dishonourably, or attack unskilfully, there are plenty of literary fields open in which they may be met, and be brought to a fair encounter, whatever their breadth of shoulder, or grenadier height." And let me also caution him, never to accuse another of being "opinionative," when that other offers "demonstration." He who offers demonstration, puts himself upon a fair trial, and his judge-if competent-can settle to a fraction his claims to credit.-I am, Sir, your most obedient, WILLIAM GRISENTHWAITE. To the foregoing letter we willingly grant immediate insertion. If we mistake not, the world owes a large debt to the author of the Essay on Food,* a debt which they could most justly, as well as most easily pay by attending to the grounds of his observations. As soon as the nation or any individuals in it shall do so, they will not only best discharge their debt to Mr. Grisenthwaite, but the riddance of all other national and individual debts will become easy. The old theory respecting food, one now pretty nearly exploded, was to the effect that during the twenty-four hours a certain waste in the animal system took place, and the elaborations from the food were for the purpose of renovating the expenditure so made. It was supposed that a piece of machinery formed with the exactest art, and regulated by the choicest contrivance was yet so imperfect that though weighing only 140lbs. there should yet be a necessity for the daily elaboration of 11 ounces of Carbon, besides the regular supply of Oxygen and Hydrogen to keep it in repair. It is not credible that such a waste should ensue. What should we think of any human production, in which it was necessary to make allowances so extraordinary for consumption? A supposition such as this is indeed incredible. None but a very thoughtless mind could possibly admit a theory which militates so strongly against the contriver's wisdom. ́ Besides where should the waste be detected in its escape? Not in the perspiration. Nothing is detected there but the slightest imaginable quantity of ascetic acid. The wear cannot take place at the joints, for they are supplied with oil, that enables them to move without any friction. Indeed did we not know to what an amazing extent mankind are misled by appearances, we should be at a loss to conjecture where an opinion could originate so singularly opposed as this to all sound ideas of wisdom and propriety. For it would thus be reducible to a mathematical certainty that the whole animal frame would be renewed, and re-renewed perpetually in the course of a few months; an assertion contrary to all opinion and surpassing all belief. Mr. Grisenthwaite after much valuable experience and observation, is able to propound another theory, which, with some correction, may probably be better able to stand the rational test. He states, upon the authority of Lavoisier, Davy, Priestley and others, that the average quantity of Carbon We repeat the title, "Essay on Food, by W. Grisenthwaite,” 1838. pp. 120. consumed daily by any individual is about 11 ounces: this, however, he thinks is an over statement. It is founded upon the supposition that man breathes 20 times in a minute, and that in the course of 24 hours not less than 40,000 cubic inches of Carbon are consumed. Mr. Grisenthwaite declares that he himself does not breathe more than 14 times a minute when awake, and as it is well known that the breathing is more slow during sleep than in the waking state, it is extremely probable that 14 times is above the average. However, without disputing about these details, he proceeds to show that the quantity of food necessary for the elaboration of 11 ounces of Carbon is about 1lbs. of dried animal fibre, which is equal to nearly 4lbs. in the ordinary state, or of dry wheaten flour about 25 ounces. He then, by a beautiful series of facts, shows that the value of this Carbon in the animal economy is to serve as the basis of heat, and the human body is demonstrated to be a living furnace in which the Carbon serves as the fuel for the expression of heat. It is a singular idea, and perhaps, from its connexion with proverbial language, somewhat ludicrous, that we breathe and move, and eat, and speak by steam, and yet without any misrepresentation, reserving merely a proper interpretation to the words, this may fairly be stated. Food is shown to be not a provision for waste of any kind, but fuel for the heat elaboration. Its purpose is to enable the Life-spirit to preserve the proper temperature, and by that means sustain all the organisation in the discharge of its appointed functions. It will be seen at once that this view of the subject, which is beautifully established by the author, is well fitted to open to us a new field of inquiry as to the effect that Food must have upon the animal system, and thereby as a condition of mental life. Sir Isaac Newton, in his philosophical works, speaks of a certain all-pervading Spirit dwelling in every substance, and from its incessant activity giving symmetry to the body in which it resides. The Mesmerians call it Electro-Magnetism; and indeed it is pretty generally spoken of now-a-days by most scientific men, though under various names. Mr. Cunningham, in his Essays on Magnetism and Electricity, declares that the animal temperature is wholly regulated by this two-fold force; which being on the one hand the Magnetic or cooling principle, and on the other the Electric or heating, is evidently calculated to furnish, according to the conditions supplied, either augmented heat or cold. The food taken being computed in round numbers by Mr. C. at one half Oxygen, and one half combustible substances, Carbon and Hydrogen-the former having affinity for magnetism, and tending therefore to coolness--the latter supplying the condition through which the Electro-magnetic Spirit is capable of eliciting heat, it ought to follow, that if the Spirit is fairly balanced in its electric and magnetic properties, that heat and cold are generated "in equilibrio," if food of these respective affinities be supplied in equal quantities. Long have the scientific world looked vainly for this harmonious balance, and it is gratifying to find that moral light is now coming to its assistance. The two united must discover it. In conclusion Mr. Grisenthwaite observes "One fact I have already mentioned, which no one can neglect with impunity; to proportion our food to the consumption of it; and not because fortune has