A History of Epidemics in Britain, Volume 2 (of 2) by Charles Creighton

1689. Engl. Transl. by Cockburn, 1693, p. 39.

9056 words  |  Chapter 103

[1393] _Obs. Med._ IV. cap. 2, § 7: “haud aliter ac si in aëre peculiaris mensis hujus [Augusti] lateat reconditum ac peculiare quiddam, quod specificam hujus modi alterationem, soli huic morbo adaptatam, vel cruori vel ventriculi fermento valeat imprimere.” [1394] See the reference to Simpson’s essay, _supra_, p. 333. [1395] W. Fordyce, M.D. _A new inquiry into the Causes, Symptoms and Cure of Putrid and Inflammatory Fevers: with an Appendix on the Hectic Fever and on the Ulcerated and Malignant Sore Throat._ London, 1773, p. 207. [1396] See the Representation of the College of Physicians on Drink in 1726, cited at p. 84. [1397] Joseph Clarke, M.D. “Nine-day Fits in the Lying-in Hospital of Dublin.” _Trans. Royal Irish Academy_ (in _Med. Facts and Obs._ III. 1792). [1398] Moss, u. s. He makes out that the infants of the poorer class were much neglected by their drunken parents. [1399] John Ferriar, M.D., _Medical Histories and Reflections_. 2 vols. Lond. 1810. II. 213 seq. “On the Prevention of Fevers in Great Towns.” [1400] Watt, u. s., says that “bowel-hive” at Glasgow included, along with teething, “a promiscuous mass which may be considered nearly in the same light as the great number of deaths in the London bills of mortality ranked under the terms convulsions, gripes of the guts, &c.... If the patient dies in a state of convulsions, this, we are told, is owing to the hives having gone in about the heart, or their having seized the bowels.” [1401] Hirsch, _Geographical and Historical Pathology_, Engl. Transl. III. 376. [1402] Supplement to the 45th Annual Report of the Registrar-General. London, 1885, p. xiii. Ballard, following the method of Pfeiffer (1871) for Asiatic cholera, has shown that the correspondence is closest with the temperature of the ground four feet deep. [1403] Ballard, _Report to the Local Government Board upon the Causation of Summer Diarrhoea_, 1889, p. 32. [1404] Willis mentions an instance (_Pathol. Cerebri_, Pordage’s transl. p. 25) which can hardly mean anything but congenital feebleness as a cause of infantile convulsions. A neighbour of his (in St Martin’s Lane) had lost all his children by convulsions within the space of three months. Another child was born, and Willis was sent for to advise what regimen should be followed so as to save it from the same fate. [1405] This is clearly seen in comparing ages at death in Liverpool, and in Preston or Salford. Again in the ten years 1871-80, there were 4530 deaths from diarrhoea in the group of shipping towns, Yarmouth, Hull (with Sculcoates), Goole and Hartlepool, of which 70 per cent. were under one year, 19 per cent. from one to five, and 11 per cent. above five, chiefly in old age. In the group of Leicester, Worcester, Northampton and Coventry in the same period, there were 5001 deaths, of which 74 per cent. were under one year, 17 per cent. from one to five, and 9 per cent. above five, chiefly in old age. [1406] Ballard, _Report, &c._ u. s. says that “occupation of females from home,” which had been often assigned by medical officers of health and others as a fruitful cause of infantile fatal diarrhoea, “resolves itself mainly into the question of maternal neglect, with the substitution more or less of artificial feeding for feeding at the breast.” Tatham, _Brit. Med. Journ._ 1892, II. 277, is of opinion that the rate of infant mortality was considerably increased by the practice, which obtained in most manufacturing towns, of allowing women to return to work within a week or ten days after their confinement, so that the duties of the mother were necessarily delegated. The paper by Dr G. Reid, _ibid._ p. 275, which called forth that and similar opinions as to the kind of maternal neglect that favoured the mortality by infantile diarrhoea, bore the title, “Legal restraint upon the employment of women in factories before and after childbirth”; but the emphasis falls almost wholly upon restraint of the mother’s industrial occupation after the child is born. [1407] L. c. pp. 43-45. [1408] Ballard, u. s. Table VI. [1409] See former volume, p. 412. [1410] _The Triall of Tabacco, &c._ by E. G. [Edmund Gardiner], Gent. and Practicioner in Physicke. London, 1610, fol. II. [1411] _Obs. Med._ IV. cap. 2. [1412] _Ibid._ IV. cap. 7. [1413] Dr Andrew Wilson, a pupil of the Edinburgh School in the great period of the first Monro, Whytt and Rutherford, used his Newcastle experiences in 1758 and following years as the basis of two excellent essays, one on Dysentery (1761) and the other upon Autumnal Disorders of the Bowels (1765). In the latter he includes both cholera nostras and bilious colic, (as well as dry colic) as Sydenham had done, and makes the following distinction between the two forms, which “are very nearly allied in their nature”:--“The vomiting of bile in the cholera is not so early as it is in the other; neither is it so constant, nor in so large quantities. Though a purging generally attends the bilious colic, yet it does not correspond so regularly as it does in the cholera, in which there generally is a call to stool soon after every paroxysm of vomiting.... The bilious colic is not generally so quickly hazardous as the cholera is. The intervals between the sick fits are often longer, and when