case admits of, that the sickness which affected the island on this
occasion arose, not from the landing of the sick of the “Eclair,” but
from climatic and endemic causes.
To sum up the whole of this case, then, it appears that the evidence in
favour of the allegation that fever was imported into Boa Vista by the
“Eclair,” amounts to this: that four men, not of the ship’s crew, were
attacked with fever while performing military service in a locality in
which no fewer than 60 of the crew themselves were seized; that one man
not of the ship’s crew who worked as a labourer on board the ship “about
eight” or “two” days, had a slight attack of fever, while 62 men also
not of the ship’s crew, and who also in like manner worked as labourers
on board the ship a longer time, were wholly unaffected; and that a
month after the sailing of the vessel, a woman was attacked with fever
who happened to be a next-door neighbour to two of the soldiers who had
served on duty at the Fort—one of whom was unaffected, and the other not
even confined to bed—simultaneously with the children of the labourer
(Pathi) who resided in one of the dirtiest localities of the island.
Against such evidence, if evidence it can be called, must be weighed the
following countervailing considerations:—
It is admitted that the “Eclair” had been exposed on the coast of
Africa to the causes which usually develope epidemic fever in that
country; that intensity was given to those causes by circumstances
which occurred at Sierra Leone, where she took in green wood as fuel,
and where her men went on shore during the rainy and sickly season,
and indulged in the unlimited use of ardent spirits; that her hold was
in a pestiferous condition, and that a quantity of putrid mud had
collected between her timbers. It is proved that the fever which broke
out under these circumstances was the common endemic African coast
fever, which, it is admitted, is not contagious, and which is assumed
to have become contagious on this particular occasion, expressly to
account for its alleged importation. It is admitted that on the
landing of the ship’s crew at Boa Vista, though the men mixed freely
with the islanders,—though the officers lodged in the town,—and
though, when some of them became sick, they were nursed by the
inhabitants,—there was no communication of the disease in a single
instance. It is admitted that of seventeen washerwomen who washed the
linen of the officers and crew, not one became infected, although all
these women, except two, suffered severely from the disease at
subsequent periods after the epidemic became general. It is admitted
that with the exception of one case, which has been proved on inquiry
to have been no real exception, 87[37] labourers worked on board or in
the neighbourhood of the ship daily, and returned to their homes at
night, without taking any precautions,—without becoming themselves
infected,—and without communicating infection to any individual of
their families;—though, like the washerwomen, the greater part of
these men suffered severely when the epidemic became general. It is
admitted that the Cape de Verde Islands are within the Yellow Fever
zone, and are liable to frequent and severe outbreaks of epidemic
fever. It is admitted that the physical and social conditions of Boa
Vista are eminently those which are found by universal experience to
localize epidemic diseases whenever an epidemic influence is present.
It is admitted that the “Eclair” arrived at Boa Vista at the season of
the year when endemic fevers usually prevail. It is admitted that at
the very time of her arrival, Yellow Fever was actually prevailing at
Porto Praya, in the island of St Jago, into which it is not alleged
that the disease had been introduced by importation. It is admitted
that some time before the outbreak of the epidemic, the atmospheric
and other conditions which usually precede and accompany the
development of epidemic disease, were so manifest as to attract
general attention. It is proved that sporadic cases of the disease
appeared, as is usual, some time before the presence of the epidemic
was declared in its distinct and recognized form. It is admitted that
the epidemic influence extended to animals as well as man, a mortal
epizootic disease prevailing over the whole of the island at the same
time. It is proved that the epidemic did not break out until about a
month or six weeks after the “Eclair,” with all her crew, healthy and
sick, had left the island. It is admitted that a similar epidemic
appeared among men and animals the following year, not imported, but
entirely of local origin.
Footnote 37:
The aggregate number of the lists furnished by Dr M‘William.
A consideration of these circumstances has satisfied most of those who
have inquired into the case, that the arrival of the “Eclair” at Boa
Vista with fever among her crew, and the occurrence of a similar disease
on the island, were mere coincident events, and that the appearances
which might at first view have given some colour to the notion of
importation were fallacious.
Among those who arrived at these conclusions were—The Governor-General,
who says:—
“The disease was perfectly endemic. Not one of those who emigrated to
the different islands of the Archipelago had the disease or communicated
it to others. It did not make its appearance till a month after the
departure of the steamer.... The disease had its origin in the great
falls of rain which took place at a very advanced period of the season,
and which remained stagnant in the neighbourhood of the place.”
Mr Rendall, the Consul, who says:—
“The competent officers of the ‘Eclair’ at all times pleaded that the
fever which had appeared and rested on board was nothing more than the
‘common African coast fever;’ the opinion of the medical men on the spot
continued to be that the fever was merely the common African fever, and
that no danger existed of its spreading among the people.”
