OF THE VACCINE OR COW-POX.

141

disingenuous practice of a late ingenious, indefatigable, eccentricphysician. When he was examined by a committee of the Houseof Commons, he spoke in disparagement of the cow-pock inocula-tion, and referred to a conversation to that effect with ProfessorWall, at Oxford: the accuracy of that statement was afterwardscontradicted by Dr. Wall, in a letter addressed to the chairman ofthe Committee.

Dr. Rowley having been sworn, said, "He saw two children atthe Mary-le-bonne Infirmary in the small-pox, whose father inform-ed him these children had been inoculated with the cow-pox in thepreceding autumn. He did not examine the arms of the childrenwhere the cow-pox inoculation was said to have taken place. Hehad not seen many cases of spurious cow-pox; he has seen ulcerssucceed in the beginning of vaccine inoculation, but that has beenentirely obviated by the subsequent practice: he.does not know bywhat change in the practice these disastrous circumstances are nowprevented ; he has seen symptoms of a worse nature arise after small-pox inoculation, particularly scrophula ; and abscesses, which haveappeared in different parts, and at last proved fatal." Neverthelessthe doctor renewed his attack on vaccine inoculation, by publishinga random collection of cases of its morbid tendency; and to thegreat terror of some, and the astonishment of others, he as-serted the probability of children having ox-like countenances inconsequence of being inoculated with the cow-pock. Is it not passingstrange, that such a preposterous assertion should excite any sen-sation but contempt? As well might the lovers of mutton expectnature to invest their bodies with fleecy hosiery; as well may thelovers of milk, or ox-beef, or venison, live in dread of having theirbrows burthened with horns or crowned with antlers ! Yet such hasbeen the pernicious effect of Dr. R.'s inconsistent and fallaciousreasonings, that the parents of many hundred children, who havelately fallen victims to the small-pox in the capital, were deterredfrom securing their offspring from the deadly contagion by means ofvaccination, of which not one in a thousand have died in any quar-ter of the globe.

Authors who are bent on displaying their wit, physicians who aredetermined to render themselves notorious by the singularity of theiropinions on subjects that are intimately connected with the healthand welfare of the people, would do well, before they mount theirhobbies, to consider the notice given in the ninth chapter of Gene-sis: "Surely at the hand of man, at the hand of every man's brother,will I require the life of man.''

The grand objection to the cow-pock inoculation seems to be,that it does not universally, and without exception, produce theeffect it is intended to produce; that is, that it does not in all cas^,and without exception, prevent the infection by natural or inocu-lated small-pox. Granting that there may have been even well au-thenticated instances of persons vaccinated in a proper mannerhaving notwithstanding yielded to the other infection; granting allthis, we say, it is no solid objection to the practice of vaccination