320 by injecting the vas deferens. The Doctor fays, this occurred early in November, and it is natural to fuppofe him more attentive to the date than moft of his friends or auditors. Mr. Watson of Marlborough-ftreet, Reader of Anatomy, fays, it was in the beginning of the autumn Course 1752. The five other Gentlemen are not fo exact as to the month, but are all very clear, that it occurred, and that the preparation was fatisfactorily exhibited at the public Lectures fome time in that Courfe, which concluded in December 1752. Dr. Donald Monro affirms, in his Letter here re-printed, "that his brother, Dr. A. Monro, injected the feminal tubes with quickfilver January 9, 1753, and that in autumn 1754, he published an account, and figures of them, which were fent to Dr. Shaw, and feen by Dr. Hunter and as Dr. D. Monro fays, "If Dr. Hunter can produce one well-vouched evidence of his having filled the feminal tubes of the Teftis before the 9th of January 1753, Dr. A. Monro will freely give up all claim to the honour of the difcovery;" and the young Profeffor himself having alfo "defired* Dr. Hunter to produce the teftimony of fome few of the number who had seen the preparation in queftion in autumn 1752," our Author concludes the first chapter, in which he has produced fix, by faying," the Doctor may obferve, he has been disposed to oblige him." Could this plain and pregnant evidence need the leaft corroboration, it might be obferved, that Dr. D. Monro fays, in his Letter to Dr. Garrow at Barnet, dated December 14, 1752. "Dr. H's preparation is a common one; he will get the mercury no further than the Epididymis,' p. 107, becaufe, as he afferts, 104, "neither his father nor himfelf could get it further." Indeed Profeffor Monro, fen. has exprefsly admitted this, faying †," he never could make it pafs above half the body of the Epididymis:" having previously fuppofed the fibrest of which the Teftis is compofed, to be veffels, but he could not determine of what kind, never having made a coloured liquor [nor any fluid of which we are informed] to enter them." Suppofing our medical Readers a Court and Jury of Anatomifts, on this point of the caufe, we think the evidence concerning it, may properly be refted here. The evidence, with regard to the difcovery of the Lymphatics being abforbing veffels, ftands briefly this. In a Letter, * Obfervations anatomical and phyfiological, page 16. + Medical Effays, vol. V. page 217. Ibid. p. 216. which must have been dated fometime in 1757, and which Dr. A. Monro, junior, acknowleges to have been wrote by his father, this laft Gentleman affirms, "that more than four years ago [fuppofe it the year 1752] he and many others faw the preparations which led him to the general doctrine of the Lymphatics being a fyftem of abforbents. On the other hand, in page 101 of the prefent work, we are informed, that ever fince the year 1746, when Dr. Hunter first read anatomical Lectures here, he, Dr. Hunter, has advanced the fame doctrine. For this he appeals to the MS. Syllabus of his Lectures, used in public from the beginning, and to several MSS. of his Lectures in the poffeffion of his Pupils. But what is closer, and has an appearance of being conclufive, is, that he appeals to the testimony of two living, or lately living, public Profeffors of Anatomy; to the three Readers of Anatothy at London, Glafcow, and Dublin; and to the anatomical Demonftrator or Diffector for the Profeffor at Cambridge, for his having taught this phyfiological doctrine for a number of years, and fupported it by feveral arguments at his public Lectures. Befides ftrong and clear extracts from thefe Gentlemens letters on this head, he has added the con- ́ curring teftimonies of five others, fome of whom were his Pupils as early as 1746. Now if Profeffor Monro's affertion already cited, of his having been led to this doctrine more than four years before 57, were extended to seven years, it would still manifeftly conclude the discovery to have been previously made by Dr. Hunter. The third chapter, the Hiftory of the Difpute, enforces all this circumftantially, and contains two Letters from Dr. Black, Profeffor of Medicine at Glafcow, to Dr. Hunter, They were occafioned by this anatomical Controversy, are very well written, and feem extorted from the Profeffor, through his prevalent attachment to truth rather than from friendship. The facts unavoidably bear hard upon one of thefe Competitors, while the expreflions attempt to apologize for his temerity, and imprefs a favourable idea of his abilities. The fourth chapter (which Dr. Hunter alfo employs in remarks on fome extraordinary paragraphs, as he calls them, in Dr. Monro's pamphlet) relates to an appearance near the Epididymis, which Dr. Monro fuppofed to be a veffel coming from it; but which Dr. Hunter, and his brother Mr. John Hunter (who avers, he unravelled a great part of the preparation by diffection before proper wit X 2 neffes) neffes) affirm, to have been a very small process, or minute projection, from the Epididymis itself, from one part of which it came out, and returned again into another. However, as Dr. Monro took it for fome remarkable veffel or duct, going off from the Epididymis, and fays, Dr. Hunter has fince demonstrated it to be fuch, without naming him as the Discoverer, he confiders it as a great want of candour in him. Dr. Hunter affirms in fact, that he never demonstrated any fuchdetached veffel (except Lymphatics) really thinking none fuch exift. If he may be credited in this, it was certainly fufficient to prevent his demonftrating it; and, at all events, his Antagonist, who is left in the fole poffeffion of it, has fufficiently obviated his demonftrating it hereafter. For a confirmation that he afterwards spoke thus of this imaginary duct of Dr. Monro's, for which he fuppofes this Gentleman might mistake fome common Lymphatic, he appeals to the Auditors of his autumn Course in 1758, (when Dr. Monro was gone to Berlin) and who then attefted, that Dr. Hunter had always mentioned fuch fuppofed tube or vessel, in the fame manner. The fecond anatomical topic in this chapter, relates to the filling the lymphatic Glands, and the Lymphatics iffuing