it is attended with danger, it does not become so so suddenly as the cholera does.” Bilious colic was not so strictly an autumnal complaint as cholera. It was not so soon relieved by medicines. It resembled cholera in the remarkable character of exciting cramps in other muscles than the abdominal. [1414] _Pharmaceutice rationalis._ [1415] Appendix to _Essay on Smallpox_, 1740. [1416] _Gent. Magaz._, Sept. 1751, p. 398. [1417] _Two Papers on Fever and Infection_, 1763, p. 35. [1418] _Med. Hist. and Reflect._ II. 220. [1419] _Ed. Med. Surg. Journ._, 1807. [1420] Charles Turner Thackrah, _Cholera, its character and treatment, with remarks on the identity of the Indian and English_. Leeds, 1832, p. 24. [1421] W. Horsley, _Med. Phys. Journ._ 24 March, 1832, p. 270. [1422] _Geogr. and Histor. Path._ Engl. transl. III. 315. [1423] It is probable that the association of surfeit with bowel-complaint in general and at length with dysentery in particular came from the popular belief that these maladies of the autumnal season were due to repletion with fruit. That was the popular belief from an early period, which nearly all the medical writers on autumnal diarrhoea and dysentery took occasion to combat as either inadequate or erroneous. [1424] See Vol. 1. of this History, p. 626. The following is in a letter from Charles Bertie to Viscountess Campden, London, 22 Nov. 1681: “I have safely received your choice present of four bottles, three of Plague and the other of Surfeit water, which I shall preserve against the occasion, being confident that better are not made with hands.” _Cal. Belvoir MSS._ (Hist. MSS. Com.) II. 60. [1425] _Obs. Med._ IV. cap. 3. [1426] _Pharmaceutice Rationalis_, lib. III. cap. 3. [1427] _Supra_, p. 103. [1428] Andrew Fletcher, _Two Discourses, &c._ No. 2. p. 2, 1698. [1429] John Jones, M.D., _De Morbis Hibernorum specialim vero de Dysenteria Hibernica. Accesserunt nonnulla de Dysenteria Epidemica_. Inaug. Diss. Trin. Col. Dub. Londini, 1698, p. 12. [1430] _Edin. Med. Essays and Obs._ I. (1733) 37, II. 30, IV. V. [1431] James Stephen, surgeon to Gen. Whetham’s regiment, in Pringle’s collection of accounts of the “Success of the vitrum Antimonii ceratum.” _Ibid._ V. pt. 2, p. 179, 4th ed. [1432] Professor T. Simpson, of St Andrews, Andrew Brown, of Dalkeith, John Paisley and John Gordon, of Glasgow. _Ibid._ [1433] _Gent. Magaz._, 1741, p. 705. [1434] The “epidemic constitution” of 1743 was so markedly dysenteric after the influenza in the spring that Huxham regarded the dysentery as a sequela of the influenza. [1435] Mark Akenside, M.D., _De Dysenteria Commentarius_, London, 1764. [1436] George Baker, M.D., _De Catarrho et de Dysenteria Londinensi Epidemicis utrisque An._ MDCCLXII. _Libellus_, Lond., 1764. [1437] William Watson, M.D., in _Phil. Trans._ LII. pt. 2 (1762), p. 647. [1438] Pringle also, who was well acquainted with the dysentery of campaigns, speaks of the London epidemic as an exceptional occurrence, and as having caused few deaths. [1439] _Med. Obs. and Inquiries_, IV. (1771), p. 153. [1440] MS. Infirmary Book of the Foundling Hospital. [1441] _An Essay on the Autumnal Dysentery._ By a physician (Andrew Wilson, M.D.), Lond., 1761 (Preface dated Newcastle, 25 March, 1760), pp. 1, 23. [1442] _Trans. K. and Q. Col. Phys._ V. (1828), p. 221. [1443] _Obs. on the History and Treatment of Dysentery and its Combinations, etc._, 2nd ed., Dublin, 1847. [1444] _Alexandri Tralliani Medici libri duodecim._ Basil, 1556, Lib. VIII. pp. 423, 432. [1445] Akenside, _l. c._ “Ut dysenteriam jam pro rheumatismo intestinorum habeam, et similem utriusque morbi causam et materiem esse contendimus.” [1446] Hirsch, III. 333 (Eng. transl.): “As to the influence of an extreme diurnal range of the thermometer (cold nights after very hot days) there is almost complete agreement among the observers in those parts [tropical and subtropical] of the world.” [1447] I have enunciated this view of the pathology of acute rheumatism more fully in the Article “Pathology” in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. [1448] _Lond. Med. Journal._ Editorial note, II. 211. The parish register of Finchley shows double the average mortality in 1780, and indicates dysentery as a fatal malady. Lysons, _Environs of London_. [1449] Moss, u. s. [1450] Francis Geach, F.R.S., _Some Observations on the present Epidemic Dysentery_, 1781. [1451] Dennis Ryan, M.D., “Remittent Fever of the West Indies.” _Lond. Med. Journ._ II. 253, iii. 63. [1452] Dr Livingston to Dr Lettsom, Aberdeen, 29 June, 1789, in _Memoirs of Lettsom_, III. [1453] Willan, _Report on the Diseases etc._, p. 42. The nearest approach to a fatality in dysentery, he says, happened in the case of a lady residing in Spa Fields, at whose window a brown owl, attracted by the solitary light, came flapping and hooting at midnight, to the great aggravation of the patient’s symptoms. [1454] Bateman, u. s. [1455] _Glasg. Med. Journ._ IV. (1831), pp. 5, 229. [1456] Cheyne, _Dubl. Hosp. Reports_, III. (1822), p. 3. At Limerick, from June to September, 1821, there were 47 cases among the men of the 79th regiment. [1457] Clarke, _Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ._ IV. 423. [1458] A. C. Hutchinson, _Statement of the extraordinary sickness at the Penitentiary at Milbank_, Lond. 1823; P. M. Latham, M.D., _Account of the Disease lately prevalent at the General