270 Original Vaccine Pock institution. 



stances of the small-pox subsequently to the cow-pock, 

 and the occurrence of disorders imputed to the new prac- 

 tice. Two opposite parties have for some time endea- 

 voured to influence the conduct of the public ; the one as- 

 serting and publishing numerous cases of failure and dis- 

 ease from the vaccine inoculation, the other disallowing 

 such cases, but ascribing the occurrences to inattention, ig- 

 norance, imprudence, and misrepresentation ; also to the 

 human constitution being, in a small proportion of indivi- 

 duals, susceptible of the small-pox, and in course of the 

 cow-pock, more than once. In this state of practice and 

 opinions, it appears to be the duty of the medical establish- 

 ment of this institution to communicate to the governors' 

 the information derived from their own experience on the 

 two points in question of vaccine practice. 



" I. Concerning the power of the vaccine infection to 

 render the human animal unsusceptible of the small-pox. — 

 Two instances only of alleged failure occurred during the 

 years 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1805. I think, 

 in both cases, the small-pox really took place after vaccine 

 inoculation at the institution ; but as it appeared from our 

 register, that one of these patients, Soncer Lemon, had not 

 duly attended, there was a deficiency of evidence to prove 

 that the cow-pock had been excited. In the other case, 

 James M'Pherson's, it did appear from our records, that the 

 patient had undergone the cow-pock, and it was admitted 

 by the medical establishment, that the subsequent disorder 

 was the small-pox. Having, however, up to the time of 

 this last occurrence, an immense body of positive favour- 

 able evidence communicated from all quarters of the world, 

 particularly bv the correspondence of the institution with 

 manv practitioners in different parts of the united kingdom, 

 in addition to the experience of our own establishment, we 

 were rather inclined to suspect, in the case last mentioned, 

 some error in our register, than to admit an exception to 

 what appeared to be a law of the human animal ceconomy. 

 To appreciate justly our statements, it is necessary to ex- 

 plain that many of our vaccinated patients were, in the 

 years 18i)0, 1801, and 1800, inoculated with variolous 

 matter, and on good authority we know that many of them 



were 



