1046 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION I. 
them, it must have been by one of two races: either by the 
Malays—a contingency which, under all the known circumstances, 
seems to me at least remote—or by the Chinese at some date later 
than 1872. Here the vast extent of the area over which the 
infected tribes extend must be remembered, and that while these 
tribes were not in contact with any town, the Chinese, on the 
other hand, spread only over those comparatively small areas on 
which employment or gold could be found in conditions (of neigh- 
bourhood to whites) which would make their prolonged stay 
profitable. Were it granted that they might have been infected 
by the Chinese, still it is difficult to see how the opportunity for 
communication came about. Lastly, there is nothing of an 
evidential nature to warrant connection of their infection rather 
with the Chinese in recent years than with the Malays in older 
times, or vice versa. 
The question whether lepra was indigenous to any part of 
Australia is so important that it has seemed necessary to go into 
some detail in speaking of occurrences of the disease among the 
aboriginals ; but it remains unanswered for the present, in my 
opinion ; yet, as the foregoing information is at this date entirely 
new, it is possible that more light may be thrown upon it as time 
goes on and attention is more steadily directed toit. This branch 
of the subject, then, must now be left aside, and the incidence of 
lepra on the whites and on foreign immigrants must be examined. 
I go on to speak of other parts of Australia, and of leprosy 
among native-born whites, immigrant whites, and coloured aliens. 
No cases have ever been observed in Tasmania or in South 
Australia. Only two, both in Chinese, have been observed in 
Western Australia. There have been many recorded cases both in 
whites and coloured aliens (Chinese and Kanakas) in Queensland ; 
but the list is, beyond doubt, remarkably short of the fact as 
regards the latter. It is probably deficient there as regards the 
whites, too—to what extent cannot be guessed; and that it is 
deficient is but an inference from the known facts, though a very 
strong one, Remain, therefore, New South Wales and Victoria, 
for which territories the information, though doubtless incomplete, 
is yet in all probability sufficiently full for practical purposes. 
The epidemiology of lepra in these two territories presents a problem 
of great interest.* 
* Although I shall probably not have occasion in this account to refer again to Queensland, 
it is nevertheless sufticiently interesting to be noted that the first case of leprosy in Australia 
of which there is evidence was encountered there, the late Dr. Bancroft having discovered 
the history of the illness of an aged Chinese in old case-books of Brisbane Hospital. Though 
the nature of the case was not recognised at the time (1855), the description was to his mind 
(and after reading the original M.S. is to my own) sufficiently clear. The first case of lepra 
in a white native of which there is record was observed and identified by myself, the patient 
still surviving (see Annual Report on Leprosy, Board of Health, New South Wales, 1895, 
Case L), and presenting an example of healed L. nzrvoruin with consecutive neurotrophic 
changes. The date of attack was 1856. 
