Si is not infectious. This is a most material 
cumstance in favour of the new inoculation, 
is an undisputed fact that the mortality of 
all pox lias increased since the adoption of 
“ artificial mode of communicating it. 
lough many individuals have profited by 
pcuiation, it has destroyed more lives, upon 
e whole, than it has preserved; and has ag- 
avated the sufferings of those who have re- 
fed to employ it, in a greater degree than it 
is relieved those who have availed them- 
Hves of its protection. 
p. The cow-pock does not leave any bad 
umours after it. 
|6. “ Its security, as a prophylactic against 
le small pox, is equal to the small pox itself, 
ither natural or inoculated.” Thornton. 
[Under these six heads we believe that we 
ave included all the benefits which are stated 
) have resulted from the Jennerian practice 
y its several advocates; and we apprehend it 
I? only in the two last particulars that any ma- 
irial difference of sentiment now prevails. 
Ivcn those who are still adverse to vaccine, 
s a substitute for small pox, inoculation, will 
How that the dispute respecting the propriety 
r impropriety of the new practice, principal - 
y, if not entirely, hinges upon the validity or 
^validity of the two last of the above propo- 
itions ; for if we are to forego the advantages 
if Jenner’s discovery, from an apprehension 
if an unjustifiable interference with the de- 
fees of Providence, we should not only be 
compelled likewise to abandon variolous ino- 
jjulation, but we ought no longer to think of 
(r resting the progress of fever, of mitigating 
he violence of pain, or of extracting a cari- 
H1S tootll. 
j: It is then the two last propositions which 
lemand a separate and particular investiga- 
.ion. 
| First, Does the cow-pock engender other 
liseases ? or, in the phraseology before used, 
does it leave any humours after it? 
1 It is necessary to observe, that those gen- 
tlemen who have protested against vaccinia 
is introductory of other diseases, have de- 
scribed these affections to be principally cu- 
:aneous. Now those who aver that this is an 
absolute misrepresentation ; and that so far 
Tom being followed by the alleged conse- 
quences, the number of scrophulous and cu- 
taneous disorders which have followed upon 
the small pox, naturally and artificially in- 
troduced, are in a greater proportion than 
jliose which have happened posterior to 
raccine inoculation; are much more nu- 
merous than the advocates for the contra- 
ry side of the question. On this ground, 
then, the inference from every principle of 
reasoning would be drawn by an impartial 
judgment in favour of vaccination. It will 
pot, we hope, by the antivaccinist, be consi- 
dered as irregular or unfair, to appeal on this 
bead to a particular authority, viz. Dr. Wil- 
.an, who, if he has no title to be considered 
as “ the oracle of the metropolis in all cuta- 
neous diseases,” has unquestionably a right 
to speak on this head “ as one having autho- 
rity.” Th is gentleman asserts that no new 
disorders have been introduced since the dis- 
covery of vaccination, and that the cutane- 
ous affections which had been previously pre- 
talent have in no measure increased in viru- 
lence. But Dr. Wilkin, it will perhaps be 
mged, may be a prejudiced, and therefore an 
f Vox.. II. 
VACCINATION. 
incorrect, judge.' Aware of the possibility o r 
such objection to his statement, this physician 
lias not given the detail of his own private 
practice merely in order to authorize his as- 
sertion, but has inserted in his treatise Dr. 
Bateman’s extract from the register of pa- 
tients at the public dispensary in London. 
In the year 1 797, before the publication of 
Dr. Jenner’s enquiry, the total number of 
diseases was 1730 ; the number of chronic cu - 
taneous eruptions was 85. In 1798, total 
number of diseases I6ti4 ; chronic cutaneous 
eruptions 82. In 1804 the proportions are 
1915 — 89. In 1805, 1974 — 94. Nearly the 
same proportion, our author adds, may be 
deduced on comparing Dr. Murray’s, Dr. 
Reid’s, Dr. Walker’s, and my own reports on 
diseases in London for the last ten years ; 
and these, it may be added, were made with- 
out any reference to the vaccine controversy. 
Ought, then, the individual cases brought for- 
ward by the gentlemen opposed to vaccina- 
tion to outweigh, or even balance, the con- 
trary evidence above adduced? Here again 
we leave the reader to make his own infer- 
ence. 
If it should be urged that wehave not brought 
forward the cases opposed to vaccinia, it is an- 
swered, neither have we adduced the more 
numerous instances which make against the 
variolous inoculation. In fact, the uncer- 
tainty ot medical evidence forbids any satis- 
factory conclusion but that which is deduced 
from comparison on a large and general 
scale. 
