IN the critique on Adams's "Obfervations on Morbid Poifons," your reviewer withes to fhew the term an « hereditary difpofition to difeafe," is not lefs exceptionable than an hereditary disease;" yet he finds himself under the neceffity of abandoning the latter expreflions, and adopting that of the "feds of the difeafe." This is only another word for difpofition, and proves the impoffibility of defining the term " hereditary disease," and, confequently the impropriety of ufing it.

But there appear to us other, and more ferious objections to the article. Mr. Hinter's Theory is differently defcribed by Mr. Adams and the Reviewer; and, though the former is accused of " implicitly adopting this theory, without being at the pains to thew its probability," a careful perufal of the work will prove the contrary; that very enquiry being the principal object throughout.

In the remarks on the attempt at claffing morbid poifons, it is faid," according to the plan adopted, finall-pox and yaws are fuppofed to have a near affinity," an expreflion which would infer that facts were made to give way to theory. But fo far is this from the truth, that the two difeafes are completely feparated in the claffification, though in the defcription they are thewn to have many properties in common.

It is further ftated, that both Boerhaave and Howard have. fhewn how the venereal virus is to be deftroyed. But Boerhaave exprefsly declares, mercury will not eradicate the difeafe, while Howard not only afferts that it will, but undertakes to determine when the conftitution is safe. So far is the author of Morbid Peifons from overlooking Boerhaave's theory, that he fhews the facts on which it is grounded, as well as thofe admitted by Aftruc and other writers of reputation, are perfectly confiftent with, and ferve to illuftrate, Mr. Hunter's opinion. It is true, Mr. Howard's theory promifes more but the facts on which it retts, are to be met with in no other author. How far they are confirmed by actual obfervation, muft be left to the decifion of the practitioners of the prefent day.

To this letter we conceive very little anfwer to be neceffary. The writer has not shown that our account of the theory in queftion differs from that of Mr. Adams; we did not mean to infer, that facts were made to give way to theory; and, with refpect to Boerhaave, we faid only, that he had expreffed more fatisfaction in the early writers than the author had attributed to him.

We have received also a remonftrance from Mr. Fothergill, to which we reply, that when we reprefented him as faying, that death ultimately follows a fufpenfion of refpiration, we meant to be understood, if refpiration was not reftored; in which cafe irritability would be extinguished, for want of vital air. Nor did we intend to reprefent him as a materialift, and therefore fhould certainly have faid, that" fenfation is communicated to the foul, or fentient principle, through the nerves and brain, by means of a subtle fluid," &c. We cannot infert his letter, on account of its length: nor do we fee reason to correct any thing further in our own critique.

J. W. ftill mifunderstands us; we fpoke only of printed remarks: our leifure will not ferve for difcuffion of private opinions. We are glad he glad he agrees with us on fome fubjects.

DOMESTIC LITERATURE.

Dr. Rennel is about to publish a Latin Differtation, disputing the imputation of Calvinifm, frequently made against the church of England; and two Sermons, preached before the University of Cambridge.

Mr. Knight's Efay on the Progrefs of Civil Society, will fpeedily appear.

As will alfo Lord Sheffield's publications of the pofthumous works of Gibbon.

A new edition of Aiton's Hortus Kewenfis may be expected ere long, with material augmentations, particularly fpecifying the New Holland plants.

ART. I. The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester, compiled from the best and most ancient Hiftorians, Inquifitiones poft mortem, and other valuable Records, in the Tower, Rolls, Exchequer, Dutchy and Augmentation Offices, the Regifters of the Diocese of Lincoln, the Chartularies and Regifters of Religious Houfes, the College of Arms, the British Museum, the Libraries of Oxford and Cambridge, and other public and private Repofitories; including alfo Mr. Burton's Defcription of the County, published in 1622, and the late Collections of Mr. Staveley, Mr. Carte, Mr. Peck, and Sir Thomas Cave. By John Nichols, F. S. A. Edinb. Perth. In four Volumes. Volumes I. and II. Folio. 51. 5s. Nichols. 1795.

THE execution of a work of fuch magnitude and import

ance as a County Hiftory, requires talents fo various, and perfeverance fo indefatigable, that if the eye of a critical rea der encounter occafional redundancies, overfights, or defects, as he may naturally expect, he will, eafily forgive them.

I

BRIT. CRIT. VOL. VII. FEB. 1796.