Mr Macaulay, the Judge, who says:—
“So long an interval had elapsed between the departure of the ‘Eclair’
and the appearance of the first serious case of fever in the town, that
we were all disposed in the first instance to attribute it, as well as
the general sickness of the place, rather to stagnant water, which had
settled in great quantity at the back of the town, joined with the great
heat of the weather and the dirty state of the streets. The ‘Eclair’ had
left Boa Vista nearly a month before any case of fever exhibited itself
in the town.... No injury whatever had resulted from the unrestricted
intercourse which had subsisted during the whole of the ‘Eclair’s’ stay
in the harbour, between the officers and men (not in the hospital at the
fort) and their friends on shore.”
Captain Simpson, who says:—
“If I give my opinion on the fever that was on board the ‘Eclair,’ I
should say it commenced at Shebar: and it was to be expected that men
being exposed in boats to night duty during the rains, would be sickly;
that it was likely to be much increased at Sierra Leone by the long
continuance of the vessel there, and the men having leave to go on shore
during this season, when this place is so very unhealthy, and seamen
always so incautious; the occupation of the ‘Eclair’s’ officers and
ship’s company on board the ‘Albert’ in clearing the holds, at all times
a very dangerous work in the Tropics; and the use of green wood for
fuel. In fact, I should have been very much surprised if the ‘Eclair’
had not been sickly.”
Sir William Burnett, who, in reporting on the case to the Lords of the
Admiralty, says:—
“After a careful perusal of the papers he (Dr M‘William) has sent, I am
compelled to say that I cannot conscientiously arrive at the conclusion
the Doctor has done, namely, that the fever was occasioned by
intercourse with the ‘Eclair.’”
Sir William Burnett adds, with reference to the general question of
importation:—
“With respect to the importation of the disease into various places,
except in one instance, and that even is surrounded with doubts (I mean
that of Her Majesty’s sloop ‘Bann’), I entirely disbelieve it. Both the
surgeons of Bermuda Hospital most distinctly deny on two occasions that
the epidemic which prevailed in 1843 was imported or contagious; I have
also caused the medical reports of Jamaica Hospital for more than twenty
years to be examined; and though hundreds of patients with yellow fever
in all its most appalling forms, including black vomit, &c., have been
treated in that establishment, not one of the medical officers in charge
of the hospital have ever hinted at the disease being contagious; and if
it be needful I can cite numerous other instances.”
As to the apprehension that the crew of the “Eclair” might have imported
the disease into England, he says:—
“I have no hesitation in declaring my firm belief that the sick men of
the ‘Eclair’ when that ship arrived at the Motherbank, might have been
landed at Haslar Hospital and placed in the well-ventilated wards of
that establishment without the public health suffering in the smallest
degree. It is a fact well known, and of the truth of which I can give
the most satisfactory proof, that during the autumn of every year
merchant-ships arrive in our harbours loaded with the produce of the
coast of Africa, having perhaps lost great part, nay in some instances
the whole, of their crew by the fever of the country; or some are still
labouring under fever when the ship arrives in the Thames, and are sent
to the hospital in that state; yet no instance is known of any infection
having been produced by such procedure; in fact it is perfectly certain
that it never did take place.”
Dr King, who says:—
“The inhabitants in general are firmly persuaded that the fever was
imported by the ‘Eclair’ and afterwards spread throughout the island by
contagion from one person to another. I have taken considerable pains to
trace out and discover the supposed morbid concatenation, but in vain.
It becomes, therefore, a duty to express my opinion decidedly, that
there is no satisfactory proof of the disease having been propagated by
contagion, or from a specific poison which is said to emanate from the
bodies of the sick, the dying, or the dead.”
The case of the “Eclair,” as has been already stated, is the one on
which the greatest reliance is placed in proof of the importation of
epidemic disease.
* * * * *
It is needful to advert to one instance more of alleged importation;
namely, the introduction of the Yellow Fever epidemic of 1828 into the
Garrison of Gibraltar by the ship “Dygden.” This case has been more
rigorously examined than any other, and on that account it exhibits a
better specimen than can usually be obtained of the manner in which the
evidence for these cases is commonly got up.
The most positive assertions having been made that this epidemic was
introduced into Gibraltar by a ship from the Havannah, the “Dygden,” the
then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir George Murray, appointed a
Special Commission to inquire into the facts of the case; consisting of
the Judge Advocate, the Colonial or Civil Secretary, the Captain of the
Port, and head of the quarantine department, the Town Major, or head of
the police, the Principal Medical Officer of the garrison, and a Staff
Surgeon. It was the desire of Sir George Murray that the Governor should
act as president, on the ground that “as the proposed investigation is
merely to ascertain a fact, it may be more properly accomplished by the
careful examination of impartial witnesses than by the application of
scientific research;” but Sir George Don, “not finding himself equal to
the task,” appointed, by desire of the Secretary of State, conveyed in a
subsequent despatch, the British Superintendent of Quarantine, Sir
William Pym, to preside in his place.
