700 TRANSLATIONS FROM CONTINENTAL JOURNALS, 
have not been a preservative of the sheep ; whilst the product 
of the proper pustule of their variola, always protects them from 
attack. I therefore^ until the contrary is demonstrated, think 
that there is no identity between the virus of the sheep-pox and 
the cow-pox. If the opinion of M. Depaul were well founded, 
the cow-pox would be more common at the present time. 
Why should it not be regenerated by successive inoculation 
in the cow? But a last proof which establishes in my opinion, 
with perhaps more evidence, that the cow-pox is not identical 
Avith the sheep-pox, is that the latter is very common in 
sheep, Avhilst the former is extremely rare, and even amongst 
cows Avhich live in the contagious atmosphere of the sheep- 
pox. In conclusion, I believe that the identity Avhich has 
been sought to be established between the cow- and the sheep- 
pox, during the whole of the historic epoch of the vaccine, is 
contradicted by experiment. 
M. Leblanc. —It is already a long time since that, by a 
serious and unbiassed examination and experimentation, it 
Avas proAnd there was nothing less correct than the extra¬ 
ordinary results Avhich have been proclaimed by a great 
number of medical [and veterinary practitioners, relative to 
the origin of the vaccine, and also relative to the preservative 
poAver of the vaccine virus against a certain number of 
diseases in animals. M. Bonsquet, the learned reporter of the 
commission, amongst others, has analysed and judged in his 
^Nouveau Traite de Vaccine,^ (1818), the principal documents 
Avhich exist on the origin of this disease; and one of the 
paragraphs of the summing up of the chapter consecrated 
to the rencAving.of the vaccine is as folloAvs:—ScA'en- 
teen experiments made Avithout the least success by the 
author of this Avork leave little hope of ever producing 
the vaccine by the inoculation of the grease. The attempts 
recently made by M. Depaul do not give any better result. 
M. Bousquet might have also added that Avhich resulted 
from the analyses made by him of the documents published 
up to 1818, that the facts announced as favorable to the 
l)roductidn of the vaccine by the inoculation of the grease 
of the horse, are equally as unauthentic — even those of 
Jenner and several other observers, to Avhom the greatest 
confidence had been accorded. ^I. Bousquet had then 
judged very differently the obseiwations published by Jenner 
from M. Bouley in the last sitting. I also have examined 
these documents, and I liaA^e come to the same conclusion 
as ]M. Bousquet. Since that time the fact communi¬ 
cated by M^I. Maunoury and Pichot has presented itself. 
M. Bousquet has also analysed and judged it, and not- 