Ho

He will forgive them, not only from the conviction that it is not in the power of human genius to produce a performance of fuch labour perfect in all its parts, but alfo from the perfuafion, that every topographical work, if performed even with moderate ability, neceffarily combines utility with amusement; and by preferving the records of cuftoms and manners, in many inftances obfolete, and almoft forgotten, tends, at the fame time, to the illuftration of hiftory, the gratification of curiofity, and the extenfion of knowledge. If we were to af fert, that County Hiftories, or, in other words, historical accounts of particular places and districts, are, in a manner, appropriate to our own country, we fhould not perhaps be very far from the truth. For, although the defcription of a few places, memorable from their antiquity, the importance they once obtained in hiftory, and the magnificence of their remains, have, in different parts of the world, exercifed the acutenefs and diligence of learned writers; yet a local history, like that contained in the volumes before us, which defcribes customs, places, perfons, and indeed every thing which can become the fubject of enquiry, for ufe or curiofity, within a certain limited portion of a country, has not yet been attempted by the feveral nations of Europe, who rival us in every other branch of science. Of the importance of fuch compilations, we have before fpoken; and it is but juftice to add, on the prefent occafion, that Mr. Nichols, fo far as his work is yet cornpleted, has performed an office in itself highly honourable, with talents fully adequate, with acutenefs feldom, and with diligence never furpaffed. To individuals, however remotely connected with Leicestershire, a treasure is here prefented, of which it may be truly faid, that if it was anticipated with eagerness, its appearance has fully fatisfied every expectation. To the public at large, and to all defcriptions of readers, an abundant fource of entertainment is unfolded, in which every one may find gratification, however various the wifh, or faftidious the tafte. It remains with us to give a fuccinct account of the author's plan, with fpecimens of the manner in which it is conducted.

The labours of Mr. Nichols will extend to four volumes, out of which a confiderable part of two is now before the public. The first contains, among various articles of Prolegomena, Domesday on this county, with a tranflation. This part of the work is of very fingular curiofity, for the tranflation is performed in a way which has never before been attempted, and fuited at once to inftruct the common, and fatisfy the learned reader. This volume alfo contains differtations on the mint at Leicester, the Roman roads and milliary, navigation, plants, natural history,&c. with the ancient and modern hiftory of the town of Leicester. Amid

2

A

Amidst a mass of matter, at once fo various and important, we cannot long be at a loss for such a selection as we think may best enable the reader to determine how far the execution is worthy of the judicious and extenfive plan of the work. The differtation on Domefday-Book abounds with valuable and interefting researches, and the concluding part of it we fhall give, as peculiarly important to the Hiftory of Leicestershire. "Of the feveral land-owners in this county, fome account shall here be given. The contents, however, in the original record, p. 230. a. 2. do not exactly correfpond with the following lift; Earl Hugo being erroneously placed as No. XIII. who afterwards occurs properly as No. XLIII. and, "instead of No. XVII. Roger de Buffi," it fhould be (as in the defcription) "XVII. Robert de Buci; XVIII. Roger de Bufli."

"I. King William the First, more commonly denominated the Conqueror, held 39 houses in the town of Leicester, and received annually 421. 10s. for all rents from that city and county, befides zol. a year from the mint-mafter of Leicester." The lordships which he held in this county, which of course are now antient demefne, were Croxton (which then included Knipton and Harefton); Broughton (in Framland); Rodeley (including the following members, Allexton, Barfton, Segrave, Sileby, Tugby, Skeffington, the two Markfields, Halfted, Caudwell, Wykeham, Tilton, Asfordby, Wartnaby, Twiford, Somerby, Frisby, Saxulby, Grimfton, Bagrave, and Gaddefby); Bowden (including Medburn, Cranhoe, Carlton, Galby, Norton, Stretton, Smeton, Foxton, part of Blafton, and Abegrave); Sadington; Wetberge (with part of Barrow); Thorpe Acre; Difhley; Shepifhed; and Knoffington (which laft lordship, though within the county of Leicester, belonged to the royal foke of Okeham in Rutland). Only two of these manors had been held by Edward the Confeffor, one by queen Edred, and two by earl Morcar.

King William is fuppofed to have poffeffed, in the whole of the kingdom included in this furvey, 1442 manors or lordships, befides efcheated lands; and his daily revenue is stated by Ordericus Vitalis to have amounted to 1060l. 30s. 14d. over and above free gifts, fines, and amerciaments for offences. He had alfo 60,000 horfemen at his command, to be employed in defence of the realm, without any expence or charge iffuing out of the Exchequer.

"The Queen, Matilda, does not occur among the land-owners in Leicestershire; but certain townships (fee p.xli.) were de feudo Regina. She died Nov. 2, 1083; whence it is evident that the compilation of Domesday book was begun before her death, though not finifhed till 1086. In Dorfetfhire, p. 75. a. z. and in Gloucestershire, p. 163. b. 2. it is faid Matilda tenuit, and not tenet, Litelfrome, Turneberie, Fareforde, &c. The furvey of thofe counties, therefore, was not taken till after her death.

"II. Thomas, a Norman, archbishop of York from 1070 to 1100, had formerly been a canon of Baieux. He had lands alfo given to him in Gloucestershire, Hampshire, and in Yorkshire, His manors