The object of the Vindication was to exonerate Samuel Ireland from all know. ledge of or participation in the forgery; yet the whole confession, or at least the substance of it, was itself a fabrication, Samuel Ireland being the original concoctor of the whole scheme of deception, and the person who himself forged several of the signatures, &c. Then after quoting a passage from the Confessions, in which W. H. Ireland speaks of his father's tenacious adherence to truth, Dr. Ingleby proceeds: Yet this man of scrupulous truth positively trained his whole family to trade in forgery. He himself was the general who devised and methodized the strategy and executed the simulated handwriting. W. H. Ireland's 'duty' was merely that of amanuensis and copier for his excellent parent: the elder daughter of Samuel Ireland wrote the imitations of the dramatist, Vortigern and Rowena, &c., while her younger sister was her assistant. The house of the Irelands was, in fact, a manufactory of forgeries, done for the sole object of making money. * When concealment was no longer possible, the Authentic Account and Confessions were published to raise the wind. These are a tissue of lies. William Henry always made double capital out of a confession, by leaving room for a confession of the falsity of a confession. As soon as the bubble had burst, and the Authentic Account had found believers, W. H. Ireland forged his father's forgeries, and sold or gave away to friends his duplicates! One of these was presented by him to his friend W. Moncrieff, the dramatist. The volume is now in the possession of Dr. Mackay, the poet. It contains, besides the MS. forgeries, a portrait of Moncrieff, and of the two sisters of William Henry Ireland. + Another volume of the forgeries is in the British Museum, and a third duplicate was sold for a large sum at Mr. Dent's sale. Dr. Ingleby obtained his information from a gentleman who had written a note on the subject in Willis's Current Notes for December, 1855, who was an intimate_acquaintance of the Irelands, and to whom William Henry is stated to have made the last confession of the falsity of his published Confessions. Let us briefly consider whether there is any evidence confirmatory of this statement. The expression, that William Henry always made double capital out of a confession by leaving room for a confession of the falsity of a confession,' would imply that after he had made money by the publication of one confession he made more by the publication of another contradicting the former. But there is no ground for such an imputation. He published three statements in the Authentic Account, the Confessions, and the preface to Vortigern. They are all substantially the same. In each he declares that the origin of the fabrications was the forged lease to Fraser, executed to gratify his father, and that the success of this, joined to the suggestions of friends, induced him to discover more papers; but from beginning to end he is consistent in taking the whole discreditable credit of the affair on himself, and as he exonerates his father in his lifetime from all share in the fraud, so he does when he writes more than thirty years after his father's death. The assertion that W. H. Ireland * London: 1859. + Dr. Ingleby, probably writing from memory, has here fallen into an inaccuracy. The portraits of the young ladies are in one engraving, and are described in a footnote in ink, in W. H. Ireland's own writing, as 1-Miss Anna Maria Ireland, eldest sister of W. H. Ireland, who transcribed most of his fabrications; 2-Miss Jane Linley, sister of the first Mrs. Sheridan.' The same plate is in one of the volumes in the British Museum, where, in a pencil-note, apparently in the same handwriting, strangely enough the portraits are described 1-as Miss Ireland, who copied the MSS.;' and 2-as 'Miss Linley, afterwards Mrs. Sheridan.' forged his father's forgeries and sold his duplicates,' is mainly founded on the assumption that S. Ireland was the original forger. That W. H. Ireland made duplicates or copies of the forgeries there is no doubt, and that he may have sold them is highly probable. The specimens, both in Dr. Mackay's volume and in the one in the British Museum, referred to by Dr. Ingleby, are clearly copies, not originals. They differ in many respects from the facsimiles published in the Miscellaneous Papers, and there are some which do not even pretend to be copies of the original documents. They are probably mere specimens of young Ireland's craft, which he gave away or sold as curiosities. There is, however, another volume in the British Museum about which there is some mystery. Both the Irelands-the father in his advertisement to the play of Henry II., and the son in his Confessions-state that the original MS. of that play was never produced,† the son having framed excuses for his being able to bring only a copy in his own handwriting. The