prepared a banquet for us, and custom has taught us to sit down at stated times to partake of it, to indulge beyond the demands of nature. A violation of this canon she almost always punishes." . . . . " What the stomach does not digest-and it cannot long digest more than is expended-will visit the bowels with constipation, and load the blood with redundant matters, which can only find their exit by eruptive disease, or congestion, inducing an inflammatory diathesis. I would strongly advise every one, who wishes to enjoy life, to ascertain the minimum of food upon which he can subsist. Should he err a little on that side, nature will kindly admonish him of it; if he err in the other extreme, she will punish him." "To those, for whom fortune has not prepared a luxurious table, I say, Be thankful to a wise and gracious Providence, that has furnished the meanest fare with as much carbon as the rarest delicacies. And let all be moderated in their pride, when they sit down to refresh nature, by the thought, that they are then only putting coals upon the fire, to keep the machinery of life in action. In this view, what a humiliating picture does the most sumptuous entertainment present !" We have also on our table other communications on Food-particularly some from certain Vegetable Eaters, who we find are fast increasing in number. We candidly confess that we are of the Children of Jacob-lovers of savory meats. This subject, however, forcibly reminds us of a new Edition of Shelley's poetical works, exquisitely edited by Mrs. Shelley, and beautifully published by Mr. Moxon. We have received the first volume. The second will give us opportunity in our next number to enlarge somewhat on the subject. Our readers already know that our hand has elsewhere intermeddled with the theme, and it would appear not without result. verse. Other Poems also press for reviewal The Antidiluvians, or the World Destroyed; a Narrative Poem in Ten Books, by James M'Henry, M.D.” This work professes not epical construction-and perfectly succeeds in realising the author's design-that of a tolerably clever narrative told in blank But there is no attempt at deep thinking-or fine writing, though there are pretensions to poetic diction which are sufficiently well supported. "The Deluge, a Drama, in Twelve Scenes, by John Edmund Reade," the author of an excellent poem on Italy, soars a higher flight. More elegant and graceful than Byron's "Heaven and Earth," it possesses a moral consistency to which the more famous poet's production has no claim. We desire to return our thanks to George Stephens, Esq. for more than his present of his "Voice of the Pulpit." This little volume can not be too extensively circulated. We likewise wish to commend as very generally useful, "The Complete Cabinet-Maker, by J. Stokes." The explanatory and illustrative engravings are of especial utility to the workman and apprentice. The remainder of our space must be devoted to two extraordinary poems, by W. B. Scott, called "Hades, or the Transit ;" and "The Progress of Mind." We cannot but look upon it as peculiarly a sign of the intellect of the time, that there should be so many idiosyncratic productions published. Poetry seems now to be written, not for the many-but the few. The following extract will shew the author to be a poet, with great facility in versifying. "The angel of death through the dry earth slid, Like a mole, to the dervish Yan, Who lay beneath the turf six feet In the house of the dead; and he smote the lid May see the things that are, and hear The melody that can re-create, And bind again the link of fate.' The dervise turned in his grave, and rose On his knees at the sound of the three dread blows. He was a living man again." Other works lie over for reviewal, and shall receive attention in our next number. THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT. ON Tuesday, Feb. 5th, Parliament was opened by the Queen in person. Nothing was said in Her Majesty's speech relative to the much agitated Repeal of the Corn Laws, the Government intending the question to be an open one. In regard to the Chartists, her Majesty was taught to say, "I have observed with pain the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of the country to excite my subjects to disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal practices." Parliament has, in these persons, a rival — a "National Convention," which is visited by workmen-delegates from all parts of the empire. There is in such phenomena something for reflection; nor shall we omit to give them our serious consideration. What, compared with these important facts, is the retirement of Lord Glenelg, or the publication of Lord Durham's Report on Canada? Both, however, of these affairs are significant enough in their own little way. On the first night of the Session, Mr. Villiers gave notice that on the 18th instant he would move that evidence be heard at the Bar on the subject of the existing Corn Laws-and Lord John Russell, that he would oppose the motion. When, however, Sir Robert Peel desired to know the course designed to be adopted by the Ministry relative to the question, his Lordship declined to prejudge its merits. On the 14th of February, a deputation from the Royal Buckingham Association, headed by the Duke of Buckingham, and attended by 8 or 10 members of Parliament, waited on Lord Melbourne, to ascertain his Lordship's state of mind on this all-engrossing topic. This, however (either by such or other means), is not be ascertained. It is an open question! On the evening of Feb. 19th, in the House of Lords, the motion of Lord Brougham that evidence should be heard at the Bar touching the injurious effects of the Corn Laws on the trade and commerce of the country, was discussed, and then, without a division, negatived. Among the speakers were the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Buckingham, Earl Stanhope, and Lord Melbourne. This debate was of high character, and no doubt will be productive of strong results. We must humbly beg leave to object to what Lord Brougham elected to call "the Catholic ground" that he had assumed on the subject. Said his Lordship, "I take up the Catholic ground, that the interests of each class are the interests of all." We presume to state that the converse of the proposition is more like the Catholic statement: i. e. that the interests of all classes are the interests of each. Had we space N. S.- VOL. 1. 3 A |