The facts alleged and attempted to be established before the Board with
a view to prove that this epidemic was imported by the ship “Dygden”
were, that this ship had arrived from the Havannah with Yellow Fever on
board; that while in quarantine in the bay, she was visited from the
garrison by a family of the name of Fenic, and that the first cases of
the epidemic occurred in this family.
The first witness called to prove this alleged visit to the ship was a
woman of the name of Villalunga, who stated that she lived in the yard
of Fenic’s house; that Fenic was a cigar-maker, that she assisted him in
making cigars, that she heard the boy (Fenic’s son) say that he, his
sister, and his father had been on board the ship in the bay on Sunday,
the day before the boy was taken ill, and that the boy told her that
they had been on board “to eat, drink, and make merry,” and “that his
father had sold tobacco on board the ship.”
The next witness brought forward was a child Caffiero, 11 years old, who
stated that he was in the habit of playing with the two Fenics: that he
lived very near them; that he played with them _every day before their
death_, and that he saw them _every_ day when they were sick in bed.
On these statements the Judge Advocate, Mr Howell, observes:—
“The only evidence which up to this period (April 10th) had been given
to connect the illness in Fenic’s family with a visit on ship-board, is
the hearsay tale told by Villalunga, nor did she give to Fenic and his
two children any companion in their alleged Sunday excursion.” * *
“Eight days after his examination above mentioned, the boy Caffiero
re-appears as a witness (viz., April 18th) with a story entirely new,
and which, if credible, would be extremely material; because he affects
to speak of facts which had before rested on the hearsay evidence of
Villalunga, but of which facts Caffiero now, after the lapse of eight
days, represents himself to have been an eye-witness. On this his
re-appearance, however, he carefully abstains from giving any date,
either day of the week, or month, or even season of the year. This
cautious avoiding of dates may not unfairly be attributed to the
variance between himself and Villalunga, in their respective journals of
the illness of Fenic’s children. Caffiero now says, ‘I knew Salvo and
Catalina Fenic, and went on board ship with them; _I do not recollect_
the day. We went on board a three-masted ship. _I do not recollect_ to
what nation it belonged. We remained on deck and did not go below. We
remained on board about one hour. Fenic, the father, took us on board;
he rowed the boat himself; he ate and drank on board, and then brought
_a bundle of clothes on shore_.’
“Until this time, neither he nor Villalunga said anything about a bundle
of clothes.
“This boy’s second evidence thus proceeds:—‘I did not understand the
language of the people on board the ship; they appeared to speak like
Jews or Moors. I did not go on board more than once. When we landed on
the wharf, the Maltese,’ _i.e._ Fenic, ‘_gave me some money, a
pistoreen, and told me not to say anything to anybody about our having
been on board_.’
“The effect which this was designed to produce is obvious, viz., that
the ship visited was in quarantine, and Fenic, the Maltese, was
conscious that he had committed an offence against the quarantine laws
which rendered it necessary for his own safety that he should bribe this
boy to secrecy. This story is full of incongruities; it is not probable
that a man should select for his Sunday excursion, to eat, drink, and
make merry, a ship in quarantine; it is more improbable still that Fenic
should gratuitously place himself in extreme peril, by taking with him
(to be witnesses of his offence) children of the artless ages of 10, 11,
and 13, on an expedition which, in his own judgment, as demonstrated by
his own act, he is convinced exposes him to severe punishment.
“But with regard to the ship ‘Dygden,’ I find that she had already
received pratique, and had been admitted to free intercourse with the
shore, on the 6th of August, _four days previously to the alleged visit
of Fenic_, the date of which, notwithstanding Caffiero’s loss of memory
on his second examination, had already been ascertained by Villalunga to
have been Sunday, August 10th, on which day Fenic, therefore, could
commit no crime by going on board; and the story of the bribe and
injunction to secrecy resolves itself into a clumsy and ill-disguised
attempt at giving a colour of guilt to a fabulous occurrence which, even
if it had been real, would have been guiltless.
“His second evidence concludes thus:—‘My mother was a washerwoman, and
washed for a black woman who lived next her. Fenic’s wife refused to
wash the bundle of clothes that he brought ashore; he offered them to my
mother, who also refused them; he then gave them to an Englishwoman: I
knew her: _she is dead: I do not know her name, nor where she lived_.’ I
find by my notes that he added, ‘This occurred during last winter,’
although the words are not entered upon the minutes. He was then asked,
‘What season of the year was it that you were on board of ship?’ To
which he cautiously replied, ‘It was either summer or winter, I
believe.’