It would be, however, doing injustice to the 
cause of vaccination, to omit the following 
statements from Mr. Trye, surgeon to the 
Gloucester infirmary: 1st. “A more healthy 
description of human beings does not exist, 
nor one more iree from chronic cutaneous 
impurities, than that which suffers most from 
cow-pox, by reason of their being employed 
in dairies. 
2d. “ The Gloucester infirmary*, one of 
the largest provincial hospitals, is situated in 
a county in which accidental cow-pox lias 
been prevalent from time immemorial : many 
hundreds among the labouring people have 
had the cow-pox since the establishment of 
that institution, and that more severely than 
is generally the case in artificial vaccination ; 
and yet not a single patient in half a century 
has applied to the infirmary for relief of any 
disease, local or constitutional, which he or 
she imputed or pretended to trace to the 
cow-pox. And let it be repeated and re- 
membered, that the artificial in no respect dif- 
fers from the accidental cow-pox, except in 
being generally less virulent.” 
But the most momentous question still re- 
mains to be discussed. Does the cow-pock 
afford a permanent security against variolous 
infection ? 
Towards the decision of this point it will be 
found of essential consequence to revert to 
the two obstacles which we have already 
stated, as having presented themselves to Dr. 
Jenner in the commencement of his investi- 
gation. 
While the reader retains this in mind, he 
will readily, we think, perceive the self-refu- 
tation contained in the following remarks of 
Dr. Rowley: “No other questions are ad- 
missible in vaccination than, Have the parties 
5 O 
«il 
been inoculated for the cow-pox > Yes. 
Have they had the small pox afterwards? 
Yes. As to how, when, where, whether the 
cow-pox ( 00 k, was genuine or spurious, or 
any arguments, however specious, as pretexts 
for doubts or failures, they are evasive or ir- 
relative to the question. They may confound 
fools, but not heighten the credit of vaccina- 
tion.” 
On this declaration it lias been forcibly re- 
marked, that “ it would belittle less absurd 
to tell a jury in a trial for murder, that the 
only question was, whether a pistol had been 
fired or not; and that it was of no consequence 
to inquire whether it was loaded with ball, 
or whether the sufferer had died of a pistol- 
shot.” 
After what we have already stated respect- 
ing those eruptions which had been indiscri- 
minately thought the same as the true vac- 
cine disease, and of the changes which the 
cow-pox matter is itself susceptible of, we 
think our readers will unite in opinion with 
us, that the questions respecting the genuine 
or spurious cow-pox, “ the how, the when, 
and the where’ the parties were inoculated, 
are most material points to ascertain, as pre- 
liminary steps to decision respecting alleged 
failures. 
By the further statement which will be given 
in the sequel, it will be perceived that there 
are several circumstances necessary to the 
perfection and absolutely preventive power of 
vaccine inoculation, which it is by no means 
unfair to suppose were overlooked by, or un- 
known to, the inoculators at the early periods 
of the practice. “ During the years 1799" 
and 1800, vaccine inoculation was performed 
by ten or twelve thousand persons who had 
never seen the vaccine pustule.” (Dr. Wil- 
iam) Now, under these circumstances, we 
cannot help agreeing with this author that it 
is rather matter of surprise that the number 
of unsuccessful cases has proved so compa- 
ratively small. 
Here it is material to observe, that the ma- 
jority of those examples which have beca 
brought forward as examples of variolous, af- 
ter vaccine disease, have been attended with 
so much irregularity, that they cannot be 
considered as genuine cases of small pox. 
This, we think, has been rendered evident by 
the very able and dispassionate examination 
of Dr. Wiliam 011 the progress and termina- 
tion of the most formidable of such cases as 
have occurred in and about the metropolis. 
But let it be granted to the opposer of vac- 
cination, that several instances have been 
presented of perfect' and regular small pox 
subsequent to the vaccine disease, equally ge- 
nuine and regular, “ yet still the Jennerian 
practice must maintain its ground triumph- 
antly, it it can be shewn to be as effectual a 
preventive of small pox as the old inoculation. 
Now we think it has been demonstrated be- 
yond the possibility of contradiction, that the 
number of authenticated cases of small pox 
after the old inoculation, and even after a for- 
mer attack of the natural disease, are more 
numerous in proportion than those that are 
alleged with any probability of such an 
occurrence after complete vaccination. '* 
The writer of the article from which we 
have extracted the above observations, 
goes 011 to say : “ On the whole, we think 
there are not fewer than twenty distinct 
