The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-11-28 00:00:00

other writing;, he is *ell aware that he derived this intelli•
grace not from an Art of Parliament, but from a printed
Report of evidence taken before a Committee of the House
of Commons. He knows also, abut it is there plainly put
down, in question and answer, that Mr. Mansion, the super-
intendentof St. Luke's Hospital, being asked, What number
of Iranttca be imagined there were in and about Loudon?
replied, "I realty cannot exactly mower that question: I
should suppose six or f,ooo."—(Purl. Rep. 18115. p. 127 )
Allowing Dr. Esquilul, as a foreigner, might bare con-
founded • Report with an Act of Parliaineut, yet chat is to
he thought, when I have myself pointed null the vagueness
and toncearaey of Mr. D 1111,4011% atatement ?—(inq p. )
Moreover, I have particularly refired (ibit' 98) to tbe Par-
liamentary Returns of the whole number of lunatics in all
the hospitals, public asylums, private licensed hussies, and
jails in England and Wales, and have printed sisal appended
them to the " Inquiry." Ruth its my text and appendix, there.
fuer, Dr. E must have seen that the total of 'toilettes to the
kingdom,•not London aloae, is °Mei& ly reported to amount
ouly to 404. Neither, if he bad read what I have iaol, can
he be Moonlit. that I hase explained many deficiencies its
these retort's .(ibid. pp. 98, 99); and have stated my cowrie.
thin. that 6,000 would be a number nearer the truth than
4,000.

However little Dr. E. may feel inclined lo confess that
there may he a period when even "dsns noire belle Frstace,"
as Dr. Falret exults a disposition to suicide is engendered,
mid exists in a greater degree lien in Gem Britain, oilier.
will acknowledge it. 11 id he been acinni..l by a a ncere de-
sire of establishing the truth, and had doubted my accuracy,
and tbe •aihori ties I adduced, he might ealily have obtained
such information as to convince him that any attempt to con-
fute my positions would be futile. . . . .

Dr. Falret 1 shall very briefly notice. He han ado,ted
nti Dr. Esciirol's errors, even in the title of my book ; all
his esisissements, intentional or uainsensiuual ; and, comm.
uuently, all his false inferences. He has likewise made
•then peculiar to Isinoself. As an instance of his waist of ad-
herence to Pict, and the axioms wish whirls he rotes* into
the discussion, 1 wall refer to his translatioo (De l'H ypochun-
den., &r. pp. 100, 101) of ■ passage of tame (Inquiry,
pp. 88, 89) It will appear that. besides • material •Itera-
tion of lbe test, similar to Dr. lE.quiroPs, he Inc must disin-
genuously sebslisisted the year 1813 fur 1817—the period of
the comparison of the tiumher of suicides in Paris and Lon-
don ; •ud Hien modestly accuses me of selecting • year most
suitable t• my own slew% but the most unfavourable to
Paris.

Had 1 really selected 1813, instead of 1817, for the period
of comparison, Dr. Falret have Limid more reason to
thank thou blame me; fir although the former was a year
of severe and unexampled trial to the Freuch metropulta,
yet the proportion of suicides was actually less than in 1817,
or in any suhaequent year. My oily motive fur fixing on
1817 was, because Mr. Kemple, of Berlin, bail 'inured his
comparative Table of Suicides in G. 'many, upon the casual.
ties of that year. I therefore a. Ircied the corresponding
period, as the fairest for the calculation sod comparison of
suicides in other European cities.
Having so folly replied to Dr. Eaquirol, it would be a
work of supererogation to comment further on the errors and
sophistry of Dr. Falret.
I remain, dm G. M. BURROW'S.
Gower-street, Bedfnrrt•egotare,
November, 1822.