Dear Sir,
Your ever obedient,
and most humble Servant,
Joshua Platt.
Oxon, Jan. 20. 1758.
LXIX. _A Discourse on the Usefulness of Inoculation of the horned
Cattle to prevent the contagious Distemper among them. In a Letter to
the Right Hon._ George _Earl of_ Macclesfield, _P. R. S. from_ Daniel
Peter Layard, _M. D. F.R.S._
[Read Feb. 2, 1758.]
My Lord,
THE honour you have done me, in condescending to peruse my Essay on the
contagious Distemper among the horned Cattle, claims my most respectful
thanks; and I am no less obliged to your Lordship for the just remark
you made, “That before inoculation could be practised on the horned
Cattle, it is necessary to bring proofs, that this disease is not
susceptible more than once; and also assurances, that a recovery from
the distemper by inoculation guards the beast from a second infection.”
An intire conviction of the analogy between this disease and the
small-pox would not permit me to omit mentioning the great advantages,
which must arise from inoculation; and therefore, my Lord, I recommend
its use: nor do I find any reason to alter my opinion, after having
carefully read over what has been published, and made the strictest
inquiry I was able in several parts of Great Britain.
I shall, in the concisest manner possible, submit the following
particulars to your Lordship’s consideration, and the learned Society,
over which you so deservedly preside.
The Marquis de Courtivron, in two memoirs read before the Royal
Academy of Sciences in the year 1748, and published by that learned
body, relates the observations he, together with Monsieur Pelversier
de Gombeau, formerly surgeon to the regiment de la Sarre, made on
the rise, progress, and fatality, of the contagious distemper at
Issurtille, a town in Burgundy; to which are added experiments they
made, by application, digestion, and inoculation, towards communicating
the disease; and concludes from the failure of these attempts, that the
distemper can only be communicated from one beast to another. Besides,
notwithstanding the Marquis observes[20] the regularity of the illness,
the critical days, on the seventh and ninth, and particularly that all
such as recovered had more or fewer pustules broke out in different
parts of the body; yet[21] he will not allow of Rammazzini’s opinion,
of the analogy between this distemper and the small-pox, nor that it is
an eruptive fever; but ranks it as a plague.
But the Marquis goes still farther. He positively say,[22] “That in
the preceding years, in the provinces of Bresse, Maconnois, and Bugey,
some private persons had suffered by buying cattle recovered from the
distemper, which had, at that time, the pustules remaining on them:
which cattle had the distemper afterwards.” Nay, he adds that “even
after recovering twice, a third infection has seized and killed many.”
No wonder, my Lord, that such positive assertions should stagger, and
cause the practice of inoculation not to be received, till the nature
of the disease be absolutely determined, and facts prove the contrary
of what has been asserted.
In a matter of so great importance to every nation, it were to
be wished, that the Marquis de Courtivron had produced attested
observations of these second and third infections: for tho’ a nobleman
of his rank, character, and great abilities, would not willingly impose
upon the world; yet it may happen, that he may have received wrong
informations.
As to the nature, rise, progress, and fatality, of this distemper
at Issurtille, it appears to be the same disease as raged in these
kingdoms. All the symptoms agree, as described by Rammazzini, Lancisi,
the Marquis, and in my Essay. A distempered beast gave rise to the
three infections. The illness was every-where the same in Italy,
France, and Britain; and either terminated _fatally_ on the fourth or
fifth day, when a scouring prevented the salutary eruptions, or in
some cases by abortion; and on the seventh or ninth _favourably_, when
the pustules had regularly taken their course. Tho’ the Marquis did
not observe, that any particular medicines were of use, he says, that
in general acids were beneficial, especially poor thin wines somewhat
sour; and that the distempered beasts were all fond of these acids[23].
The fatality was likewise the same, as will appear from the Marquis’s
tables. Of 192 head of cattle, 176 died. The mortality was chiefly
among the fat cattle, cows with calf, and young sucking or yearling
calves; and of the surviving sixteen, only two calves out of
seventy-seven lived, and these two, with seven other beasts of the
sixteen, escaped the infection, tho’ constantly among the diseased: so
that it is plain,
Of 192 beasts, 176 died
7 recovered
9 escaped the infection.
---
192
The mortality was as considerable in these kingdoms.
Whoever will compare the appearances, progress, and fatality, of the
small-pox, with what is remarked by authors of authority, as Rammazzini
and Lancisi, and other observers, relative to the contagious distemper
among the horned cattle, will not be at a loss one moment to determine,
whether this disease be an eruptive fever, like unto the small-pox, or
not.
