132 
INOCULATION FOR PLEURO-PNEUMON IA. 
the interests of medical science and in self-defence that the 
bare truth, stripped of the prejudice and ignorance with 
which it has been invested, should be told, especially since 
the appearance of an article in one of the local papers, 
lamenting that a veterinarian should be allowed to go about 
propagating a disease which is on the decline, by inoculation, 
and so it w r ould be if it w’ere true ; but pleuro-pneumonia is 
unfortunately on the increase in this country; and this 
disorder and foot and mouth disease have been so unmerci- 
fully jumbled together that the public may well believe that 
both these diseases have been, and are, in the course of 
propagation by the veterinarian referred to. It is admitted 
that foot and mouth disease is on the decline; but it is denied 
that it has ever been given by a biped to quaduped in this 
country by design, although he may happen to be an unfor- 
tunate veterinarian requested to investigate the nature and 
probable preventive effects of inoculation for the public weal. 
Moreover, I venture to challenge to the proof the physicians 
and veterinary surgeons of Germany and Belgium, including 
the originator of the practice, Dr. Willems (in 1851) ; and 
its advocates, if now alive, Didot, Corvoni, Ercolani, and 
others, as well as those wffio have practised it in our own 
country, that they have ever produced pleuro-pneumonia by 
inoculation at all, or at least in a degree sufficient for a careful 
observer to detect it, much less in such a form as to jeopardise or 
destroy life . And, moreover, I am willing to undertake, in 
proof of my bond-fides, to inoculate any number of healthy 
animals that have been on farms for six months, w’here pleuro- 
pneumonia has not occurred for four years, and to get the same 
insured in the Norfolk Farmers' Insurance and Investment 
Company, whose chief offices are in St. Giles's Street, Nor- 
wich, against any losses that may occur from pleuro-pneumonia 
after the operation, upon the same terms as now charged for 
cattle insurance against ordinary disease and accident. 
After these remarks it will be apparent that I do not 
attach much importance to the results of these experiments. 
They are, in my opinion, insufficient and incomplete. I 
think, however, they incontestibly demonstrate two facts; 
first, that pleuro-pneumonia inoculation, when scientifically 
performed, is a harmless operation, and not likely to cause an 
extension of the disease, and that the loss of animals' tails 
and other untoward effects, when they occur, are produced 
by the ignorance and want of skill of the inoculator; 
secondly, that it differs in most essential points from the 
conditions induced by inoculations in other contagious 
diseases, such as small-pox or cattle plague. In the inocu- 
