I have heard myself a great many rumours of the inoculated being naturally infected afterwards, which upon examination proved just as many lies.* How could women and divines resist such evidence? A voluble antagonist of inoculation was the Rev. Theodore Delafaye of Canterbury. He preached a sermon in that city on the 3rd of June, 1753, from the text, "Let us do evil that good may come" (Rom. iii. 8), and published it under the title of Inoculation an Indefensible Practice. He was in turn attacked by the inoculators, and in 1754 issued A Vindication of 200 pages, in which he returned more than he received with vigour rather than discretion. His conclusion was— Inoculation I maintain to be, in a religious and moral view, a self-destructive, inhuman, and impious machination, and in a physical one an unreasonable, unnatural, unlawful, most hazardous, ineffectual, fruitless, uncertain, unnecessary device; in a word, a practice which nature recoils at, which reason opposes, and which religion condemns. We sometimes read that inoculation was denounced as Atheism, and we are expected to reprobate or to smile at the bigotry; and, whilst we may not approve of the stigma, we may at the same time recognise the honest sense in which it might be affixed. Some who spoke of inoculation as Atheistic felt more vividly than they could otherwise describe, that it was an infraction of the deeper sanctity of Nature, where man's hand cannot enter and prosper, and that those who made the attempt could have no proper sense of Him in whom they lived, and moved, and had their being. Moreover, if we are to admit that they who thus expressed themselves are blameable for excessive vehemence, what are we to say of the more numerous party who did not hesitate to pronounce inoculation a discovery effected in the human mind by God himself? If it was reasonable to speak of the practice as Theistic, why should it be fanatical to assert the contrary, and maintain that it involved a negation of Divine Providence? Dr. Kirk * An Analysis of Inoculation, 2nd ed. 1761, p. 145. patrick, with the sycophancy which was the custom of his age, praised George II. for "the benevolent, and even celestial disposition," which induced him to patronise "the wonderful and probably Heaven-descended practice of inoculation;" and extolled "its equal simplicity and success as demonstrating "to a reflective mind the goodness of Providence in making what may be so often necessary, so easily accomplished." It would not be difficult to cite scores of confessions of gratitude to God for inoculation, but to what purpose? What we think good we necessarily ascribe to God; and we do well; but much that we think good is otherwise, or is only partially good; and what then? Why, we are undeceived and corrected by experience. We put our notion of what is good to the test of practice, and God answers us in the event-justifies, amends, or confounds us. Thus with inoculation. It was fair that those who thought it good should refer it to God, and thank him for it; and it was equally fair that those who thought it bad should say it was none of his-that it was at variance with his order, and a discredit to the intelligence of those who imputed it to Him. How was the issue to be determined? Only by God himself. And how would He speak? In the results of experience wherein his will would become manifest beyond equivocation. In 1754 inoculation obtained full recognition from the London College of Physicians. It was declared "that experience had refuted the arguments urged against the practice; that it was now more extensively employed in England than ever; and that it was highly beneficial to mankind." The fence of hesitation was thrown down, and to be inoculated became the distinction of all who wished to be numbered with the enlightened and prudent. That the Circassians were famous for their beauty, and that they practised inoculation, was a staple argument, and an irresistible, with a multitude of Englishwomen. Opposition was chiefly confined to the lower orders, who * Analysis of Inoculation, p. 348. objected to have the inoculated at large among them, and in some places threatened to demolish the houses where inoculation was performed.