MOSELEY, ROWLEY AND SQUIRREL.
It may be well to devote a chapter to those antagonists of
Vaccination who, though right in their contention against cowpox,
did more or less to discredit their cause by scurrility and
extravagance. The faults of these men are frequently adduced
as evidence of the absurd and brutal resistance with which
Vaccination was encountered, but it is forgotten how intense was
their provocation, and how the bad on one side was matched by
the bad on the other. It was a contest between Smallpoxers and
Cowpoxers, alike ignorant of the conditions of physical well-being.
It is plain, however, in the light of our later experience, that
much that was asserted by the Smallpoxers of the uselessness and
harmfulness of cowpox must have been exactly and painfully true,
though persistently and ferociously denied.
In the _Edinburgh Review_ for October, 1806, appeared an article
entitled “Pamphlets on Vaccine Inoculation,” which may be taken
as a reflection of the state of the controversy at that date, and
as an index to the chief offenders against propriety. The article
was written by the editor, Francis Jeffrey, and was a product of
that perspicuous intelligence, which reduced to order whatever was
subjected to its action, in much the same way that a housemaid
“sets to rights” a library by ranging the books according to
their sizes and bindings, and assorting the papers so that they
lie neatly disposed. As is the habit of able editors, a view of
the variolous controversy was evolved that might be comfortably
accepted and confidently repeated by his readers--the evolution
of such rational mirage being regarded for the time as veracious
matter-of-fact.
First we may take the reviewer’s evidence as to the extent and fury
of the controversy--
The ample and public testimony offered in favour of Vaccination
seemed for a while to set the question at rest; and, except in a
few obscure pamphlets and communications to the medical journals,
little was heard in opposition to it, till 1804, when Mr.
Goldson of Portsmouth published six cases of Smallpox occurring
after Vaccination, accompanied with observations, calculated to
shake the confidence which was now very generally placed in the
security of the Jennerian inoculation. These were answered by
Mr. Ring and others, who endeavoured to show that, in some of
his cases, Mr. Goldson’s patients had not had the genuine Cowpox
in the first instance, and that in others, they had not had the
genuine Smallpox thereafter. This part of the controversy was
conducted with temper, and with a reasonable degree of candour.
In the end of the same year however, Dr. Moseley published his
treatise on the Cowpox, in which the ravings of Bedlam seemed to
be blended with the tropes of Billingsgate. Dr. Rowley followed
on the same side, and in the same temper, with 500 cases of
“the beastly new diseases produced from Cowpox,” and attracted
customers by two coloured engravings at the head of his work
of “the Cowpoxed, ox-faced boy,” and the “Cowpoxed, mangey
girl.” The battle now became general. The Reverend Rowland Hill
thundered in defence of vaccination--Dr. Squirrel leaped from
his cage upon the whole herd of vaccinators--Mr. Birch insisted
upon stating his serious reasons for objecting to Cowpox--Drs.
Thornton and Lettsom chanted pæans in its praise--Mr. Lipscomb
strutted forward with a ponderous, wordy dissertation on its
failures and mischiefs; and Messrs. Ring, Merriman, and Blair
answered everybody; and exasperated all their opponents by their
intemperance and personality. Charges of murder and falsehood
were interchanged among the disputants without the smallest
ceremony; the medical journals foamed with the violence of their
contention; it raged in hospitals and sick-chambers; and polluted
with its malignity the sanctity of the pulpit and the harmony of
convivial philanthropy.
In the whole course of our censorial labours, we have never had
occasion to contemplate a scene so disgusting and humiliating as
is presented by the greater part of this controversy; nor do we
believe that the virulence of political animosity or personal
rivalry or revenge ever gave rise, among the lowest and most
prostituted scribblers, to so much coarseness, illiberality,
violence and absurdity as is here exhibited by gentlemen of
sense and education discussing a point of professional science
with a view to the good of mankind. At one time, indeed, we
were so overpowered and confounded by the clamour and vehement
contradictions of the combatants, that we were tempted to abandon
the task we had undertaken, and leave it to some more athletic
critic to collect the few facts and the little reasoning which
could be discerned in this tempest of the medical world.