from their cells, by inflating them, or by pouring mercury into their cavities, which Dr. Hunter affirms his brother had difcovered a method of doing in 1753, or -54, by pushing a blow-pipe into their fubftance. On this account Dr. Monro has termed Dr. Hunter the Eccho of Nuck and Cowper; but very unfortunately, as the Author of thefe Commentaries pofitively affirms, that neither of these Anatomists had filled them in that manner, but by injecting fome lymphatic vefiel communicating with their cavity. Now we verily think, that no Reader who has a competent notion of Dr. Hunter's great affiduity and accuracy, and of his remarkable caution, will ever fuppofe, he would have afferted this of these two Anatomifts, without having affured himself of its certainty. In the chapter-Of Abforption by the Veins-of which faculty of the red veins Dr. Hunter entertains fome doubt, we are prefented with feveral experiments on five living animals, in order to discover whether they abforb or not: a queftion not fully determined by Phyfiologifts; tho' their abforption is the opinion more generally received. Nevertheless, it must be acknowleged, that the feveral experiments made here, in prefence of many competent fpectators, incline conAiderably to the negative of their abforption; while they a bundantly bundantly establish the abforption of the Lacteals, if that needed any proof. Previous, however, to thefe experiments, Dr. Hunter modeftly and diffidently fays, "Authors of the best credit had given fuch arguments and experiments in favour of abforption by veins, that I dared not, even in my own mind, determine the queftion." The triumph affumed by Dr. Monro, on his afcribing to Dr. Hunter, a printed, public, and pofitive denial of abforption by the veins, is entirely diffipated, by the latter's difavowing the writing fuch a printed paper, or knowing of it directly or indirectly, before it was printed, and his being authorized to difclaim it by the real Writers. The short chapter concerning the Veffels of the Cartilages, and of the Duct of the lachrymal Gland, affords Dr. Hunter an opportunity of correcting a mistake he was led into, when a young Anatomift, from fome appearances with respect to thofe veffels. It also gives him an opportunity of convincing his Readers, that he had demonftrated the fame ducts of the lachrymal gland in 1747, which Dr. Monro discovered in For the truth of this, he appeals to two Gentlemen, whom he names; and that he had demonftrated them many years before 1753, we are fatisfied he might fafely appeal to a few hundred. The chapter containing-An Examination of what Profeffor Monro fenior, publifhed as a Defence of his Son-is fenfible and expoftulatory, without acrimony. Great allowances fhould undoubtedly be made for any fallics of paternal zeal for the reputation of a fon; who, poffibly, if he had collected any information of the points in conteft, might not have acknowleged fuch circumftances to his nearest friends. It recites, by the way, a remarkable cafe in proof and illuftration of the doctrine of Abforption by the Lymphatics; which evinces, that Time will fubfcribe to a prognoftic, founded upon an intimate acquaintance with the interior animal structure and economy. The chapter-Of the Discovery of the Membrana pupillaris, and of the Infenfibility of the Tendons, &c.—is compofed, in a great meafure, from Dr. Hunter's anatomical Lecturs. It has been partly occafioned by Dr. Monro, fenior, having reproached him with quarrelling with other great Anatomifts, which, he ventured to predict, would redound little to his honour." This has induced Dr. Hunter to print thefe paffages, in order to fpecify the fubjects and particulars on which he might diffent a little from Baron Haller; with the terms in which he might express that diffent: and in neither of thefe can we difcern any thing either illiberal or acrimoniIf fuch philofophical liberties were not allowable, it would be difficult to establish any new discovery in any branch of phyfics: and if this diverfity of opinion fhould be deemed a difhonourable difpute, Anatomifts, as our Author juftly obferves. must be very cautious in their improvements and communications. But there was fo little reafon to apprehend, from the real merit and abilities of the illuftrious Haller, that he would be difgufted with a decent freedom in this way, that we are not furprized to find Dr. Hunter conclude this chapter, by referring to a paffage in a treatise* of Haller's on the very fubject about which they differed, and in which he has fpoken by no means difhonourably of our Author; whofe delicacy chufes rather to refer to the paffage, than to cite the words of it. The ninth and laft chapter, concerning Ruptures, &c. is the only difpute Dr. Hunter admits he ever had with Mr. Pott. To fubmit what dishonour may redound to him from this, to the decifion of the public, he avers his differing with Mr. Pott in regard to the fituation of the teftes of a fœtus in the abdomen, till the birth. He alfo fuppofes he has some right to complain of Mr. Pott's publishing his treatise on the congenial Hernia, in which the teftis and inteftine are contiguous, without mentioning either his name, or his brother's in it; this laft Gentleman having fhewn Mr. Pott a preparation, that perfectly illuftrated this curious, unborn, or prenatalitial Rupture, as it may be called; and which this chapter intimates, Mr. Pott did not fully comprehend before. Though there is fome little afperity in this difcuffion, yet it does not degenerate into fcurrility, but avows "a difpofition to make Mr. Pòtt all juft redrefs, if he fhall candidly convince the Doctor, of his having misunderstood or mifinterpreted any part of his conduct." We must not omit, that this chapter includes-Obfervations on the State of the Teftis in the Foetus, and on the Hernia Congenita, by Mr. John Hunter-They employ about fourteen pages, and contain a very full and elaborate account of the ftate of thofe parts in the Foetus; and of their various fite and circumftances in fome of its different months. It certainly required an experienced Anatomist, and very expert Mem. fur les Part. fenfib. et infenfib. tom. IV. p. 37. Diffector, |