Penitentiary_. Lond. 1825. [1459] James Wilson, _Glasgow Med. Journ._ I. (1828), p. 40. [1460] James Wilson, _Glasgow Med. Journ._ I. 39; James Brown, _ibid._; Macfarlane, I. 99; Paterson, I. 438; Editors, IV. 1; Hume (Hamilton), IV. 14, and 229; McDerment (Ayr), IV. 19; Macnab (Callander), IV. 241. [1461] Christison, “Notice on the Dysentery which has lately prevailed in the Edinburgh Infirmary.” _Edin. Med. Surg. Journ._ XXXI. (Jan. 1829), p. 216, and in _Life of Sir Robert Christison_, “Autobiography,” I. 376. [1462] W. H. Gilby, M.D., “On the Dysentery which occurred in the Wakefield Lunatic Asylum in the years 1826, 1827, 1828 and 1829.” _North of Eng. Med. and Surg. Journ._ I. (1830-31), 91. [1463] Hume, “Case of the Edinburgh New Town Epidemic.” _Glasgow Med. Journ._ IV. 229. [1464] _Ibid._ IV. 7. The following is Buchanan’s reference to it: “The only epidemic fever belonging to the family of diseases we are here considering that occurred in Scotland during the _dysenteric_ years was that of the New Town of Edinburgh, in 1828, of which we have already spoken. As our knowledge of this fever is not derived from any source on which we can certainly rely, it is possible that we may have formed an erroneous opinion respecting it; but from all we have heard of its symptoms and mode of distribution, we are disposed to consider it as totally different in nature from the common fever of this country. The latter circumstance alone, the mode of distribution of the disease, is, we think, perfectly sufficient to demonstrate our proposition. Instead of occupying the Cowgate, the Grassmarket, and the High Street, the usual haunts of typhus, this fever had its head-quarters in Heriot Row and Great King Street; and, according to our information, it extended from the last mentioned street in the direction of the Water of Leith, and from Leith, along the shore, to Musselburgh. We do not vouch for the accuracy of these minute details, but we believe the important fact to be beyond doubt that this fever prevailed chiefly, not in the districts where typhus is invariably to be met with, but in the most fashionable parts of the New Town.” [1465] James Black, M.D., _Edin. Med. Surg. Journ._ XLV. (1836), p. 63. “As the epidemic was ushered in and was accompanied during the half of its course with cholera, fever of a typhous character followed close in its train among the working and lower classes, and continued more or less during the first months of winter, after dysentery had totally disappeared.” The latter had not been seen again down to 1835. [1466] J. Smith, _ibid._ XLII. (1833), p. 342. [1467] Cleland, _Trans. Glasg. and Clydesd. Statist. Soc._ I. 1837. [1468] Arrott, _Edin. Med. Surg. Journ._, Jan. 1839, p. 121. [1469] Farr, in _First Report of the Registrar-General_, 1837-8, p. 103. [1470] Baly, _Pathology and Treatment of Dysentery_. London, 1847. [1471] Moyle, _Lond. Med. Gaz._ N. S. VII. Dec. 29, 1848, p. 1093. [1472] Christison, “On a local Epidemic of Dysentery.” _Month. Journ. Med. Sc._ XVII. (Dec. 1853), 508. [1473] T. S. Clouston, _Med. Times and Gaz._ 1865, I. 567. [1474] W. H. Duncan, M.D., “On the recent Introduction of Fever into Liverpool by the crew of an Egyptian frigate.” _Trans. Epidemiol. Soc._ vol. 1. pt. 2. p. 246. (1 July, 1861). [1475] James Boyle, surgeon to H. M. S. ‘Minden,’ _Epidemic Cholera of India_, London, 1821; W. B. Carter, _Cholera Indica vel Spasmodica_, Thesis, Glasgow, 1822; Thomas Brown, of Musselburgh, _On Cholera, more especially as it has appeared in British India_, Edin. 1824; Whitelaw Ainslie, M.D., _The Cholera Morbus of India_, Letter to the Court of Governors, H. E. I. C., Edin. 1825; A. T. Christie, M.D. (of Madras), _Obs. on the Nature and Treatment of Cholera_, Edin. 1828; Charles Searle (of Madras), _Cholera, its Nature, Cause and Treatment_, London, 1830 (dated 1st May, instigated, not by the Orenburg epidemic, but by the deaths of Sir Thomas Monro and others from cholera in Madras). [1476] See extract in _Glas. Med. Journ._, Feb. 1831, p. 105, from _Scottish Mission. and Philan. Reg._ [1477] George Hamilton Bell, _Treatise on Cholera Asphyxia or Epidemic Cholera as it appeared in Asia and more recently in Europe_, Edin. 1831; Reginald Orton, _An Essay on the Epidemic Cholera of India_, 2nd. ed. with a supplement, London, 1831 (August); 1st ed. Madras, 1820; H. Young, M.D. (of the Bengal Service), _Remarks on the Cholera Morbus_, 2nd ed. 1831; Alex. Smith, M.D. (Calcutta), _Description of the Spasmodic Cholera_ (substance of an old report to the Army Medical Board); W. Macmichael, M.D., _Is the Cholera Spasmodica of India a Contagious Disease?