Furious was the controversy, but why was it furious? There are
often great fights over little matters, but the reason is that
the little matters are vitally related to the self-love of the
combatants; and thus it was with the Cowpoxers and the Smallpoxers.
The Cowpoxers set out with the absolute assertion that whoever
submitted to their prescription would be secure from smallpox for
life. Without proof, or with powerful sham proof, the assertion was
endorsed by the mass of the medical profession, and there followed
the conversion of the community in that sort of faith-panic which
is described by Carlyle as Swarmery--
All the world assenting, and continually repeating and
reverberating, there soon comes that singular phenomenon called
Swarmery, or the gathering of men in swarms; and what prodigies
they are in the habit of doing and believing when thrown into
that miraculous condition! Singular, in the case of human swarms,
with what perfection of unanimity and quasi-religious conviction
the stupidest absurdities can be received as axioms of Euclid,
nay, as articles of faith, which you are not only to believe,
unless malignantly insane, but are (if you have any honour or
morality) to push into practice, and, without delay see _done_,
if your soul would live.[169]
People thus enchanted do not like to be brought to their senses;
and medical men, who in 1800 attested the perpetual prophylaxy
of cowpox, were naturally very unwilling to be proved deceivers
and deceived. When cases of smallpox were reported as following
vaccination, they at first denied the possibility, saying that
either there had been no vaccination, or that the smallpox was
not smallpox. On the other hand, the Smallpoxers who had been
snuffed out by the Cowpoxers, revived in presence of the discovered
impotence of the new practice, and stoutly maintained, and cruelly
demonstrated that unquestionable vaccinations were followed by
unquestionable smallpox. It needs little acquaintance with human
nature to see unlimited elements of bitterness in these conditions.
To be convicted of imposture does not beget equanimity, nor
contradiction as to plain matter-of-fact; and thus convicted were
the Cowpoxers and thus contradicted were the Smallpoxers.
The Edinburgh reviewer described Dr. Moseley’s treatise on
cowpox as blending “the ravings of Bedlam with the tropes of
Billingsgate.” Some Billingsgate I concede, but not Bedlam at all.
Much however depends on the point of view. Vaccination if regarded
as a blessing in which the inspiration of heaven was consummated
in the salvation of the human race from smallpox,[170] resistance
thereto might appear, as Carlyle observes of creatures under
enchantment, as “malignantly insane.”
Dr. Moseley’s book,[171] it is to be allowed, was singularly
exasperating. He had spoken against cowpox from the outset, and was
charged with condemning that of which he knew nothing; to which he
cogently replied that he could scarcely know less than the gang of
medical men who attested its perpetual efficacy in the newspapers
in 1800 before they had any proper experience of it whatever. If
his scepticism was premature, what was their credulity? Moseley
had patience: no argument could be heard in the rage that set in
for the new salvation. “Cowpox, I admit, is not contagious,” he
said, “but cow-mania is.” When, however, in process of time it was
seen in hundreds of cases that cowpox conferred no immunity from
smallpox, he published in 1804 _Lues Bovilla_--a somewhat pompous
treatise, with frequent touches of superfluous learning, and
permeated with the irritating superiority of the true prophet--“You
see it has turned out just as I predicted.” Nor was he content to
make general assertions: he specified the names and addresses of
those who had been correctly vaccinated, or had taken cowpox from
the cow, and had subsequently suffered from smallpox with their
neighbours; also of cases of severe illness, injury, and death
resulting from vaccination. Bluster was idle in presence of such
facts. Even the Royal Jennerians had to eat humble pie, for in
their Report, dated 2nd January, 1806, we read--
It is admitted by the Committee that a few cases have been
brought before them of persons having the Smallpox who had
apparently passed through the Cowpox in a regular way.
With so much admitted by such furious fanatics, what might not be
inferred!