Now if, as the Marquis has granted in both his memoirs[24], it be a
general observation, that an eruption of pustules on some parts of the
body, regularly thrown out, digested, and dried, is the means used by
nature to effect the cure; and that in general the morbid matter does
not affect the parotid, inguinal, or other glands, nor produce large
carbuncles and abscesses, as the plague does: Nay more, since it is
observed by the Marquis, that the difference between the contagious
distemper of 1745 and 1746, and of 1747 and 1748, was, that in the
former the salutary eruptions appeared, but in the latter were, as he
justly apprehends, checked by the excessive cold weather; and should
it appear, that by inoculation the same regular eruptive fever has
been produced, with every stage, and the same symptoms as arise in the
small-pox; the nature of this distemper will then be ascertained.
I shall now proceed, my Lord, to lay before your Lordship and the
Society the accounts I have received relating to the infection
and inoculation of the cattle, and make some observations on the
experiments made at Issurtille.
So long, my Lord, as the distemper has raged in Great Britain, not
one attested proof has been brought of any beast having this disease
regularly more than once. I make no doubt but these creatures may be
liable to eruptions of different kinds; but as all sorts of eruptions,
says Dr. Mead[25], are not the small-pox, nor measles, so every pustule
is not a sign of the plague. Thro’ ignorance, or fraud, persons may
have been deceived in purchasing cattle, and have lost them, as well
in England as in the provinces of France mentioned by the Marquis; but
until a second infection be proved, the general opinion must prevail in
this case, as in the small-pox: for tho’ many have insisted on the same
thing with regard to the small-pox, yet a single instance, properly
vouched and attested, has never been produced, either after recovery
from the natural way, or from inoculation; unless what is frequently
the case with nurses and others attending the small-pox, that is,
pustules breaking out in their arms and face, be allowed as the signs
of a second infection.
The farmers and graziers in Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire,
Lincolnshire, Kent, and Yorkshire, from whence I have written
testimonies, all agree, that they never knew of a beast having the
contagious distemper more than once. In this county particularly, Mr.
J. Mehew, the farmer mentioned in my Essay, has now among his stock
at Godmanchester _eight cows_, which had the contagious distemper the
first time it appeared in Godmanchester in 1746. It returned in 1749,
1755, and 1756; the two last not so generally over the town as the two
former years. All these four times Mr. Mehew suffered by the loss of
his cattle; yet those _eight cows_, which recovered in 1746, remained
all the while the distemper was in the farm the three years it raged,
were in the midst of the sick cattle, lay with them in the same barns,
eat of the same fodder, nay of such as the distempered beasts had left
and slabbered upon, drank after them, and constantly received their
breath and steams, without ever being in the least affected. Is not
this a convincing proof? If in general the cattle be susceptible of a
second infection, how comes it, that not one of these _eight_ cows were
affected?
In the years abovementioned the distemper spared no beast, but such as
had recovered from that disease: and this is confirmed to me by Mr.
Mehew’s father and brother, all the chief farmers of Godmanchester, and
is the opinion of all the farmers and graziers in Huntingdonshire, who
are so thoroughly convinced of there being no second infection, that
they are always ready to give an advanced price for such cattle as have
recovered from the contagious distemper.
The Rev. Mr. Scaife, assistant to the Rev. Dr. Greene, Dean of
Salisbury, in his parish of Cottenham, Cambridgeshire, acquaints me,
that the farmers in that neighbourhood lost, in 1746 and 1747, twelve
hundred head of cattle, in 1751 four hundred and seventy; and tells me,
that Mr. Ivett, Sayers, Moor, Dent, Lawson, chief farmers at Cottenham,
Mr. Taylor, Sumpter, and Matthews, of his own parish of Histon, and
the farmers of Wivelingham alias Willingham, unanimously declare, they
never had one instance of a beast having the distemper twice.
Mr. Thorpe, a farmer and grazier near Gainsborough in Lincolnshire, has
had beasts recovered from the distemper, which have herded with cattle
fallen ill afterwards, and never met with a single instance of a second
infection.
Mr. Lostie, an eminent surgeon at Canterbury, has inquired for me of
the farmers and graziers in that part of Kent, and about Romney-Marsh;
and from whence no belief of a second infection can be had.
The Rev. Dr. Fountayne, Dean of York, writes me word, that no beast has
been known, in his neighbourhood, to have had the distemper twice. And
several persons from that county, and others, have told me the same
thing.
If the above testimony of persons of character and veracity, together
with the concurrent persuasion of farmers in general, be allowed of, it
must be determined, that there is no instance of a second infection.