_ London, 1831 (Sept.); T. J. Pettigrew, _Obs. on Cholera, comprising a description of the Epidemic Cholera of India_, London, 1831 (13 Nov.); John Austin, _Cholera Morbus, Indian and Russian Cholera_, London, 1831 (July); John Goss, late H. E. I. C. S., _Practical Remarks on the Disease called Cholera_, London, 1831 (Nov.); Whitelaw Ainslie, _Letters on the Cholera_, London, 1832 (from Edinburgh, Dec. 1831); Henry Penneck, M.D., _Nature and Treatment of the Indian Pestilence commonly called Cholera_, London, 1831 (Penzance, 24 Nov.); A. P. Wilson Philip, _Nature of Malignant Cholera_, London, 1832; _Official Reports made to Government by Drs Russell and Barry on Cholera Spasmodica observed during the Mission to Russia in 1831_, London, 1832; John V. Thompson, Dep. Insp. Gen. of Hosps. _The Pestilential Cholera unmasked_, Cork, 1832 (January). [1478] _Op. cit._ p. 469. [1479] _Lond. Med. Gaz._ 1831. [1480] James Hall, “Narrative of an Epidemic English Cholera that appeared on board ships of war lying in ordinary in the River Medway during the Summer and Autumn of 1831.” _Edin. Med. Surg. Journ._, Feb. 1832, p. 295. [1481] John Marshall, M.D., _Obs. on Cholera as it appeared at Port Glasgow in July and August, 1831. Illustrated by numerous cases._ 1831. [1482] William Dixon, _Lond. Med. Gaz._ 4 Feb. 1832, IX. 668. [1483] Dixon, u. s. [1484] Kell, p. 22. [1485] Kell, Dixon, and others; the statements about Henry’s case are contradictory. [1486] Clanny, p. 19. [1487] A table of the daily course of the cholera at Sunderland, which I must omit for want of space, is given in the essay by Haslewood and Morbey, _History and Medical Treatment of Cholera as it appeared in Sunderland in 1831_, London, 1832, p. 151. [1488] Kell, however, suspected that there were many malignant cases in Monk Wearmouth after the 31st of October, which were not reported. l. c. p. 73. [1489] Clanny says (p. 42), “At first our epidemic appeared only in certain streets or lanes, namely, the Fish Landing, Long Bank, Silver Street, High Street, Burleigh Street, Mill Hill, Sailors’ Alley, Love Lane, Wood Street, Warren Street; as also in several lanes in Bishopwearmouth, the New Town, Ayre’s Quay, and on the north side of the river in Monkwearmouth, in several of the byelanes near the river.... Generally speaking the disease fixed its residence in such places as medical men could have pointed out _à priori_.” [1490] Besides the essay of Haslewood and Morbey, and the paper by Dixon, _supra_, the following were written on the Sunderland cholera: W. Ainsworth, _Obs. on the Pestilential Cholera at Sunderland_, London, 1832; John Butler Kell, surgeon to the 82nd Regt., _Cholera at Sunderland in 1831_, Edin. 1834; W. Reid Clanny, M.D., (chairman of the Local Board of Health), _Hyperanthraxis, or the Cholera of Sunderland_, Lond. 1832; Emile Dubuc, _Rapport sur le Cholera Morbus à Sunderland, Newcastle, etc._ Rouen, 1832. [1491] Ainsworth, p. 164, u. s., says: “Dennis Mc Gwin, who took the disease to North Shields, came from Sunderland. The first case in South Shields was a boy from Gateshead. A pedler woman took it to Houghton, a traveller to Morpeth, and I have no doubt its arrival could similarly be traced to Durham, Haddington and Tranent, all towns on the same high road. A wanderer also perished of the disease at Doncaster; but luckily there were no other cases.” [1492] T. M. Greenhow, M.D., _Cholera as it has recently appeared in the Towns of Newcastle and Gateshead, including Cases_, London, 1832; Thomas Mollison, M.D., _Remarks on the epidemic Disease called Cholera, as it occurred in Newcastle_, Edin. 1832. (He arrived at Newcastle from Edinburgh on the 21st Dec. and remained eleven days.) [1493] In Greenhow, u. s. [1494] Craigie, _Edin. Med. Surg. Journ._ XXXVII. 337. [1495] John Douglas, M.D., “History of the Epidemic Cholera of Hawick,” in _Cholera Gazette_, no. 6, April 7, p. 234. [1496] Chiefly from the paper by Professor George Watt, _Glas. Med. Journ._ v. 298, 384; see also Bryce, _ibid._ 262. [1497] W. Auchincloss, M.D., “Report of the Epidemic Cholera as it appeared in the Town’s Hospital of Glasgow in February and March, 1832,” _Glas. Med. Journ._ v. 113. [1498] James Cleland, LL.D., and James Corkindale, M.D., _Edin. Med. Surg. Journ._ XXXIX. 503. [1499] J. Adair Lawrie, M.D., “Report of the Albion Street Cholera Hospital.” _Glas. Med. Journ._ V. 309, 416. [1500] _Month. Journ. Med. Sc._ March, 1850, p. 302. [1501] Wood, _Glas. Med. Journ._ VI. 1833. [1502] Grieve, _Month. Journ. Med. Sc._ IX. 1849, p. 777. [1503] Scott, _Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ._ XXXIX. 276. For a whole month it was confined to one suburb. All the earlier cases were without exception fatal. There were 130 cases and 65 deaths. [1504] It is probably to Portmahomak or Inver that Howison refers in the following (_Lancet_, 10 Nov. 1832, p. 203): Cholera broke out in a small village several miles from Tain, and in a few days it carried off 41 out of a population of 120 to 140. Coffins could not be made fast enough. Many were buried in sailcloth. The people fled from their houses to the fields. [1505] Hugh Miller, _My Schools and Schoolmasters_, Chap. XXII. [1506] The good account by Paterson, “Observations on Cholera as it appeared at Collieston and Footdee,” _Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ._ XLIX. (1838), p. 408, shows how much panic a mortality of nine stood for. [1507] Sir J. Y. Simpson gave to Dr Graves of Dublin a list of some places in Scotland where cholera had appeared, which contains the additional names of Helmsdale (23 July), Fort William (24 Sept.), Fort George (7 May), Islay (23 Oct.), Portpatrick (7 Aug.), Crieff (2 Oct.), and Kelso (29 Oct.). [1508] _Dubl. Journ. Med. Sc._ III. 74. [1509] _Times_, 1 July, 1832. [1510] Simon McCoy, “Notes on Malignant Cholera as it appeared in Dublin,” _Dub. Journ. Med. Sc._ II. 357, and III. 1. [1511] Compare Grimshaw’s observations on the admissions for fever to the Cork Street Hospital in the summer of 1864, _supra_, p. 298. [1512] Wilde, _Census of Ireland 1841_. Table of Deaths, p. xxi. [1513] _Gent. Magaz._ 1832, June, p. 555; _Annual