Moseley was held in high esteem alike by the profession and the
public, and his judgment enforced by so much serious evidence
contributed heavily to the discredit of vaccination, and
unfortunately to the resumption of variolous inoculation. That the
reaction was extensive, especially in London, appears from numerous
contemporary testimonies, which Moseley confirms in saying--
The people at large are not to be reproached for putting their
faith in this splendid imposition on humanity; and to the
credit of their discernment and parental feelings, the middle
and inferior classes have taken precedence in renouncing the
delusion. At this moment, unless attacked by surprise, or with
threats, or cajoled by artifice (all of which have been practised
on them) there are now none among them in London and the adjacent
villages who will expose their children to Cowpox Inoculation.
Rowland Hill was a religious and philanthropic notable in those
days, and in common with many of his kind, was an enthusiastic
vaccinator. A leading spirit in the Royal Jennerian Society, he had
the school-room of Surrey Chapel constituted a vaccination station
whereat Dr. Walker officiated. Nor was he content to patronise the
practice, but was himself an energetic operator. Speaking at the
annual meeting of the Jennerian Society, 17th May, 1806, he said--
“With my own hands I have vaccinated upwards of 5000 persons,”
and, lifting up his eyes to heaven, exclaimed, “I solemnly
declare before God, I have not had a failure in a single
instance. What then shall we say of the false and daring
publications of those who denounce the benign practice, and how
shall they answer for their conduct to their King, their Country,
and their God!”
Hill and Jenner were great friends. Hill visited Jenner at
Berkeley, and Jenner heard Hill when he preached at Cheltenham.
Introducing Jenner to a nobleman, Hill remarked--
“Allow me to present to your Lordship my friend Dr. Jenner, who has
been the means of saving more lives than any other man.”
To which Jenner, being of a pious turn, sighed with meek effusion--
“Ah! would I, like you, could say _souls_.”[172]
So committed and so possessed, Hill naturally resented the growing
distrust of vaccination. It cut him deeply to be supposed a quack;
and in 1806 he issued a pamphlet[173] relating his experiences as a
Jennerite, defending his practice, and denouncing those who treated
it despitefully. Moseley especially was subjected to severe and
contemptuous condemnation. Hill’s sanctimony and virulence, his
vigour and venom compose a piquant mixture, and if we could tarry
for amusement we might produce it abundantly from a variety of
elegant extracts. Consider, for instance, this his adjuration, and
its pitiful object--
Oh, the blessing of the Jennerian inoculation! Did ever man stand
as Jenner so much like an Angel of God, an instrument in the
hands of Divine Providence between the living and the dead till
the plague was stayed!
Hill’s latent assumption throughout his discourse was--
First, that all must have smallpox; and
Second, that all the vaccinated who escaped smallpox, owed their
salvation to their Jennerisation.
It never apparently occurred to him that before Jenner was
heard of, many passed through life exempt from smallpox; nor,
consequently, did he inquire _how_ they escaped; nor _why_, when
vaccination was introduced, escape should be placed to its credit.
The belief in the vicarious influence of vaccination comes out
strongly, too, in Hill’s pamphlet. Of Londoners there were then
over 1,000,000, and of these, he says, at least, 100,000 had been
vaccinated, and with this effect--
Vaccination reduced the deaths from Smallpox in London to 10 per
week; but after the Inoculators had been making their clamours,
the applicants for Vaccination diminished, and the deaths soon
rose to 100 per week.
Now can effrontery itself deny that the introduction of
Vaccination was the sole cause of reducing the fatality on the
Smallpox list?
Thus one in ten being vaccinated, smallpox was reduced throughout
the unvaccinated 9-10ths; and as soon as the vicarious operations
dropped, up went the rate of mortality! Nor was Hill singular in
this persuasion. He cited his friend Dr. Lettsom as writing to him,
25th March, 1806--
Vaccination was gradually lessening the mortality in 1804, when
about the middle of 1805 false reports against Vaccination gained
very general credit, and Vaccination was nearly suspended;
the consequence was the death of 1286 children in four months
(September to December) or ten every day, each of whom might now
have been alive had the blessing of Vaccination been accepted.