volume in question contains the MS. of the entire play in the fabricated handwriting that was passed off as Shakspere's. The MS. is neatly and carefully written upon old paper, the greater part of which has no water-mark. The title is 177 came into his possession is not known. It is impossible, therefore, to say under what circumstances this MS. was produced; but its existence undoubtedly seems inconsistent with the published statements of both the Irelands. This volume, however, may have been merely another specimen of art transcribed from the play after it had been printed, and may have been sold as such. It does not seem very probable that it would have been put forward as an original fabrication after the publication of the Confessions; but even if it had been, and W. H. Ireland had been guilty of this additional fraud, that is no ground for implicating his father or any other member of his family.‡ What cannot fail to induce some feeling of doubt in the truth of W. H. Ireland's narrative, is the fact that a comparatively uneducated youth should, without cooperation, have produced not only such a mass of manuscripts in so short a time, but that he should have been able to fabricate a drama of nearly three thousand lines which by any sane person could be received as the poetry of Shakspere. That he was ill-educated there can be no doubt. His Confessions prove it. He throughout writes Quintain, Quintin; he talks of et ceterae; introduces Porson under the cockney disguise of P*ws*n, Historycaille Playe Will Kynge and commits other similar blun Henrye the Seconde | William Shakspeare, the name being an imitation of Shakspere's autograph. Both this and the other volume in the British Museum formerly belonged to Bishop Butler. How they He ders. But he had a certain talent, that of copying old writing. had probably acquired such a facility in this old hand, that it was as easy to him as his own natural writing. § And he seems * E.g., three specimens of the fabricated signature of Shakspere on one small slip of paper. These are copies of the signature on three different documents. The father says, 'the title and two other leaves only were produced of the old MS., and these were asserted to be all that would ever appear in that stile.' The son asserts generally that the play was delivered to his father in his own handwriting, and that he never was at the trouble of reproducing it in the disguised hand. The note, mentioned before, that Miss Ireland copied the MSS.,' as explained by the other note, clearly means that she 'transcribed' them-i.e., copied out the spurious old MSS. into a legible hand. Rather an unusual acquirement for a young lady, it must be owned; but perhaps not an extraordinary one for Miss Ireland, whose father was a great collector of old writings, to read and copy which she may have been taught, without having been 'trained to forgery.' § He certainly wrote autographs from memory. " One of the specimens' in Dr. Mackay's volume is described as 'tracings from the authentic signatures of ShakVOL. LXII. NO. CCCLXVIIL N to have had leisure enough. As to the acceptation of Vortigern, it may be said that its way had been prepared by a number of comparatively insignificant documents, which having been received with too ready a credulity, the Believers probably had not the courage to suspect or perhaps even to scrutinize this fresh miracle which emanated from the same source. Faith, like Fame, acquires strength by progress. Possibly had Vortigern been produced as one of the earliest papers, it would have been rejected as summarily as it was when submitted to the judgment of the Drury-lane pit. There is no evidence to counterbalance William Henry's positive and repeated assurance that he received no assistance from any quarter. If there were any one towards whom suspicion might be directed, it would be to Mr. Montague Talbot, the intimate friend and confidant of Young Ireland, and to some ex tent his aider and abettor in the fraud.* Talbot, to adopt W. H. Ireland's phrase, was a friend of the Muses; he undoubtedly. offered to assist in the fabrication of Vortigern, and it was agreed that the plan of some of the scenes should be sent to him in Dublin; but William Henry says this plan was never carried into execution, and that he completed the play without any aid from him. On this part of the case, therefore, the conclusion seems inevitable either that Dr. Ingleby's informant is in error, or that he derives his knowledge from some sources which have never been open to the public.