WOODVILLE, PEARSON AND JENNER.
Another early and earnest examiner of Jenner’s _Inquiry_ was Dr.
William Woodville, physician to the London Smallpox and Inoculation
Hospital. He was a Cumberland man, born at Cockermouth, 1752; a
member of the Society of Friends. An ardent botanist, he turned
two acres of the ground around the Hospital at King’s Cross into a
botanic garden, which he maintained at his own expense. He died of
a chronic pulmonary complaint in 1805, and in his last illness had
himself removed from his house in Ely Place to the Hospital for the
sake of the garden and the country air.
Woodville was eager to try cowpox, but Jenner had no supply, nor
could any be had elsewhere. He therefore resorted to horsegrease,
but could make nothing of it. In his own words--
Conceiving that the distemper might be produced by inoculating
the nipples of Cows with the matter of the grease of Horses, I
proceeded to try whether the Cowpox could be actually excited
in this manner. Numerous experiments were accordingly made upon
different Cows with the matter of grease, taken in the various
stages of that disease, but without producing the desired effect.
Neither were inoculations with this matter, nor with several
other morbid secretions in the Horse, productive of any effects
upon the human subject.[106]
Thrice in person did Woodville submit to inoculation with
horsegrease, but in vain. Others in London and elsewhere attempted
to raise pox on cows in the same way without result save
malediction on Jenner for originating such a troublesome quest.
Thus closed 1798 with many anxious to try the new prescription
whenever there was a chance. Early in the new year, there was a
cry in London, ’Tis found! ’tis found! In Harrison’s dairy, Gray’s
Inn Road, close by the Smallpox Hospital, cowpox was discovered,
and thither hastened Woodville, Pearson, Sir Joseph Banks, Sir
William Watson, Dr. Garthshore, Dr. Willan, and other medical men;
and in their presence, on 19th January, Woodville inoculated six
patients with the pox.[107] The eruptions on the cows’ teats were
diligently compared with the description and plates in Jenner’s
_Inquiry_, and pronounced identical. Four-fifths of the 200 cows in
the dairy became affected, those not in milk escaping the disease;
likewise some of the milkers, the first being Sarah Rice, who had
undergone smallpox in childhood--a proof that smallpox did not
prevent cowpox. “At the same time,” wrote Dr. Pearson, “I received
the agreeable intelligence that the disease was also raging in the
largest stock of cows on the New Road, near Paddington, to which no
one could gain admittance but myself.”
With cowpox thus provided in abundance, Pearson and Woodville
set to work--Woodville at his Hospital, and Pearson in private
practice. Be it observed, however, that this London cowpox was not
Jenner’s cowpox. It was not horsegrease cowpox, but the variety
stigmatised by Jenner as spurious. How Pearson and Woodville
pressed forward with their enterprise appears from the following
letter, enclosing cowpox threads, sent by Pearson to two hundred
medical practitioners throughout the United Kingdom--
LEICESTER SQUARE, _12th March, 1799_.
Sir,--I hope you will pardon me for taking the liberty to inform
you (by way of additional evidence to the testimonies I have
published on the subject of the Cowpox) that upwards of 160
patients, from two weeks to forty years of age, principally
infants, have been inoculated since the 20th January last by Dr.
Woodville and myself, separately....
Not one mortal case has occurred.
Not one of the patients has been dangerously ill....
None of the patients, namely above 60, inoculated with the
Smallpox, subsequently to the Vaccine Disease, took the
infection....
In many of the cases eruptions of the body appeared, some of
which could not be distinguished from the Smallpox.
I have sent the matter of Cowpox pustules on the thread enclosed,
in order, if you approve of the inquiry, to inoculate with it;
and I entreat you to favour me with the result of your trials:
but I must trouble you to apply the test of inoculating with
variolous matter subsequently to the vaccine disorder.
GEORGE PEARSON, M.D., F.R.S.
P.S.--I am happy to be able to state that at Berkeley, Dr. Jenner
has continued his trials of inoculation with vaccine matter sent
from London with good success.
Jenner was of an indolent disposition, but the part Pearson was
playing stung him to action. His nephew, Rev. G. C. Jenner, wrote
to him from London, and thus roused his jealousy--
NORFOLK STREET, _11th March, 1799_.
After what Mr. Paytherus has written to you it will be needless
for me to say anything to urge the necessity of your coming to
town to wear the laurels you have gained, or to prevent their
being placed on the brows of another....