And again I find Lettsom wrote to Moseley, November, 1808--
The increase of births and decrease of deaths has added 3000
lives annually to the population of London during the period that
Vaccination has been practised.
Talk evidently sincere, and widely repeated, but with how little
consideration for truth!
To return to Moseley. He was not the man to endure Hill’s
aggression submissively, and in a pamphlet entitled _An Oliver
for a Rowland_,[174] he made a terrific reprisal. The public
were delighted with it, and in the course of a few months it ran
through ten editions. Hill was generally regarded as a clerical
mountebank, with more impudence than piety, and to see him knocked
over, kicked, and rolled in the mire, was sport that carried many
sympathisers. Moseley’s opening address gives the key to the whole
performance--
ROWLAND,--I bought your pamphlet, entitled _Cowpox Inoculation
Vindicated_, dated the 25th of March, 1806.
I paid a shilling for it. Rowland,--it is not dear. The same
quantity of folly, falsehood, and impudence, could not have been
bought for twice the money of any other Cowpoxer from the Ganges
to the Mississippi.
But let me ask you, Rowland, what could induce you to take
up your pen to attack me on the subject of Physic, who never
attacked you on the subject of Religion? Would it not have been
more prudent in you to have continued to expose yourself in your
own trade in your own shop?
As to my learned friend Dr. Lettsom (who is never out of the way
when there is good to be done) being moved to instigate you, a
Methodist parson, to enter into a medical controversy--that can
only be accounted for by supposing he owes you a grudge, and put
you into my hands for payment.
Paid he was with interest--gross and Rabelaisian; and Hill, when he
had picked himself up and recovered his senses, discreetly retired
from the combat.
Spite of his pomposity and buffoonery, there was good sense and
humour in Moseley, and his resistance to the Jennerian mania was
not ineffective. As he wrote in 1808--
It is ten years since I began this Trojan war against Vaccinia;
and if it be not yet ended, I have at least the satisfaction
to see that her original troops are no longer able to defend
her throne; and that the mobled Queen with “a clout upon her
head where late diadem stood,” has fallen to a new dynasty of
mercenaries.[175]
In Dr. Munk’s _Roll of the Royal College of Physicians_ we read,
that Dr. Moseley was appointed physician to Chelsea Hospital in
1788, “an office which he filled with the highest _éclat_ for more
than thirty years”--until his death in 1819--
Though a shrewd practitioner, and undeniably a man of extensive
mental capacity and very considerable attainments, Dr.
Moseley was a violent opponent of Vaccination, on which his
communications to the press were incessant. They did little
credit to his medical penetration, or his qualifications as
a dispassionate searcher after truth, and, happily for his
reputation, are now well nigh forgotten.[176]
Are they? For what else is Dr. Moseley remembered? So that a man
does his duty in the world, whether he be forgotten or remembered
is not worth a thought; but Moseley’s early and steadfast
resistance to the Cowpox Imposture will long constitute his title
to grateful recollection.
Dr. William Rowley, Physician to the Marylebone Infirmary, also
left his mark in medical history as a determined opponent of
vaccination. He had seen the profession and the public go mad
about so many absurd novelties, that it did not surprise him
that they should go mad about cowpox: and after due experience
and investigation he delivered judgment on the craze and its
pernicious effects in a pamphlet entitled _Cowpox Inoculation no
Security against Smallpox_,[177] containing two coloured engravings
representing the Cowpoxed Ox-Faced Boy, and the Cowpoxed Mangey
Girl. Much ridicule was expended on these pictures, and to this
day whoever wishes to be funny and create giggle over the early
resistance to vaccination tells how one Dr. Rowley maintained
that Jenner’s benign virus induced the face of an ox on a boy;
but like the majority of comic anecdotes, it is untrue. The
engraving represents a comely lad with a swelling on the upper
part of his left cheek, which was thought to give that side of
his face an ox-like expression. Many a medical practitioner among
the poor would at this day have little difficulty in presenting
living examples of affliction answering to Rowley’s pictures--and
worse. It was, moreover, the fear or fancy of many at the time
that inoculation with cowpox might beget bovine characteristics
in the human species, and the fear or fancy was turned to
inevitable account in jest and earnest. The jest is visible in
some of Rowlandson’s caricatures, and stories like this got into
circulation--
A child at Peckham, after being inoculated with Cowpox, had its
former natural disposition absolutely changed to the brutal,
so that it ran upon all fours like a _beast_, bellowing like a
_cow_, and butting like a _bull_.
