twice by my father, but without any other effect than a slight irritation of the part, such as is occasioned in the arms of persons who have already had the Small-pox. It was not expected at the time, that the Small-pox poison would be effectual, but it was inserted, partly by way of experiment, and partly by way of precaution, the Smallpox being then in the family. The Small-pox has been repeatedly sinee in his own family, and he never avoided it, being confident that it was not possible to infect him with this disease. The next case, by Mr. Downe, although it affords defective evidence, is not useless. "I have lately conversed with a person who was, in play, inoculated in the hand with the Cow-pox matter. The wounds apparently healed for a time, and then inflamed. He had a swelling in the axilla, pain in the head, sickness, and slight fever. No eruption took place, but there was much maturation at the place of insertion, and considerable scars remain.'

3dly. Mr. Dolling, of Blandford, communicates the following instances: "Mr. Justings of Axminster inoculated his wife and children with matter taken from the teats of a Cow that had the Cow-pox: in about a week after inoculation, their arms were very much inflamed, and the patients were so ill, that the medical assistance of Mr. Meach, of Cerne, was called for. The patients did well. They were afterwards inoculated for the Small-pox by Mr. Trobridge, without effect."

These are the testimonies produced in addition to those urged by Dr. Jenner: but when it is considered that the cow-pox is asserted always to be communicated by inoculation, whether casual or designed, then every case of cow-pox, not allowing the future action of small-pox, becomes a testimony in point.

Position III. The disease produced by inoculating with the matter of the Cow-pox, does not differ from the disease produced by inoculation with the matter from the human animal; nor is any difference observed in the effects of the matter from the first human subject infected from the brute animal, or from the matter generated, successively, in the second, third, fourth, or fifth human creature, from its origin in the

brute.

On this head, no corroborating testimony is produced.

IV. A person having been affected with the Specific Fever, and Local Disease, produced by the Cow-pox poison, is liable to be again affected as before by the same poison; and yet such person is not susceptible of the Small-pox.'

Dr. Pearson remarks that professional men are extremely reluctant in yielding their assent to this position; and the only additional testimony which he brings, in support of it, is that of Mr. Woodman, of Aylesbury; who says that "the cow-pox does not supersede itself on future occasions, for the cow boys have it repeatedly." Dr. Pearson's observation on this head requires to be quoted:

The

The evidence for this fact, to my apprehension, only proves, satisfactorily, that the local affection of the Cow-pox may occur in the same person more than once; but whether the peculiar fever also occurs more than once in the same person, from the Cow-pox poison, does not appear certain; and must be determined by future observations, to be made with a particular view to this point. Future observations must likewise determine, whether, in those cases, (if such occur,) in which a person, after having gone through the Cow-pox, takes the Small-pox, the Cow-pox was attended with a fever, or was merely a local affection. It seems pretty well ascertained, that the variolous poison may produce the Small-pox only locally, or without any affection of the whole constitution; and in such a case, the constitution is still susceptible of the Small-pox, and yet, in both cases, viz. of the local affection only, and of the whole constitution, the matter of the eruptions is capable of infecting others, so as to produce the Small-pox; either locally only, or also in the whole con stitution. Hence it seems probable, that similar local and general effects may be produced by the Cow-pox poison, and not only in the human kind, but in Cows. I acknowledge, however, that the Case, p. 51. in Jenner's book, militates against this supposition.'

V. A person is susceptible of the Cow-pox, who has antecedently been affected with the Small-pox.'

Little additional information is given on this subject: yet the positive proof of this fact by Dr. Jenner * occasions a very curious distinction in this question ;-namely, that, while the cow-pox renders the patients incapable of undergoing the future action of the small-pox, the converse of the proposition does not hold, and the small-pox does not render the patient unsusceptible of cow-pox.

VI. The Cow-pox is not communicated in the state of effluvia, or gas; nor by adhering to the skin, in an imperceptibly small quantity; nor scarcely unless it be applied to divisions of the skin, by abrasions, panctures,

wounds, &c.

VII. The local affection in the Cow-pox, produced in the casual way, is generally more severe, and of longer duration, than usually happens in the local affection in the inoculated Small-pox; but in the Cow-pox the fever is in no case attended with symptoms which denote danger, nor has it, in any instance, been known to prove mortal??

VIII. No consequential disease, which should be attributed to the Cow-pox, has been observed; nor has any disease been excited, to which there previously existed a disposition; nor has it been discovered to produce a pre-disposition to particular diseases.'

On this subject, Dr. Pearson properly remarks that,

Although a considerable body of evidence might be stated in confirmation of these momentous facts, from the experience of Dr. Jenner, and the uniform testimony of my correspondents: and al

*See Case VII. of Dr. Jenner's publication.

though

:

though we should be inclined to conclude in favour of these facts, from the consideration of the nature of the Cow-pox, as far as yet known yet it does not appear to my judgment that the observations and arguments warrant more than conclusions on the side of great probability. A number of persons, many hundreds, have gone through the inoculated Small-pox under the observation of many practitioners, without any disease, or disposition to disease, being produced by the Small-pox; yet no one doubts, that in a certain proportion of instances, disease has been excited, and disposition to disease been produced.

• We are led then to think, that a greater number, and more accurate observations are wanting, to authorise positive conclusions relating to the facts stated under this VIII head.'

IX. The Cow-pox infection may produce the peculiar local disease belonging to it, but without the disorder of the constitution; in which case, the constitution is liable to be infected by the Small-pox infection.'

Such are the aphorisms (or "facts") on which Dr. Pearson has very ably commented; and in elucidation of which he has exerted great industry, and procured much valuable inform

ation.