* Occasionally a medical practitioner acquired reputation as an inoculator, and was resorted to by patients from a distance, and his operations were not regarded with much favour by his neighbours. Thus the physicians and surgeons of Newbury, Berks, were compelled by their townsmen to promise to inoculate no one who had not resided in Newbury at least two years. The new practice created much business, and its distribution excited some jealousy. Physicians complained that surgeons inoculated without their assistance, and surgeons that apothecaries did so likewise. Dr. Kirkpatrick laid down the rule that every rightly conducted inoculation involved the employment of physician, surgeon, and apothecary-the physician to prepare and prescribe for the patient, the surgeon to cut, infuse, and dress, and the apothecary to make up the medicines. Some, however, dispensed with all three, and effected their own inoculations. A boy poxed fourteen of his schoolfellows in sport, and amateur inoculators, male and female, multiplied. As an example of amateur procedure, Dr. Kirkpatrick relates that a gentleman of Kent sent his servant, Silvanus, a young man, to Mrs. Chapman, at Heathfield, to be inoculated. He had to ride thirteen miles, and arrived hot and fatigued at the house of the inoculatrix. As he had taken his preparatory physic at his master's, Mrs. Chapman desired him to get ready at once for the operation, which he begged her to defer as he was in such a heat. She replied that he must be inoculated that very day, Tuesday, or remain until the following week, for Tuesday was her lucky day. The poor fellow allowed himself to be persuaded, and was then and there inoculated severe smallpox ensued, and he died. † Thus was inoculation revived and established, and smallpox with it-established and diffused. *Gentleman's Magazine, March, 1753. + Kirkpatrick's Analysis of Inoculation, p. 359. CHAPTER VII. TRIUMPH OF INOCULATION. IT having come to pass, according to the boast of Dr. Kirkpatrick, that inoculation was regarded as "the most salutary practice ever discovered for restraining a very loathsome and destroying disorder, which it had nearly expunged from the catalogue of mortal diseases," it was the aim of physicians and patients to reduce the trouble and hazard of the operation to the lowest terms possible. In the words of Dr. Jenner, "There was bleeding till the blood was thin, purging till the body was wasted to a skeleton, and starving on vegetable diet to keep it so;" and practitioners who promised to mitigate these rigours, placed themselves in the line of popularity and prosperity. Among distinguished easy inoculators was a family named Sutton-"the Suttons" being a familiar name a century ago. Dr. Robert Sutton practised surgery and pharmacy at Debenham, in Suffolk, and went into inoculation with such energy that between 1757 and 1767 he operated on 2514 patients. His son, Robert, set up as inoculator at Bury St. Edmunds, where he did a large business; but a second son, Daniel, was the genius of the household. He had been acting as assistant to Mr. Bumstead at Oxford, and returned to his father in 1763 enthusiastic over a new plan of inoculation whereby the time of preparation was to be shortened, whilst the patients were to live in the open air. Old Sutton showed no favour for the projected innovation, whereon Daniel opened an inoculating house on his own account at Ingatestone, in Essex, advertising himself as inoculator on a new, safe, and sure method. The speculation answered. In 1764 he took 2000 guineas, and in 1765 his receipts were £6300. His fame spread throughout the country, and so many resorted to him that lodgings were scarcely to be had in and around Ingatestone. His practice in Kent was also extensive, and he was obliged to employ assistants. To crown his enterprise, he kept a parson-the Rev. Robert Houlton, to puff his skill and success. According to Houlton, the business of Daniel Sutton during three years was as follows— to which number was added 6000 inoculated by Sutton's assistants, making a total of 20,000, without, said Houlton, a single death.* Sutton was denounced as a quack, and if to reserve as one's own, and to traffic in what is proclaimed to be for the common advantage of mankind, constitutes a quack, Sutton was one. Nevertheless, he was successful, and his success begot so much jealousy that he was indicted at the Chelmsford quarter sessions, but acquitted with the thanks of the grand jury for the lesson he had taught the Faculty. Much ingenuity was exercised in ferreting out Sutton's secret. His secret, so far as it was anything, was an open one; and supposing it necessary to infect men's blood with variolous pus, and then to operate for their recovery, there would be much to say for Sutton's procedure. His patients were obliged to go through a strict preparatory regimen for a fortnight, during which every kind of animal food, with the exception of milk, and all fermented liquors and spices were forbidden. Fruit of all sorts was allowed, unless on days when purges were taken. In the course of a fortnight a powder was thrice administered at bed-time, and a dose of salts on the succeeding morning. When the days of preparation were accomplished, the patient was taken to the inoculating house, where in the public room was found an array of people in various stages of smallpox. From one of these sufferers, the operator selected a pustule to his mind, opened it with his lancet, and, turning to the * Sermon preached at Ingatestone, 12th October, 1766, in defence of Inoculation, with App. on the present state of Inoculation. Lond., 1767. |