In order to discredit Rowley, it is thought fair policy to connect
him with such nonsense, and to have it supposed that he rested
his case upon “the cowpoxed ox-faced boy:” it was far otherwise.
He diligently tracked the vaccinators, and accumulated 504
cases of smallpox and injury after vaccination with 75 deaths,
particulars being accurately specified. Nor was he content merely
to report what he had ascertained. “Come and see,” was his forcible
argument. “I have lately had under my care,” he wrote, “some
of the worst species of malignant smallpox in the Marylebone
Infirmary, which many of the faculty have examined and know to
have been vaccinated.” His trust in “Come and see,” he still more
powerfully exemplified in an exhibition of the injuries inflicted
by vaccination in his Lecture Room in Savile Row in October, 1805.
“Knowing,” he said, “the caviling character of the Cowpoxers,
I determined to leave them no hole for retreat”; and therefore
he brought together Joules, “the ox-faced boy, who also had a
terribly diseased elbow-joint”; Marianne Lewis, the mangey girl,
“who was covered with blotches like a leopard”; “a load of children
in a cart from the south of London,” and others accompanied by
their parents, and displaying their various maladies, said, “Behold
the effects of the new disease that has been taken from the cow and
implanted in humanity!” This painful exposition was continued over
two days, and as he records, “the scene was truly affecting and
distressing to all who witnessed it.” An antagonist like Rowley is
a serious factor in any controversy, and we may estimate the havoc
he wrought by the extreme anxiety of the Jennerites to have him
estimated by the supposed absurdity of the ox-faced boy.
To a man of practical temper like Rowley, the enthusiasm with which
vaccination was at first advocated appeared akin to delirium--
I have been in some vaccination storms, and have had the buttons
torn off my coat, cloth and all, to convince me of the great and
infallible excellence of Cowpox. I have seen some of the vehement
vaccinators redden like a flame with fury, their lips quivering,
their eyes starting out of their heads, their mouths foaming,
their tongues dropping hard words, and their fists clenched like
pugilists, ready to accompany their violent wrath with other
knock-down arguments. In such circumstances, mild, investigating
Philosophy quits the scene and leaves the field of battle to the
Bedlamites.
The fury had subsided in 1805, and Rowley held that many medical
men were deeply ashamed of the extravagance into which they had
been committed, but lacked courage to make frank confession.
Rowley died in 1806, and the regard in which he was held was
manifest in the crowds who flocked to his funeral. In the _Roll of
Physicians_, Dr. Munk observes--
Dr. Rowley was a determined opponent of Vaccination, and obtained
an unenviable notoriety by his association with Dr. Moseley in
opposing every conceivable obstacle to the reception and progress
of that invaluable discovery.
The obstacles interposed were matters-of-fact, and as
matters-of-fact were recognised and prevailed.
The controversy that followed the introduction of Vaccination
“gave birth,” says the Edinburgh reviewer, “to an infinite number
of publications of all descriptions” from which he could only
select the most characteristic. Among these we find Dr. Squirrel,
whose book is described “as the most entertaining of the whole”--
We will venture to say, though we know it to be a bold assertion,
that there never was anything so ill-written, or so vulgar and
absurd, produced before by a person entitling himself a Doctor of
Medicine. There is a certain nimbleness and agility about him,
however, which keeps us in good humour, and he whisks about with
such a self-satisfied springiness and activity, that it is really
enlivening to look on him.