Register_, 1832, Chronicle (June), p. 71. [1514] Graves, _Dubl. Quart. Journ. Med. Sc._ Feb. 1849, p. 31, from information by Dr Little of Sligo. [1515] W. Howison, M.D., of Edinburgh, _Lancet_, 10 Nov. 1832, p. 203. He was at Londonderry in August, and had probably heard the reports of the Sligo cholera there. [1516] John Colvan, M.D., _Dubl. Journ. Med. Sc._ IV. 186. These five deaths in Armagh County in 1833 do not appear in the table. [1517] Graves, u. s. 1849, VII. 246. [1518] Roupell, _Croomian Lectures on Cholera_, Lond. 1833, p. 33, gives the suspicious case of a man named Webster, who sailed from Sunderland on 20 Jan. and arrived in the Thames about the 30th. “The vessel immediately obtained _pratique_; but a few days after, this man was seized with extreme pain in the epigastrium” &c. and died suddenly after symptoms in part those of cholera. Postmortem, 20 oz. of blood were found in the peritoneum, and some blood in the lower part of the bowel. [1519] The populous parishes of the Black Country around Wolverhampton came under notice in another way in 1832 as a crucial instance in the redistribution of seats by the Reform Act. [1520] T. Ogier Ward, “Cholera in Wolverhampton in Aug.-Oct. 1832,” _Trans. Prov. Med. and Surg. Assoc._ II. 368. [1521] Rev. W. Leigh, _An authentic narrative of the awful visitation of Bilston by Cholera in Aug.-Sept. 1832_. Wolverhampton, 1833. [1522] Rev. C. Girdlestone, _Seven Sermons preached during the prevalence of the Cholera in the parish of Sedgley, with a narrative of that visitation_. London, 1833. [1523] T. Ogier Ward, u. s., p. 376. [1524] James Collins, M.D., _Lond. Med. Gaz._ 30 June, 1832, p. 412; and report by Thompson, surgeon of the ‘Brutus,’ in the _Cholera Gazette_, s. d. [1525] Henry Gaulter, M.D., _The Origin and Progress of the Malignant Cholera in Manchester_. London, 1833, p. 113. [1526] The first case was of a coach-painter, who had had frequent attacks of painter’s colic. Opposite his house was a large stable dunghill in a very foetid state. On the evening of the 16th May he had eaten a heavy supper of lambs’ fry, and had been ill thereafter, the symptoms becoming those of Asiatic cholera on the night of the 18th, death ensuing at 2 p.m. 20th. [1527] In the hamlet adjoining a cotton-mill at Hinds, near Bury, consisting of thirty cottages in a row between the mill lade and the canal, wretchedly built, without chimneys, with windows that would not open, the inmates sleeping four or five in a bed, there were 32 cases of cholera with 7 deaths, but none of these were in persons who worked in the mill. Gaulter, u. s. citing Goodlad. He cites also Flint, of Stockport, for the rarity of attacks among the mill workers in that town. See also Samuel Gaskell, “Malignant Cholera in Manchester,” _Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ._ XL. 52. The microbic theory, or, as it was then called by Sir Henry Holland and others, the “hypothesis of insect life,” was happily thought of by a working cotton-spinner in Manchester to explain the immunity of the mill-workers in 1832. Gaulter (u. s. p. 120) gives in correct English what would probably have been said in the vernacular as follows: “I’ve been thinkin’, Maister,” said a spinner to Mr Sowden, millowner, “as how th’ cholery comes o’ hinsecks that smo’ as we corn’d see ’em, an’ they corn’d live i’ factories for th’ ’eät and th’ ile. Me an’ my mates wor speakin’ o’t last neet, an’ we o’ on us thowt th’ saäm thing.” Hahnemann, cited by the _Times_, 17 July, 1831, believed that the cholera insect escaped from the eye, and fastened upon the hair, skin, clothes, &c. of other persons. The common microscopic objects uniformly found in the choleraic discharges by later observers have been vibrios, of which half-a-dozen, or perhaps a dozen, varieties have been distinguished. One of these was somewhat audaciously named the “cholera germ” or “comma bacillus of cholera” by Dr R. Koch, who went to Calcutta in 1884. All vibrios, which have a corkscrew form when in motion, are apt to assume the comma form when at rest. [1528] _Times_, Sept. 5, 1832. [1529] John Addington Symonds, “Progress and Causes of Cholera in Bristol, 1832.” _Trans. Prov. Med. Surg. Assoc._ III. 170. [1530] Some cases were detailed by Edward Blackman, M.D., _Lond. Med. Gaz._ 1832, pp. 473, 546. [1531] Thomas Shapter, M.D., _The History of the Cholera in Exeter in 1832_. London, 1849, pp. 297. [1532] Besides the papers or books already cited, accounts were published for the following places: Warrington, by Mr Glazebrook, secretary to the Local Board of Health; Oxford, by Rev. V. Thomas; Hull, by James Alderson, M.D.; Kendal, by Thomas Proudfoot, M.D. (_Edin. Med. and Surg. J._ XXXIX. 85); various places by J. Y. Simpson, M.D. (_ibid._ XLIX. 358); Tynemouth, by E. H. Greenhow, M.D. (_Trans. Epid. Soc._ 1861); London, by Halma-Grand (_Relation_ etc. Paris, 1832), and by Gaselee and Tweedie (Lond. 1832). There are also various minor notices: for Whittlesea (_Lond. Med. Gaz._ I. 1832, p. 448), Hutton, Yorkshire (_ibid._ II. 1832, p. 316), York (_Lancet_, 13 Oct. 1832, p. 72), Cheltenham, showing how it was kept free (_ibid._ Nov. 10, p. 210), St Heliers, Jersey (_Lond. Med. Surg. J._ II. 359), Derby (_ibid._ 11. 