† From the evidence before them, Mr. Ireland, senior, must be acquitted from all share of the knavery of the transaction, and be convicted only of an egregious amount of folly; and the charitable will not be sorry to think that the Young Gentleman is not so black as he has been painted. T. J. A. speare.' It consists of the signature to the mortgage and the three signatures to the will; but they are all much larger than the originals, and are obviously not original tracings. There is an anecdote recorded in the Gentleman's Magazine (1838), that W. H. Ireland, having once inspected the De Burgum Pedigree, one of Chatterton's earliest forgeries, then in the possession of Mr. Josh Cottle, wrote on a piece of paper fac-similes of various autographs of Queen Elizabeth and Shakspere. * Talbot was originally articled to a conveyancer, but quitted the law, and appeared for a short time on the London stage. He then went to Ireland (the kingdom so called), and acted there under his Christian name of Montague. It seems he had from the first suspected the validity of the Shakspere papers, and by a stratagem contrived to take his friend with the mainour,—that is, detected him in the very act of fabrication. He promised him secresy, and kept his word. He seems to have been a young gentleman who, to use the words of one of our living wits, was wont 'to postpone truth to the purposes of the moment.' He not only became the voucher to Mr. Ireland, senior, for the story about 'Mr. H.,' but when the explosion was imminent, expressed his readiness to make an affidavit to the same effect, if his friend William Henry would join in it. But the latter, it seems, had some weak scruples on the subject, and did not care to commit a perjury which might have been detected. Since this article was in type, the writer has received a communication from a literary gentleman who was on terms of intimacy with the late W. H. Ireland. This gentleman, who describes him as an intelligent and well-conducted person, says he was very communicative as to his Shaksperian fabrications; he never said in plain terms that his father was privy to his imposture, but somewhat suspiciously hinted doubts as to his total ignorance of what was so mysteriously going on. ON THE RELATIONS OF THE PUBLIC TO THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE.* BY THOMAS MAYO, PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS. HAT there should be something THA peculiar in the relations to society of the profession of medicine is as probable, à priori, as it is deserving of special attention if such peculiarity exists. The business of the profession is conducted among perturbations endlessly varying in kind and intensity. The medical practitioner depends for his own support upon his skill and success in dealing with a commodity in regard to which the emotions of his heart and the exertions of his intellect are largely called forth, while the recipient of the supposed or hoped-for benefit is with different degrees of intensity pained and annoyed by having to apply for it, indeed by standing in need of it. And the physician's relation to society is rendered yet more peculiar by his having to depend for his personal success on his giving a certain amount of satisfaction, where all those feelings of the human mind are actively at work, the most calculated to puzzle and confound the judgment of those whom he has to satisfy. He is tried coram non judice. There is thus, the speaker observes, a sort of atmosphere of repugnance generated by the very nature of their relation between the profession, which is presumed to confer the benefit of health, and the public, which is presumed to receive it; and yet with these points of antagonism they have to labour together in a degree not sufficiently appreciated; in a word, to co-ordinate their efforts. Your medical case cannot be placed in the hands of the physician as the analogous case in law is placed in the hands of the advocate. And here lies a great difficulty. Some antagonism of feelings on the one hand, a necessity of close co-operation on the other. It is one main purpose of the present paper to facilitate this co-operation by such lights as I may be able to throw upon it, and such reasons as I may be able to adduce for it. Is there any one (says Sir Benjamin Brodie, addressing recently the Royal Society), is there any one in any situation of life, to whom it would not be a benefit to know something of animal physiology, of the functions of his own body?—and the influence which his bodily condition exercises over those moral and intellectual faculties by which he is distinguished from the rest of the animal creation? If it did not teach him how to cure himself, it might be useful for him to know how far disease may depart of itself, and what are the limits of nature in this respect. To man, looking at himself, there is no and managing himself. art so important as that of understanding A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing; but that no knowledge at all is more dangerous, is a truth not sufficiently estimated by many ladies and gentlemen who strongly assert the first proposition, and yet, it must be observed, contradict it by venturing to think most confidently for themselves in their choice of a medical