Part 3

The table (No. 2.) is divided into periods of five years each—it consists of four columns—the first of which exhibits the total number of deaths during each period of five years—the second the number of deaths from Small Pox—the third shows the proportion of the latter in each thousand of the former—and the fourth points out the relative proportion of deaths from Small Pox compared with the whole. I am aware that the two latter columns may be considered as a repetition of the same statement, but I think it may appear more striking when placed in this double form.

When we compare the calculation of Dr. Jurin, which has been quoted above, (published I believe about the year 1723,) with the first twenty years of these tables, we shall find, that, with the exception of the first five years, it is rather below than above the results which they exhibit; that, according to them, for the fifteen years from 1708 to 1723 inclusive, the deaths from Small Pox exceeded one in twelve of the whole,—that in 1710 it was about one in seven, and that in 1719, although the relative number was not quite so great, being in the proportion of one in eight only; yet that the actual number was greater than in 1710, amounting to no fewer than 3229, the total number of deaths being 28,347.

Such was the destructive nature of Small Pox before the introduction of inoculation. Its ill effects, however, were not confined to those whom it precipitated into the tomb. A very large proportion of the living, who were fortunate enough to escape its fatal effects, yet suffered essentially for the remainder of their lives from its injurious attacks, not only in the loss of that beauty of countenance which we all value both in ourselves and in our friends, but frequently in the serious injury or total destruction of one or both eyes, or of the general health of the constitution, which was, in many cases, never afterwards entirely restored, although death was not the immediate result.

-----

Footnote 3:

“It appears, by a report of the Hospital for the Indigent Blind, that two-thirds of those who apply for relief, have lost their sight by Small Pox,”—Sir G. Blane on Vaccination, p. 9.

-----

Instances, wherein the beauty of the human countenance has been materially injured by the occurrence of Small Pox in the early stages of life, are now happily much more rare than formerly, especially in the higher ranks of society, and I trust will, in the course of another age, become entirely unknown. There are few of us, however, who are not still acquainted with some, and who cannot recall many more: and we every now and then meet with cases of blindness, which had succeeded to this formidable disease. I have myself had opportunities of seeing several such instances; and it is but a few weeks since my opinion was asked respecting a child, who was recovering from the Small Pox in its worst form, with a countenance dreadfully disfigured, and one eye entirely destroyed.

-----

Footnote 4:

Since this was written, I have been consulted on account of a little girl, of seven years of age, who has just sustained the same very serious deprivation, in consequence of an attack of Small Pox.

-----

That a disease so destructive of human life, and which frequently entailed on the living such indelible proofs of its severity, should have been anticipated with peculiar feelings of dread and apprehension we can well believe, and it was natural that any method, which afforded a probability of diminishing its danger, and of rendering its attacks of a milder character, should excite no ordinary degree of public attention.

How far these ends were accomplished by the artificial communication of Small Pox by inoculation, we shall now proceed to inquire.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAP. II.

The first individual in England on whom the operation of inoculation for Small Pox was performed, was the daughter of the celebrated Lady Mary Wortley Montague. She had witnessed, when in Turkey, the mildness of this disease as produced by inoculation, and her son had already passed through the process with safety. “The engraftment of her son having succeeded; after Lady M. W. M. returned to London in 1722, she sent for Mr. Maitland, the surgeon, who had attended the boy at Constantinople; and desired him to engraft her daughter with Small Pox. He solicited a delay, on account of the weather, and entreated that two physicians should be consulted. These requests were refused, yet he obeyed her Ladyship’s injunctions; but when the fever commenced, an old family apothecary and three physicians were permitted to witness the process. As the success was complete, Dr. Keith, one of the above physicians, was tempted to request Mr. Maitland to engraft his child also, which likewise succeeded; and these cases were rumoured through the town.”—An experiment was afterwards tried, at the request of the Princess of Wales, upon “six condemned felons” with success, and her own children passed through the operation with safety. After this, inoculation was partially employed for some years, and was again discontinued—but, about the middle of the last century, great exertions were made to bring it into general use, and with a considerable degree of success. We shall presently endeavour to ascertain what influence it exerted over the prevalence and fatality of Small Pox. But, in the first place, I think it will be useful to enquire into some of the arguments which were adduced in support of the practice; and, it may be, to allude to a few which were opposed to it.

-----

Footnote 5:

Moore’s History of Small Pox, p. 228-9.

-----

The principal arguments, on which the employment of inoculation for Small Pox was supported, appear to have been the following:—

1. The infectious nature of the disease, which was so virulent as to permit few individuals to pass through life without being at one time or other affected by it.

2. Its fatality—destroying at least one in five or six of those attacked by it.

3. The generally received opinion that no individual could be affected by it oftener than once. And

4. That, when communicated by inoculation, it was rendered comparatively mild and devoid of danger, while it afforded equal security against any future attack of the disease.

The two former of these positions need not engage our attention in this place—the highly infectious nature of Small Pox has always been admitted; and I have already brought forward sufficient proof of the danger to human life which it occasions.

The third proposition is of most material importance; for I am well convinced that upon a proper understanding of this question depended the true value of inoculation as far as regarded individuals; and on it also rests the true value of Vaccination as regards society in general.