383). [1533] The daily mortality in Paris at the beginning of the epidemic was as follows (_Annual Register_, 1832, p. 318): Days Cholera deaths March 27-31 98 April 1 79 2 168 3 212 4 242 5 351 6 416 7 582 8 769 9 861 10 848 11 769 12 768 13 816 14 692 15 567 16 572 To the 16th of April the deaths were about 8700; before the end of the month the total was nearly doubled. As the whole cholera mortality of Paris in 1832 was about 19,000, April must have had much the greater part of it. [1534] Proudfoot, _Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ._ XXXIX. 99. [1535] Graves, who was a strong contagionist (l. c. 1848-49), cites the instances of nuns, nurses and porters at Tuam, and of medical men at Sligo. [1536] G. D. Dermott, lecturer in Anatomy and Surgery, _Lond. Med. and Surg. Journ._ 1832, p. 274. [1537] John Parkin, surgeon H.E.I.C.S., “Cause, Nature and Treatment of Cholera.” _Lond. Med. and Surg. Journ._ 1 Sept. 1832. [1538] Graves, _Clinical Medicine_, 1843, p. 700: “I could bring forward the names of many medical men in Dublin whose lives, I am happy to say, were saved by the use of this remedy.” [1539] Paterson, u. s. for the fishing village of Collieston, Aberdeenshire: “In most instances where the lancet was used at the proper period little else was required. The patient, although in an apparently hopeless state at the time of my visit, was in these instances not unfrequently in the course of twenty-four hours out of danger.” [1540] A correspondent of the _Lond. Med. Gaz._ Sept. 1832, p. 731, dating from Warrington, proved by a statistical arrangement of 103 cases of cholera, that the saline treatment was nearly certain recovery, that the same combined with blood-letting was certain recovery, that blood-letting alone was certain death, and that opium with stimulants, and Morison’s pill, were each uniformly followed by a fatal result. Cases Deaths Percentage of recoveries Aged, neglected or seen too late 30 30 0 Obstinately refused medicine 4 4 0 Treated by opium and stimulants 23 23 0 " by Morison’s pill 3 3 0 " by blood-letting 13 13 0 " by blood-letting and salines 7 0 100 " by salines alone 23 2 92·3 --- -- --- 103 75 27 per cent. [1541] _Quarterly Review_, CXVIII. 256. [1542] Reported by Brewster to J. Y. Simpson, _Edin. Med. Surg. Journ._ XLIX. (1838), p. 368. [1543] _Glas. Med. Journ._ VI. (1833), p. 366. Stark says, perhaps for Edinburgh, that cholera recurred in the end of 1833 and beginning of 1834, with a high degree of fatality. [1544] Edmond Sharkey, M.B., _Dubl. J. Med. Sc._ XVI. 13. Of 28 houses or cabins (nearly all in three hamlets) which together had 76 cases, 16 cabins had each two cases, 8 had each three, 1 had four, 2 had each five, and 1 had six. The type of sickness was the same as in 1832-33. [1545] R. Green, M.D., _Lancet_, 14 April, 1838, p. 83: true Asiatic cholera began at Youghal in the second week of December, 1837, and lasted two months, about 200 having been attacked: “two of my relatives, Miss A. ---- and Mrs K. ----, died in December of cholera, one in fourteen hours, the other in ten hours.” [1546] Deaths from Cholera in the Coventry House of Industry: 1838. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Feb. Total 7-11 12-16 17-21 22-26 27-31 1-5 7 4 15 20 7 2 55 Twenty-seven were males and twenty-eight females. The ages were as follow: under 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-90 Total one 1 6 4 4 3 8 20 9 55 --_Second Report of the Registrar-General_, p. 98. [1547] Stark, _Ed. Med. and Surg. Journ._ LXXI. (1849), p. 388; W. Robertson, _Month. Journ. Med. Sc._ IX. (1849). The other outbreaks reported in that part of Scotland (_ibid._) were slight--at Dalkeith, Haddington, Borrowstowness. [1548] Easton, _Glas. Med. Journ._ V. 444. [1549] Sutherland, _Report of the Board of Health_. [1550] Sutherland, _Report_, u. s.; Grieve, _Month. J. Med. Sc._ IX. 777. Barker, _ibid._ 940 (gives good account of the stormy weather). [1551] _Month. Journ. Med. Sc._ IX. 783, 857, 1011, X. 403. [1552] _Ibid._ IX. 1009. [1553] Sutherland, _Report_, u. s. The year 1847, in which there was no cholera, had been much more fatal in the chief towns of Scotland, than either 1848 or 1849, owing to the great prevalence of typhus (Stark): _Deaths from all causes._ 1846 1847 1848 1849 Edinburgh 4594 6706 5475 4807 Glasgow 10854 18071 12475 12231 Dundee 1531 2520 2146 2312 Paisley 1429 2068 1552 1712 Leith 801 955 1212 1066 Greenock 1087 2214 1289 2344 Aberdeen 1315 1466 2366 [1554] H. MacCormac to Graves, _Dub. Journ. Med. Sc._ N. S. VII. 245. [1555] Most of the information on the cholera of 1849 in England comes from two sources: (1) the _Report of the General Board of Health on the Epidemic Cholera of 1848 and 1849_ (Parl. papers, 1850), containing the detailed reports of Mr R. D. Grainger for London, and of Dr John Sutherland for various other towns; and (2) the _Quarterly Reports of the Registrar-General for the year 1849_. See also note 3, p. 846. [1556] Sutherland, _Report_, u. s. p. 121. At Sheffield (_ibid._ p. 108) a sudden outbreak of diarrhoea occurred on 26 August over the whole town; 5319 cases of it were known, with only 76 cases of cholera and 46 deaths. [1557] Henry Cooper, “On the Cholera Mortality in Hull during the epidemic of 1849,” _Journ. Statist. Soc._ XVI. 347. The total is higher than that in the Table. [1558] Sutherland, _Report_, u. s., with map. [1559] For Bristol, Sutherland (p. 126) cites Goldney: “In a certain lodging-house there were 35 attacks and 33 deaths during the epidemic of 1832.... Out