Dr. Pearson is going to send circular letters to medical
gentlemen to let them know that he will supply them with Cowpox
matter upon their application to him, by which means _he_ will be
the chief person known in the business, and consequently deprive
you of that merit, or at least a great share of it, which is so
justly your due. Dr. Pearson gave a public lecture on the Cowpox
on Saturday, and adopted your opinions, except with regard to the
probability of the disease originating in Horses’ heels.... All
your friends agree that _now_ is your time to establish your fame
and fortune; but if you delay taking a personal active part any
longer, the opportunity will be lost for ever.--Your affectionate
nephew, G. C. JENNER.
Jenner at once communicated the alarming intelligence to his friend
Gardner with a sly suggestion for counter-action--
BERKELEY, _Wednesday_.
A letter just received from G. Jenner informs me that Dr. Pearson
on Saturday gave a public lecture on the Cowpox, and that it
was publicly exhibited at Sir Joseph Banks’s on Sunday evening.
He has also given out that he will furnish any gentleman at a
distance with the virus.
As this is probably done with the view of showing himself as
the first man in the concern, should not some neatly drawn
paragraphs appear from time to time in the public prints, by no
means reflecting on the conduct of P., but just to keep the idea
publicly alive that P. was not the author of the discovery--I
mean of Cowpox Inoculation.--Yours truly, E. J.
As human nature exists, it was not extraordinary that Jenner should
feel anxious over the occupation of ground he considered his own;
but at the same time it is obvious, that Pearson had done nothing
wrong, nothing that was not allowable, nothing indeed that was not
praiseworthy. He allowed Jenner full credit for having advertised
the Gloucestershire faith in cowpox, and for the production
of certain evidence for that faith; but he set aside Jenner’s
prescription of horsegrease cowpox, and was making use of a form
of cowpox that Jenner had explicitly condemned. Whilst Jenner,
too, had excited curiosity, he did nothing, or could do nothing,
to satisfy it; and it was idle to expect the world to await his
convenience: nor was Pearson the man to rest content where action
was possible. As he said--
From the time of the publication of the _Inquiry_ in June, 1798,
the author contributed no further inoculated cases to the end of
that year; nor could I do more than investigate the history of
the Cowpox principally by inquiries among provincial physicians
and farmers, from whom I was enabled to confirm some of the facts
in Dr. Jenner’s book, and to render doubtful or disprove others,
and to bring to light new observations.[108]
Jenner was not slow to respond to his nephew’s summons to London.
He left Berkeley on the 21st of March, and remained in town until
the 11th of June, visiting medical men, asserting his own claims,
and counter-acting the operations of Pearson and Woodville.
In Dr. Pearson’s circular, it will be observed, that he described
inoculation with cowpox as attended with eruptions in some cases,
which could not be distinguished from smallpox. So far as Pearson
and Woodville were concerned, it was an unfortunate statement, and
gave Jenner an advantage over them which he used unsparingly to
their discredit.
Jenner’s claim for inoculation with cowpox was, that it excited a
fever that was not infectious and was without pustular eruptions;
and here was Dr. Pearson setting up as his critic, and Dr.
Woodville assuming to develop his practice, and producing a
disorder that was indistinguishable from smallpox! Such presumption
and ignorance deserved to be hooted.
What was the explanation? Simply this: that Woodville conducted
some of his cowpox inoculations in the variolous atmosphere of his
Hospital, and that he thereby communicated smallpox and cowpox
simultaneously. In a scientific sense, the experience was valuable;
it proved that it was possible to have cowpox and smallpox at the
same time--that neither disease superseded or nullified the other.
Woodville tried to vindicate himself, and in his failure magnified
Jenner’s triumph still further. Yet he had much that was reasonable
to say for himself. For example, he had transmitted to Jenner some
of the virus from one of the first of his cowpox inoculations in
January, and with it Jenner operated on twenty persons, reporting
to Woodville--
BERKELEY, _February, 1799_.
The rise, progress, and termination of the pustules created by
the virus were exactly that of the true Cowpox.
Nevertheless, wrote Woodville--
This virus which Dr. Jenner declared to be perfectly pure and
genuine was taken from the arm of an hospital patient who had 310
pustules, all of which suppurated.
Woodville also argued, that “Cowpox, as casually produced by
milking infected cows, differs considerably from that which is the
effect of inoculation”; which Jenner attested in saying--
Four or five servants were inoculated at a farm contiguous to
Berkeley last summer with matter just taken from an infected Cow.