Turning up Squirrel’s pamphlet[178] I find little or nothing to
warrant this description. It is not ill-written, if judged by
the standard of medical literature, and the “springiness” is a
conceit of the reviewer’s to sport with the Doctor’s name. My own
impression is that Squirrel was a dull fellow, jealous of cowpox
as injurious to the trade in smallpox inoculation, and that he
availed himself of the depression in the vaccination business to
assert its superiority. He admits, indeed, that he kept silent
during the Jennerian furore, “but the overwhelming torrent being
gradually reduced to a feeble current,” he reckoned that he “might
now promulgate his opinion with a reasonable hope of success.” He
cites Jenner’s account of the origin of cowpox in the greasy heels
of horses, and proceeds to argue that the disease is scrofula,
which its inoculation is certain to diffuse, whilst affording no
protection from smallpox. He then adduces a number of cases in
proof that inoculated cowpox had not averted smallpox, and had in
several instances brought on serious and fatal ailments.
Jenner in a letter to Moore from Berkeley, 28th February, 1810,
thus refers to Squirrel--
John Gale Jones, I see, has at length succeeded in obtaining the
situation for which he has long been a candidate. This fellow
had once the impudence to desire a man to call on me in Bedford
Place to say, that he, Jones, would advise me immediately to quit
London, for there was no knowing what an enraged populace might
do. He was the writer of Squirrel’s book, the long anti-vaccine
columns in the _Independent Whig_, and many of the most violent
papers in the _Medical Observer_. I was held up in his Forum for
several nights as an object of derision; but I silenced him by
the same weapon as I have others--contempt.[179]
Jenner’s contempt was of a miraculous quality, operating insensibly
upon those to whom it was applied. Some might fancy it was his
idleness and others his cowardice; but he knew that it was _his
contempt_, and that it blasted his adversaries in much the same way
that vaccination blasted smallpox.
There is the woeful monotony of truth in these old pamphlets,
not merely in the occurrence of smallpox after vaccination, but
in the sadder stories of acute and chronic blood-poisoning. We
recognise the narratives as true, for they are reproduced among us
continuously by the same means, with the same miseries and agonies,
and with the same death for grateful release.
It is clear from the testimony of Moseley, Rowley and Squirrel,
confirmed too by others and by the Jennerites themselves, that
the extension of vaccination met with a decided check in London.
It was proved to many in a fashion that did not admit of dispute,
that vaccination conferred no security from smallpox, whilst it was
attended with dangers to health, certain if as yet undefinable.
Variolous inoculation was again reverted to, but by diminished
numbers; for that practice never had prevailed with popular
good-will, but through sedulous medical persuasion as duty of
dire necessity. Vaccination afforded excuse for hesitation, and,
between rival claims, many contrived to elude either form of
pollution. Thus indirectly as it were, vaccine inoculation set
aside variolous, and when in 1840 the latter was forbidden by law,
there was little of the practice left, whilst at the same time the
majority of the population existed without Jennerian protection.
It is not to be forgotten that the early resistance to vaccination
proceeded entirely from inoculators with smallpox. It was as yet
unimagined that smallpox and other fevers were preventible, that
their causes lay within control, and that health was the best
defence of health. The world as yet lay in darkness as to those
truths which we now recognise as laws of health, hygiene, and
sanitary science; nor has the darkness rolled away, but is rolling
away, and the time is not distant when to be vaccinated in order to
be safe from smallpox will be accounted the drollest of absurdities.
Going back to the _Edinburgh Review_, we remark with curious
interest how the chief position then asserted was the abiding
efficacy of vaccination. Inoculators were ready to concede that it
might possess a temporary prophylaxy, inasmuch as until one blood
fever had subsided another was unlikely to supervene; but this view
Jeffrey declined to entertain--
It seems contrary to all analogy, and all rules of reasoning
to suppose, _a priori_, that an immunity which is found to
subsist for a certain time in the usual and healthful state of
the system, will gradually and insensibly wear away without
any apparent cause, or any sensible change to indicate its
extinction; and the facts which bear at all upon the question, so
far from suggesting or supporting such a supposition, seem, in
our apprehension, completely to refute and discredit it.
