be several of these sereines, each of several days duration. In this manner, independent of accidental impediments from wind and weather, in sending the goods from the ship, it maybe supposed, were it at all necessary to make the supposition, that the porters, not only on the 23d of June, but on the 7th and 8th of July, were infected upon opening some new bales. As to the porter being infected by goods from another ship, Dr. Pye thinks it impossible, because the ship had been twelve days in port, and the goods must have been eight or nine days in airing and purifying: had he been acquainted with the practice of the sereines in quarantine, he would have been at no loss to make the accident agree exactly with his notion of the infectious aura.... The plain matter of fact, as it stands in the journal, is this, that six porters, employed in purifying suspected merchandise from the Levant, died of the plague; and their death was followed by that of the surgeon who attended them, and part of his family.” From this the reader will be able to judge how far the question is decided in favour of the fact that the plague at Marseilles was actually produced by imported contagion. It seems needless to follow our author through his investigation of those facts which his adversaries have misrepresented; for these must of course be in his favour; every misrepresentation by a disputant being plainly an abandonment of his cause. Indeed the argument against contagion at that time was properly but one, and is set forth in no stronger language now than formerly. Even as long ago as 1665 Dr. Russel quotes one Gadbury an astrologer stating the difficulty as strongly, and giving a solution of it as clearly, upon _his_ principles, as the best modern theorists can do upon _theirs_. “If the pestilence, (says Mr. Gadbury) be infectious, and really catching in itself, it must be so equally to all persons that approach it, or that it approacheth; or else it must be infectious to some particular persons only. If it be infectious to all persons, or catching to all alike, then all persons, that come into the sight or within the scent of it, must necessarily be subject unto it. If not infectious unto all, but unto some particular persons only, I say then it ought not to be deemed or esteemed infectious at all, at least not any more infectious than are all other diseases, viz. small-pox, scurvy, pleurisy, ague, gout, &c. since (though the notion of infection be laid aside) there is not a person born into the world that hath not at some time of his life (as his _nativity_ shall truly show) some one disease or other. Never was any person subject to violent diseases, as plague, &c. but had a violent _nativity_ to show it, and _e contra_.”