A little inflammation appeared on all their arms, but died away
without producing a pustule; yet all these servants caught the
disease within a month afterwards from milking the infected Cows,
and some of them had it severely.[109]
Others maintained that the cowpox which saved milkmaids from
smallpox was a much severer affection than that induced by
Jenner’s lancet, and that it was folly to assume their equivalence.
There was force in the argument; for every one then knew how much
the issue of smallpox inoculation depended on the mode of its
performance. The infection when communicated through the skin was
usually much less severe than when communicated by incision; and
Jenner related how a country inoculator, who liked to “cut deep
enough to see a bit of fat,” was the death of his patients on every
side. The human body is of infinite delicacy and complexity, and we
are sure to find ourselves at fault when we deal with its mysteries
according to our crude and inanimate logic. It is by experiment and
not by syllogism that physiological truth is verified.
Whatever might be the perils, immediate or remote, of inoculation
with cowpox, it was not attended with smallpox eruption; and at
last it became manifest to Woodville himself, that the virus he had
used, and the virus he had distributed, which had produced such
eruption, was the virus of smallpox.
After much controversy and many experiments these conclusions were
arrived at--
1. That when a person was inoculated with smallpox and cowpox about
the same time, both inoculations proved effective. There was a
pustular eruption on the skin from the smallpox, and the cowpox
vesicle reached maturity in the usual number of days.
2. These effects took place, without much variation, in all cases
where the interval between the two inoculations did not exceed a
week; but--
3. When the smallpox matter was inserted on the ninth day after
the inoculation with cowpox, its action seemed to be wholly
precluded.[110]
That is to say, for a time--until the influence of the vaccine
fever had worn off. Some fancied that smallpox when inoculated
with cowpox generated a hybrid pox that was more efficacious than
either. There was occasionally some interaction of the diseases,
as of a subdued activity in each, but generally they proceeded
together unaffected, the cowpox maintaining its characteristics in
the midst of a crop of smallpox.
One point of great significance in Woodville’s experience was
overlooked. He inoculated with cowpox in the Smallpox Hospital, and
some of his patients there contracted smallpox, who certainly were
not inoculated with smallpox, either accidentally or by design.
The lesson of this experience was unperceived, and though it has
been repeated again and again, is rarely acknowledged. Vaccination
in presence of smallpox, or in an epidemic of smallpox, is often a
means of inducing the disease it is intended to prevent. It lights
the fire; and when the fire is lighted, it is said, “Ah! it must
have been a-light before.” When we have a mind for an excuse, our
sophistry is usually equal to the requisition.
The New Inoculation, as it was called, grew in favour daily.
Woodville and Pearson did the real work of publicity and
promotion--Pearson especially. Within seven months, January
to August, 1799, they performed 2000 inoculations. In the
_Philosophical Journal_, August, 1799, Pearson observed--
In Scotland the New Inoculation has not been less successful. Dr.
Anderson, of Leith, informs me that he has inoculated above 80
persons; that Dr. Duncan has begun the practice in Edinburgh and
that it has been introduced in Dundee, Paisley, and Dalkeith.
Nor did Pearson limit his efforts to his native land. He wrote--
In the course of the same year, 1799, I extended the
dissemination of the vaccine matter to Germany, for the Princess
Louisa at Berlin, to Hanover, Vienna, Geneva, Lisbon, Paris, and
Boston, and into the British Army through Mr. Keats.
Jenner regarded much of this activity with a jealous eye: it did
not sufficiently make for his glory. He was anxious, fretful,
helpless. “It is impossible for me, single-handed, to combat all my
adversaries,” was his whine. “I am beset on all sides with snarling
fellows, and so ignorant withal that they know no more of the
disease they write about than the animals which generate it.” In
order to keep his name to the fore, he published a second pamphlet
in the spring of 1799, in which are several details of biographical
interest.
FOOTNOTES:
[106] _Reports of a Series of Inoculations for the Variolæ Vaccinæ
or Cowpox._ London, 1799.
[107] J. C. Wachsel in _London Medical Repository_, 1819, p. 257.
[108] _Examination of Report of Committee of House of Commons_,
1802.
[109] _Further Observations on the Variolæ Vaccinæ_, 1799.
[110] _On Vaccine Inoculation._ By Robert Willan, M.D. London, 1806.