Yet what in 1806 was accounted “contrary to all analogy,”
and “completely refuted and discredited by facts,” is
precisely what vaccinators now admit. Hence their cry for
re-vaccination--septennially, triennially, annually. Dr. Lionel
Beale, a great authority in the matter, recently owned to having
been vaccinated ten times, and in terror of an epidemic was
about to be vaccinated once more--a striking exemplification of
contemporary theory and practice. To have foreseen such an issue
would have confounded the early vaccinators. When re-vaccination
was mentioned to Dr. Pearson, he denied its possibility; “for,”
said he, “Vaccination is equivalent to smallpox, which cannot
recur. If a child can be re-vaccinated, then it can take smallpox;
_ergo_ vaccination is not an equivalent for smallpox; and where
then is the good of it?” Where indeed!
The Edinburgh reviewer was sufficiently impartial to recognise
violence alike among Cowpoxers and Smallpoxers, and specified John
Ping, Jenner’s bully, as an offender, describing his _Treatise on
Cowpox_ as “one thousand and forty chaotic pages in defence of the
new practice.” Ring verified the criticism by issuing a pamphlet,
_The Beauties of the Edinburgh Review_ alias _the Stink-Pot of
Literature_; reminding us of the man who writing to his wife from
an inn-parlour remarked, “I must conclude, for an unmannerly
Irishman is looking over my shoulder and reading every word I
write;” an observation that was immediately clenched with, “You are
a liar, sir; a liar!”
FOOTNOTES:
[169] _Shooting Niagara._
[170] “Neglect not, I exhort you, such proffered blessing. Secure
yourselves from danger; preserve your children; and render
most grateful thanks to Almighty God who has so providentially
permitted to man this means of defence against the pestilence
that walked in darkness, and the sickness that destroyed in the
noon-day.”--_Address of the Rev. T. A. Warren to his Parishioners_,
reprinted by the Royal Jennerian Society, 1803.
[171] _A Treatise on the Lues Bovilla or Cowpox._ By Benjamin
Moseley, M.D. Second Edition. London, 1805. Pp. 142.
[172] Sidney’s _Life of Hill_, p. 225.
[173] _Cowpox Inoculation Vindicated and Recommended from Matters
of Fact._ By Rowland Hill, A.M. London, 1806. Pp. 72.
[174] _An Oliver for a Rowland; or, a Cowpox Epistle to the Rev.
Rowland Hill under the wing of Surrey Chapel._ By Benjamin Moseley,
M.D. Tenth Edition. London, 1807. Pp. 102.
[175] _A Review of the Report of the Royal College of Physicians of
London on Vaccination._ By Benjamin Moseley, M.D. London, 1808. Pp.
86.
[176] _The Roll of the Royal College of Physicians comprising
Biographical Sketches._ By William Munk, M.D. London, 1878.
[177] _Cowpox Inoculation no Security against Smallpox Infection.
To which are added the Modes of treating the Beastly New Diseases
produced from Cowpox, explained by two coloured copper-plate
engravings, as_--
_Cowpox Mange_ _Cowpox Evil or Abscess_
_Cowpox Ulcers_ _Cowpox Mortification_.
_With the Author’s certain, experienced and successful mode of
Inoculating for the Smallpox which now becomes necessary from
Cowpox Failure, etc._ By William Rowley, M.D., Member of the
University of Oxford, the Royal College of Physicians, London, and
Physician to the St. Marylebone Infirmary. London, 1805. Pp. 82.
The first edition appeared 4th October, 1805, and a third 27th
January, 1806.
[178] _Observations on the Cowpox showing that it originates in
Scrophula, commonly called the Evil; illustrated with Cases to
prove that it is no Security against the Smallpox. Also pointing
out the dreadful Consequences of this new Disease, so recently and
rashly introduced into the Human Constitution._ By R. Squirrel,
M.D., formerly Resident Apothecary to the Smallpox and Inoculation
Hospital. London, 1805. Pp. 76. A Second edition appeared in 1806.
[179] Baron’s _Life of Jenner_, vol. ii., p. 367.