"All these sources of excellence have been repeatedly felt in this theatre. Having had the good fortune to be initiated in the profession by Mr. Abernethy, and to have lived for many years under his roof, I can assure you, with the greatest sincerity, that however highly the public may estimate the surgeon and philosopher, I have reason to speak still more highly of the man and of the friend, of the invariable kindness which directed my early studies and pursuits, and the disinterested friendship which has assisted every step of my progress in life, the independent spirit and the liberal conduct which, while they dignify the profession, win our love, command our respect for genius and knowledge, converting these precious gifts into instruments of the most extensive public good[38]."
This graceful exordium, so appropriate to the mutual relations of Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Lawrence, deriving, too, a peculiar interest from the circumstances under which it was delivered, had also the rare merit of an eulogium marked by a comprehensive fidelity. There is nothing fulsome or overstrained. Mr. Abernethy's well-known excellences were touchingly adverted to as matters with which all were in common familiar, whilst the necessarily more special facts of his social virtues were judiciously brought out in just relief, and as an appropriate climax, by one who appeared animated by a grateful and personal experience of them. It is distressing to think that anything should have followed otherwise than in harmony with that kindness and benevolence which, whilst it forms the most auspicious tone for the calm pursuits of philosophy, confers on them the purifying spirit of practical Christianity.
Mr. Lawrence's first lecture consisted mainly of an able and interesting exposé of the objects and advantages of Comparative Anatomy to the physiologist, pathologist, medical man, and the theologian; together with numerous references to those authors to whom the science was most indebted. The second lecture was devoted to the consideration and the discussion of various views which had been entertained of the living principle, or by whatever name we may designate that force which is the immediate cause of the phenomena of Living Bodies.
Amongst others, those entertained by Mr. Hunter and advocated by Mr. Abernethy were referred to; but in a tone which was not, perhaps, best suited to promote calm discussion, and which we may be allowed to say was unfortunate—a tone of ridicule and banter, which was hardly suited either to the subject, the place, or the distinguished men to whom it related; to say the least of it, it was unnecessary. We do not quote these passages, because they are, we think, not necessary to the narrative, and could, we think, now give no pleasure to any party[39].
In Mr. Abernethy's next lecture at the College, he still advocated the rational nature of Mr. Hunter's views of Life; and, in a most interesting exposition of the Gallery of the Museum, opposed at every opportunity the views of certain French physiologists which Mr. Lawrence had adopted.
He did this, however, without naming Mr. Lawrence; and applied his remarks to the whole of those who had advocated the opinions that Life was the result of organization, as a "Band of modern sceptics."
Mr. Abernethy had, as he says, argued against a party, and studiously kept Mr. Lawrence, as an individual, out of view. He, however, argued roundly against the views advocated by him, and endeavoured to show that those of Mr. Hunter, besides being at least a philosophical explanation of the phenomena, had a good moral tendency; although he admitted that the belief that man was a mere machine did not alter established notions, and that there were many good sceptics, still he thought that the "belief of the distinct and independent nature of mind incited people to act rightly," &c.
In regard to the general influence of the state of France, he says, "Most people think and act with a party;" and that "in France, where the writings of the philosophers and wits had greatly tended to demoralize the people, he was not surprised that their anatomists and physiologists should represent the subject of their studies in a manner conformable to what is esteemed most philosophical and clever; but that in this country the mere opinions of some French anatomists with respect to the nature of life should be extracted from their general writings, translated, and extolled, cannot but excite surprise and indignation in any one apprized of their pernicious tendency."
There is no doubt that there was at the time, in this country, a disposition in many people to disseminate very many opinions on various subjects different from those usually entertained; and we believe that this disposition was very greatly increased by the well-intentioned, no doubt, but in our view injudicious, means employed for the suppression of them.