In the subsequent part of this inquiry, Dr. Pearson enlarges on the probable improvement of our medical practice in consequence of substituting the cow-pox for the small-pox. He truly remarks that its utility must depend upon the effects of the cow-pox, in comparison with the small-pox, especially in the particulars of the degree of danger to life; the kind of symptoms, and their duration; and the subsequent effects on the consti

tution."

On this subject, however, much experience, and on a very enlarged scale, is wanting: a long list of facts must be adduced, in order to persuade us to dismiss the practice of inoculating for the small-pox; and we may safely conjecture that much time will elapse before a testimony can be given in favour of cow-pox inoculation, that shall outweigh the following fact related by Dr. Woodville: "From January to August inclusive, out of upwards of 1700 patients inoculated at the Inoculation Hospital, including the in and out patients, only two died; both of whom were of the latter description."

Let us not be understood as wishing to decry the value and use of this important investigation: far different is our intention. We cannot indeed flatter ourselves that, by means of it, the variolous infection will be extinguished; and that loathsome and destructive disease, the small-pox, be known only by name:' yet we trust that an increase of our knowlege will accrue from this inquiry, and that some improvements may be added to our practice. At all events, whatever

may be the fate of the fact in question, they who have assisted its investigation are certainly deserving of praise.

ART. VII. Reflections on the Propriety of performing the Casarean Operation to which are added Observations on Cancer; and Experiments on the supposed Origin of Cow-pox. By W. Simmons, Member of the Corporation of Surgeons, and Senior Surgeon to the Manchester Infirmary. 8vo. pp. 97. 2s. 6d. Vernor and Hood. 1798.

M

R. Simmons here professes himself a determined opponent to the Cæsarean operation; all trace of which,' he hopes, will in future be banished from professional books;' for, he observes, it can never be justifiable during the parent's life, and stands recorded only to disgrace the art.' As this is a point which we do not choose to discuss here, we shall leave the surgical reader to judge of this opinion, and to consult the work; two thirds of which are occupied by this subject.

The observations on Cancer are very short. The author rejects the external application of arsenical remedies, but relates a single case in which arsenic, taken internally in very small quantities, was productive of material benefit. The dose consisted of twelve drops of the mineral solution of Dr. Fowler, three times in a day.

The experiments on the supposed origin of Cow-pox will best speak for themselves.--Doubting that this poison arises from the horse-disease called the Grease, as conjectured by Dr. Jen er, Mr. S. determined to ascertain the fact; and he thus relates the result:

With the assistance of a veterinary surgeon to enable me to procure the erysipelatous fluid in its proper state, I instituted a course of experiments.

The fluid used in the three following experiments, which was thin and of a yellowish colour, was taken from the inflamed heel of a horse, a few hours after the disease had taken place, and before any dressing had been applied.

æt. 2 years;

• Oct. 29 æt. 6 months; and --æt. 3 months, all fine healthy looking children, were inoculated with the above fluid, by making four punctures in the left arm of each, at a little distance from each other.

Nov. 1. There appeared just as much inflammation on the edges of the punctures, as might be expected from the scratch of a clean lancet.

The cooling regimen was enjoined, but no medicine was given. 5. All the punctures were quite well: and the skin had reco vered its former complexion.

Variolous matter was inserted to-day, very much diluted with warm water, by making one single puncture in the arm of each, and in the centre of the former.

" 8. They

8. They all had evidently taken the infection.

The disease went through its usual course, in its mildest form. The fluid used in the following experiments was taken from the heel of a horse, in a high state of inflammation, and discharging copiously a brownish coloured ichorous fluid. The first symptom of the disease had shewn itself scarcely six-and-thirty hours, and the discharge not more than twenty-four hours, and, as he was reserved for my use, no dressing had been applied.

Nov. 16. With this fluid I inoculated three cows, by making a puncture in each teat; and, the cuticle covering them being thicker than in the warmer months, I took particular pains in inserting it.

For several days, traces of the punctures were discernible; and then they disappeared, without having excited the least sign of disease.

At the same time, I inoculated two cows of the same herd with variolous matter, by making a puncture in each teat; but there occurred no perceptible change.

With a part of the same ichorous fluid three children were inoculated, by making four punctures in the left arm of each; but neither inflammation, nor disease of any kind, ensued.

If the disease called cow-pox will free the constitution of those who undergo it, from receiving, ever after, the infection of the small-pox; it is reasonable to infer, that the poison of both is identical. It is a fact well ascertained, that the small-pox may be communicated, either by the erysipelatous fluid, obtained from the inocu lated part, before the eruptive fever comes on; or in the form of pus, taken at the period of complete maturation : or even by the scab of the dried pustule, in the last stage of the complaint.

The limitation of the contagious power of the fluid supposed to occasion the cow-pox, and obtained from the horse's heel, to the first or erysipelatous stage of the grease, disproves the identity; and also destroys any analogy, that might have been conceived to subsist between it and variolous matter.

Twelve punctures were made in the teats of the three cows inoculated with the ichorous fluid, and it did not produce the smallest effect in either of them: six children were inoculated with the same sort of fluid, by making four punctures in the left arm of each; and no disease whatever ensued; eight punctures were made in the teats of two cows, and variolous matter was inserted; but not the smallest change took place: one single puncture, with diluted variolous matter, gave the small-pox to a child.

The evidence, therefore, is as one to twenty-four, in the human subject, between variolous matter, and the discharge from the horse's heel; as one to twelve in cows; and, between the insertion of variolous matter in man and in cows, as one to eight.

• I had engaged a herd, consisting of thirty cows, for my experia ments; but it appeared useless to prosecute them farther, unless I could have procured some genuine cow-pox matter.

These experiments prove, first, that the cow-pox poison does not originate in the horse's heel; secondly, that cows will not take the small-pox.

The