adviser. I venture to affirm, that neither in these dealings with us, nor in the treatment of disease and health entrusted to us, can the public safely divest itself of personal responsibility in regard to knowledge. Having made their choice of a medical practitioner, they must be competent, through the possession of some amount of knowledge, to go along with him. There are certain great physiological truths lending themselves both to Hygiène and medicine which it is incumbent upon the public to possess as a part of education, if they would avoid being victimized either by the nonsense exposed in his own time by Molière, or by the more sprightly and flippant errors of the present day. These studies belong in truth to philosophy in general. It is well and pointedly observed by M. Auguste Comte, that if men do not confide the study of astronomy * The substance of a lecture delivered at the Royal Institution. to navigators, they should not leave physiology to the leisure of physicians.' And let it be remembered that the comparison above suggested is not made between a little knowledge and an ignorance, of which the person labouring under it is practically conscious, so as to abstain from action. He cannot always say, I know nothing, and therefore decline to do anything. Cases arise and must arise in which some action must be taken, or the agent supposes so, which comes to the same thing. Medical assistance may be remote or inaccessible, or confidence in it may have ceased or been diminished. The patient acts for himself; he cannot, however ignorant he keeps himself, surrender his right to do so; and it is to prevent his abusing this right that the public is invited to supply itself with a modicum of real knowledge. Lectures on physiology are given, and other modes of pursuing its study are within reach, which might easily be made applicable to the purpose in view. And let it be observed, that the public may in this way attain another point to which I have already adverted. It claims, and justly claims, a right to choose between conflicting schools of medicine. This right it may exercise with most safety by obtaining a general knowledge of that great human system which is the common arena of all the professors of the healing art. Every system, normal or abnormal, must make its appeal to physiological principles. How much good may be done, how much evil may be averted, by an enlightened application of the public mind in these directions, the lecturer proceeds to point out by directing attention to the phenomena of growth and progress in certain systems, according as the attention of the public has or has not been called to them. I will take, he observes, for this purpose the allied theories of the late Dr. Curry of Liverpool, and Mr. Priessnitz, the author of what is termed hydropathy. About the end of the last century, the year 1784, Dr. Curry of Liverpool, rea soning deductively from certain facts stated to him by Dr. Wright, and subsequently corroborated by his own experience, affirmed the uses and applicability of affusion of cold water in a large group of disorders. Unquestionably these views of Dr. Curry have left behind them an increased tendency in the medical mind to avoid certain mischievous agencies in the treatment of febrile diseases; but they cannot be said have fructified consistently with the author's great reputation, and with the subsequent growth of similar views in less scientific hands It is singular (says Dr. Christison, writing in 1840) how short a reputation Dr. Curry's hypothesis has enjoyed. In the first British epidemic which broke out subsequently to its announcement, it was speedily abandoned by all practitioners, and for twenty years past it has been almost unknown in the treatment of fever. No question, according to this writer, seems to have suggested itself to the medical mind of Great Britain as to what might possibly be deducible from the group of very curious phenomena on which Dr. Curry had based an hypothesis at first eminently successful; no application suggested itself of those philosophical views of Sydenham, who predicted the discovery of laws according to which epidemics might possibly return in a cycle, so that the epidemic to which this remedy had been appropriate might recur. Dr. Curry's hypothesis was, as Dr. Christison says, speedily abandoned, and it still sleeps. How different has been the fate of the hydropathic idea, springing up in the untutored brain of a Silesian peasant, received from him by practitioners, many of them utterly unscientific, but energetic and not unthoughtful, and cared for by a credulous but not an indifferent public! If in the latter case a rash sciolism has been largely and mischievously predominant, against which a better-informed public might have protected itself, it must at least be admitted that the public has maintained and kept alive an important principle of treatment, |