of the same house in 1849, 64 people were turned, of whom 49 were sent to the House of Refuge.” Not one case of cholera occurred among these, but many attacks of diarrhoea, which was general all through the epidemic, especially along the Frome. [1560] The epidemic in the small Devonshire fishing village of Noss Mayo near Plympton St Mary, was very fully investigated by A. C. Maclaren, _Journ. Statist. Soc._ XIII. (1850), p. 103. The Oxford epidemic (75 deaths) was described by Greenhill and Allen in the _Ashmolean Society Reports_. For Tynemouth, see Greenhow, _Trans. Epid. Soc._ The volume by Baly and Gull, _Reports on Epidemic Cholera drawn up at the desire of the Cholera Committee Roy. Col. Phys._ London, 1854, is in great part a review of the epidemic of 1849, in the form of a general discussion of the whole problem of Asiatic cholera. A subcommittee of the College also published a _Report on the nature of the microscopic bodies found in the intestinal discharges of Cholera_, London, 1849. [1561] Farr, “Influence of elevation on the mortality of Cholera.” _Journ. Statist. Soc._ XV. (1852), p. 155, and in the Reports of the Registrar-General. [1562] C. Barham, M.B., “Tavistock Parish Register,” _Journ. Statist. Soc._ IV. 37. [1563] Middleton, “Sanitary Statistics of Salisbury,” _ibid._ XXVII. (1864), p. 541. [1564] _Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the late outbreak of Cholera in Newcastle, Gateshead and Tynemouth._ Parl. papers, 1854, pp. xl and 580. [1565] The most elaborate and minute account of an epidemic on this occasion was that for Oxford, _Memoir on the Cholera at Oxford in the year 1854_. By H. W. Acland, M.D., in which all the points in the problem of cholera are illustrated from the easily surveyed local circumstances. [1566] The registration district of Bideford had 46 deaths in 1854, the only large total in the West country. Kingsley’s graphic picture of the cholera of 1854 in _Two Years Ago_ may have corresponded to these naked figures in the registration tables; but no place in Cornwall, in which county the scene appears to be laid, could have furnished so considerable an epidemic as the novelist describes, a few places in it having had each some half-dozen deaths. [1567] More than half in the end of 1853. [1568] Nearly all in the end of 1853. [1569] It was reported on by three commissioners, Dr Donald Fraser and Messrs Thomas Hughes and J. M. Ludlow, in the _Report of the Committee for Scientific Inquiries, Cholera Epidemic of 1854_. Appendix. [1570] John Snow, M.D., _On the mode of communication of Cholera_. London, 1849, 2nd ed. 1855. [1571] _General Board of Health, Report on Scientific Inquiries_, 1854, p. 52. [1572] J. W. Begbie, _Ed. Med. and Surg. Journ._ April, 1855, p. 250. [1573] _Glas. Med. Journ._ N. S. II. 127; III. 116, 500; John Crawford, M.D., “Report of Cases in the Cholera Hosp.” _ibid._ III. 48. [1574] W. Alexander, M.D., _Edin. Med. Journ._ II. 86. The _Edin. Med. Journ._ I. July, 1855, p. 81, contains a few lines of abstract of a paper by W. T. Gairdner on the diffusion of cholera in the remote districts of Scotland. Information on the subject is invited, but it does not appear that any full account of the cholera of 1854 in Scotland was published. It is known to have been in Aberdeen. [1575] _Census of Ireland 1861_, Part III. vol. 2, p. 23. [1576] Compiled from Grainger’s report for 1849, the Registrar-General’s Reports for 1854 and 1866, a table in _Lancet_, I. 1867, p. 125, and, for 1866, a table by Radcliffe, in _Rep. Med. Off. Priv. Council for 1866_, p. 339. [1577] Radcliffe, _Rep. Med. Off. Privy Council for 1866_, p. 294. [1578] Scoutetten, _Histoire médicale et topographique du Cholera Morbus_, Metz, 1831; and _Histoire chronologique du Cholera_, Paris, 1870. David Craigie, M.D., “Remarks on the History and Etiology of Cholera,” _Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ._ XXXIX. (1833), 332. John Macpherson, M.D., _Annals of Cholera_, London, 1872 and 1884. N. C. Macnamara, _A History of Asiatic Cholera_, London, 1876. * * * * * * Transcriber's note: Footnote 427 appears on page 233 of the text, but there is no corresponding marker on the page. Footnote marker 562 appears on page 312 of the text, but there is no corresponding footnote on the page. *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF EPIDEMICS IN BRITAIN, VOLUME 2 (OF 2) *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Chapters

1. Chapter 1 2. CHAPTER I. 3. CHAPTER II. 4. CHAPTER III. 5. CHAPTER IV. 6. CHAPTER V. 7. CHAPTER VI. 8. CHAPTER VII. 9. CHAPTER VIII. 10. CHAPTER IX. 11. CHAPTER I. 12. 1670. From 1673 to 1676, the constitution was a comatose fever, which 13. 1675. In 1678 the “intermittent” constitution returned, having been absent 14. 1709. The following shows the rise of the price of the quarter of wheat in 15. 600. The infection was virulent during the winter, when Portsmouth was 16. 1754. This outbreak was only one of a series; but as it attacked a 17. 1755. He had the weekly bills of mortality before him, and he makes 18. chapter II.) are not without value, as showing that the “putrid” or 19. 87. It passed as one of the healthiest cities in the kingdom, being far 20. 1795. This epidemic must have been somewhat special to Ashton, for it 21. 1828. It was a somewhat close repetition of the epidemic of 1817-19, 22. 