Supposing now it should appear, that this distemper is regularly, as
in the natural way, tho’ in a milder manner, produced by inoculation,
and that inoculation secures a beast also from a second infection; then
undoubtedly inoculation will be recommendable.
The very few trials made in England, and those not with the greatest
exactness or propriety, will yet serve to put this matter out of all
doubt.
The Rev. Dean of York had five beasts inoculated, by means of a skein
of cotton dipped in the matter, and passed thro’ a hole, like a seaton,
in the dew-lap. Of these five, one cow near the time of calving died:
the other four, after going thro’ the several stages of this contagious
disease, recovered; two of which, being cows young with calf, did not
slip their calves. All four have herded with distempered cattle a long
while, and never had the least symptom of a second infection.
Mr. Bewley, a surgeon of reputation in Lincolnshire, inoculated three
beasts two years old, for Mr. Wigglesworth of Manton, in the dew-lap,
and with _mucus_ from the nostrils. All three had the regular symptoms
of the contagious distemper in a mild manner, recovered, and tho’ they
herded a twelvemonth after with five or six distempered beasts, they
never were the least affected. Mr. Bewley also declared to Mr. Thorpe,
that there never was one instance produced, that he knew of, of a
second infection.
Since it is plain, that notwithstanding neither well-digested _pus_ was
made use of, nor incisions made in the properest places, and it may be
supposed few medicines were given; yet inoculation succeeded so as to
bring on the distemper in a regular and mild manner, as appears by the
cows with calf not slipping their calves. One may fairly conclude, that
in this contagious distemper, like unto the small-pox, the practice of
inoculation is not only warrantable, but much to be recommended.
But how comes it then, that neither by application, digestion, nor
inoculation, the distemper was not communicated in France?
The Marquis says, that this distemper is not communicated but from
one beast to another immediately. I must beg leave to say, that to my
knowlege the distemper in February 1756 was carried from the farm-yard,
where I visited some distempered cattle, to two other farm-yards, each
at a considerable distance, without any communication of the cattle
with each other, and merely by the means of servants going to and fro,
or of dogs.
The experiments made on four beasts, by tying over their heads part of
distempered hides, or pieces of linen and woollen cloth or silk, which
had received the breath and steams of dying cattle, serve to shew, by
the bullock’s forcing off the cloth tied about him, that the putrid
stench was disagreeable to him; but that neither his blood, nor that of
the other three beasts, was then in a state to receive the infection.
With regard to the pustules, which the Marquis relates were mixed
with oats and bran, or dissolved in white wine; the distempered bile,
which was mixed with milk; milk taken from diseased cows; water, in
which part of a distempered hide had been steeped; and the precaution
taken to force these mixtures into the paunch of calves, by means of
a funnel, whose end was covered with a piece of raw distempered skin,
that the beast might both swallow and suck in the disease. All these
experiments could have no other effect than what followed; which was,
that the acrimony of the distempered bile created first a _nausea_, and
then produced a violent scouring, which killed the beast, leaving marks
of its irritation on the intestines.
The practice of inoculation is but lately followed, and even now but
little known, in the provinces of France. Its advantages have not long
since been strangely disputed at Paris. In the case of inoculating
cattle, instead of a slip of raw hide taken from a beast just dead, or
putting a pustule into the neck, they should either have passed in the
dewlap cotton or silk dipped in well-digested _pus_, or have inserted
in proper incisions cotton-thread or silk soaked with _pus_ either on
the shoulders or buttocks; the true way of inoculating in the English
manner. Some persons have indeed thought, that to inoculate with the
blood of the infected would answer the intention; but most of the
modern practitioners chuse to depend on digested matter.
Several constitutions will not receive infection, let them be
inoculated ever so judiciously. A Ranby, a Hawkins, a Middleton, and
other inoculators, will tell us, that the incisions have sometimes
suppurated so much, and pustules have appeared round the edges of the
wound, without any other particular marks of the disease; and yet the
patient has never had the small-pox afterwards. The Marquis mentions an
instance somewhat of the same kind in his first Memoir, p. 147.
The examination of these very important and interesting particulars
has, I observe, drawn me into a prolixity, which I fear may prove
tedious to your Lordship: but should I have removed all doubts,
and brought convincing proofs of the absurdity of fearing a second
infection; should I have shewn inoculation to be a necessary practice,
and that the contagious distemper may be communicated more ways than
one; I hope your Lordship will excuse the length of this letter.
I shall only add my earnest wishes, that the legislature may, by
effectual means, prevent the importation of distempered cattle
and hides into these kingdoms; the only means of naturalizing and
perpetuating a dreadful distemper, now, thank God! much decreased among
us.