[ 2*3 3 



XLIX. Notices re/petting ISfew Booh. 



An Examination of the Report of the Committee of the Hcufe 

 of Commons on the Claims of Remuneration for the Vaccine 

 Pock Inoculation, containing a Statement of the principal' 

 hijloric I Fuels of the Vaccina. By George Pearson, 

 M.D. F.R.S. PhyJLian to the Vaccine Pock Injlitution, 

 Senior Vhyjician to St. George s Ho/pital, Honorary Mem- 

 ler of the Board of Agriculture, &c. Johnfon, 8vo. 

 1802. 



A HE inoculation of the cow-pock having always ap- 

 peared to us to be interesting, not only on account of the 

 improvement of the praclice of medicine from it, but alfo 

 as a very curious facl in natural hi dory, we have noticed fe- 

 vcral publications, and received many papers and notices 

 concerning it. It is not our defign to give a complete ana- 

 lysis, or even copious extracts ; but the prefent work demands 

 an early account, as, no doubt, many of our readers will be 

 eager to know what is the object of the prefent examination, 

 which the author ftates to be — 



(( 1. In order to fubmit to the judgment of the public, 

 whether or no more honourable and juft grounds might not 

 have been aflerteel for the remuneration of the petitioner. 



" 1. \\\ order to offer evidence for the manifeflation of fe- 

 veral truths, and for the expofitipn, perhaps, of fome errors 

 and mi (lakes; and 



"3. With the view of obtaining the opinion of the public, 

 whether or no any credit be due to others for the difcovery of 

 facls; the detection of ill-grounded aflertions ; and for labour, 

 expenditure of time, and other facrifices, in introducing and 

 maintaining the vaccine inoculation.'* 



The author, in the very fir ft page, fets out with declaring 

 to the public that Dr. .Tenner is the diicoverer of the vaccine 

 inoculation, and in this point of view he confiders him as 

 entitled to the remuneration by a prior right to every other 

 perfon ; but in the courfc of the work he brings out a great 

 variety of facts in evidence, to (how that neither the necef- 

 fary fae^s for the prefent practice were difcovered by 

 Dr. Jenner, nor were the facls which he publifhed even 

 eftablifhed by aYufficient number of experiment*. The au- 

 thor brings out a great number of ex traces from publications, 

 to fliow that he had no fmall (hare in inveftigating the vac- 

 cine inoculation practice; but that the petitioner claims, or 

 rather the committee in their report affirm, the whole prac- 

 tice to have been eftablifhed bv him. To fhow the contrary, 



T'4 the 