619. In all England, the last quarter of 1846 was also most unhealthy, its 23. 1882. The registration district had only 95 deaths from enteric fever 24. CHAPTER II. 25. 1655. There were twenty-seven victuallers or other ships riding in Dundalk 26. 1818. It was in great part typhus, but towards the end of the epidemic, 27. 1835. It will appear from the following (by Geary) that it was largely an 28. 1849. After the subsidence of the great epidemic of relapsing and typhus 29. CHAPTER III. 30. 1782. It is possible that our own recent experience of a succession of 31. 1551. There were certainly two seasons of these agues, 1557 and 1558, the 32. 1675. The prevailing intermittent fevers, he says, gave place to a new 33. 1686. Sydenham records nothing beyond that date, having shortly after 34. 1775. The latter, however, was a summer epidemic, and was naturally less 35. 1762. On the other hand the epidemics of autumn, winter or spring in 1729, 36. 1782. In the London bills the weekly deaths rose in March, to an average 37. 3. After being general, did it occur for some time in single 38. 5. If so, is it likely that clothes or fomites conveyed it in any 39. 1837. The London bills of mortality compiled by the Parish Clerks’ Company 40. 1733. There is nothing to note between Boyle and Arbuthnot; for Willis 41. 1647. First catarrh mentioned in American annals, in the same year 42. 1655. Influenza in America, in the same year with violent earthquakes 43. 1675. Influenza in Europe while Etna was still in a state of 44. 1688. Influenza in Europe in the same year with an eruption of 45. 1693. Influenza in Europe in the same year with an eruption in Iceland 46. 1688. The greatest of them all, that of Smyrna, on the 10th of July, was a 47. CHAPTER IV. 48. 2. If the patient be sprung from a stock in which smallpox is wont to 49. 3. If the attack fall in the flower of life, when the spirits are 50. 4. If the patient be harassed by fever, or by sorrow, love or any 51. 5. If the patient be given to spirituous liquors, vehement exercise or 52. 6. If the attack come upon women during certain states of health 53. 8. If the heating regimen had been carried to excess, or other 54. 9. If the patient had met a chill at the outset, checking the 55. 11. If the attack happen during a variolous epidemic constitution of 56. 14. If the patient be apprehensive as to the result. 57. 1. Whether the distemper given by inoculation be an effectual security to 58. 2. Whether the hazard of inoculation be considerably less than that of the 59. 1200. In 1754 Middleton had done 800 inoculations, with one death. The 60. 1725. Forty-three died, “mostly of the smallpox.” 61. 1766. The annals kept by Sims of Tyrone overlap those of Rutty by a few 62. introduction of vaccination are still every year inoculated with the 63. introduction into the system;” and this he had been doing in the name of 64. CHAPTER V. 65. 1763. Before the date of the Infirmary Book, Watson records an 66. 1766. May to July. Many entries in the book; Watson says: 67. 1768. Great epidemic, May to July; one hundred and twelve in the 68. 1773. Nov. and Dec. Great epidemic: maximum of 130 cases of measles in 69. 1774. May. A slight outbreak (8 cases at one time). 70. 1783. March and April. Great epidemic: maximum number of cases in the 71. 1786. March and April. Maximum on April 5th--measles 47, recovering 72. 1802. 8 had measles, one died. 73. CHAPTER VI. 74. CHAPTER VII. 75. 1802. It ceased in summer, but returned at intervals during the years 76. introduction of the eruption of scarlatina into his description”--as if 77. CHAPTER VIII. 78. 1665. As Sydenham and Willis have left good accounts of the London 79. CHAPTER IX. 80. 1831. Two medical men were at the same time commissioned by the Government 81. 1832. But in June there was a revival, and thereafter a steady increase to 82. 1533. During the same time Gateshead with a population of 26,000, had 433 83. 1306. As in 1832, the infection appeared to die out in the late spring and 84. 849. The Irish papers in the second period are by T. W. Grimshaw, _Dub. 85. 1710. Engl. transl. of the latter, Lond. 1737. 86. 72. The contention of the inspector was that the water-supply had been 87. 113. Sir W. Cecil writing from Westminster to Sir T. Smith on 29th 88. 437. Heberden’s paper was read at the College, Aug. 11, 1767. 89. 1775. October weekly average 323 births 345 deaths 90. 1852. This has been reprinted and brought down to date by Dr Symes 91. 117. This writer’s object is to show that Liverpool escaped most of the 92. 1783. The influenza also began to appear again; and those who had coughs 93. 1786. In the middle of this season the influenza returned, and colds and 94. 1791. Influenza very bad, especially in London. 95. 1808. If it were possible, from authentic documents to compare the history 96. 142. In one of his cases Willis was at first uncertain as to the 97. 141. In those cases there was no inoculation by puncture or otherwise. 98. 1776. _An Introduction to the Plan of the Inoculation Dispensary._ 1778. 99. 5136. Price, _Revers. Payments_. 4th ed. I. 353. 100. 1799. In a subsequent letter (_Med. Phys. Journ._ V., Dec. 1800), he thus 101. 1809. The _Edin. Med. and Surg. Journal_ (VI. 231), in a long review of 102. 25. Read 1 July, 1794. 103. 1689. Engl. Transl. by Cockburn, 1693, p. 39.

Reading Tips

Use arrow keys to navigate

Press 'N' for next chapter

Press 'P' for previous chapter