“Evidence such as this, and given as I saw it given, bears on its face
every character of falsehood; and disbelieving as I do this boy’s whole
story, and at the same time considering his extreme youth, the testimony
given by him has upon my mind the further operation of tainting with
more than suspicion all the other evidence proceeding from the same
class of witnesses, which consisted chiefly of hearsay in conversation
with persons who had since died; because it would seem that this child
must have been an instrument in the hands of some one of maturer age.”
The suspicion attached to the second appearance of this child is
confirmed by a similar re-appearance of Villalunga, who, after sixteen
days’ absence from the Board, on the 24th of April, again presents
herself as a witness. She now remembers that Mrs Fenic had asked her to
wash some clothes; that she did not wash them, being herself indisposed;
but that she was told by Mrs Fenic that she put these clothes out to be
washed.
Mr Howell thus comments on this second appearance of Villalunga:—
“I have observed that Caffiero added to his original testimony so much
as to give to it a new character altogether; I now observe that six days
after Caffiero’s amended testimony, and sixteen days after her own
original examination, the woman Villalunga comes back with a new story,
of which, singularly enough, the principal point is made to coincide
with the alterations and emendations in the evidence of Caffiero.”
On an examination of the surviving member of the Fenic family, the widow
of Fenic himself, it appears that she gave a positive denial to this
alleged visit of her husband and children to the ship.
“She was at my desire,” says Mr Howell, “particularly reminded that the
duty which she owed to society required her to disclose everything that
she knew; and from the ingenuous manner in which her evidence was given,
I am led to believe that she spoke the truth.
“She declared that she did not know the cause of her children’s
illness:—‘They were attended by Dr Lopez, who is dead, and who said they
had a tabardillo and indigestion, _caused by eating green figs_. He did
not say what was the cause of the tabardillo. My husband was a
cigar-maker; but he did not go on board ship either to buy tobacco or to
sell cigars. Neither my husband nor my children went into the bay at any
time during last summer or autumn. I know this: because if they had
gone, they would have told me, and they did not tell me.’ Nor, indeed,
is it to be supposed that the children would not have told their mother,
and that the husband would not have told his wife, that which all of
them are declared to have communicated so freely to other people.”
On being cited before a Public Notary at Gibraltar (November 14th,
1829), this witness still more particularly deposed—
“That it was utterly untrue that her husband went on board any ship in
the bay at any time last summer; that on account of his age and
infirmity, he had not been in a boat for ten years past; that she is
equally certain that her two children never went on board any boat or
ship; that, with respect to the boy Caffiero, neither she nor any of her
family knew anything about him; and that his story of having gone on
board the ship with her husband and her two children, ‘is a made-up
falsehood.’”
Mr Howell sums up the result of his examination of the evidence adduced
before the Board respecting the Fenic family in the following words:—
“Having thus examined in detail the evidence adduced to connect the
illness of Salvador Fenic (the alleged first case of the epidemic) with
the ‘Dygden,’—and no other vessel has been pointed at,—I find not only
that it completely fails to make out even a _primâ facie_ case, but
also, from the whole complexion of the evidence, I am convinced that the
story of Fenic’s visit to that vessel on the 10th of August is, from
beginning to end, a fabrication.”
Apparently in anticipation of a failure to connect the illness in
Fenic’s family with a foreign source, much testimony was given before
the Board derived, as is stated by Mr Howell, “through channels most
impure,” about instances in which foul clothes are supposed to have been
brought ashore by sailors arriving from the Havannah, in the early part
of the epidemic, and which foul clothes infected the washerwomen.
After showing at some length the discrepancies and contradictions which
proved the whole testimony adduced on this point to be utterly
worthless, Mr Howell says:—
“Here I leave the journals of washerwomen, and the tattle of their
gossips, remarking this fatal objection to each washing-tub anecdote,
however circumstantial, that _not one of them goes back so far as to
precede_, and therefore to account for, _the alleged first case of the
epidemic_, namely, that of Salvador Fenic, who, as we are told, fell ill
_on the 11th of August_, and upon whose single case, therefore, the
proof of importation rests. And if the attempt to connect the illness of
Salvador Fenic with a foreign source be, as I hold it to be, a complete
failure, how is the illness of the boy Caffiero to be accounted for? And
to what is to be ascribed the illness of Mr Martin’s child on August
16th, a case quite as early as that of Caffiero, and which has not been
attempted to be traced to importation? not one of the washing-tub cases
being anterior either to that of Mr Martin’s child or to that of
Caffiero, both of which are unquestioned cases of the epidemic.”
It was essential to the proof of the connection of the “Dygden” with the
outbreak of the epidemic, to establish the fact of the existence of
Yellow Fever on board the ship. No proof of this appears to have been
adduced. On the contrary, the captain of the ship declares that no such
disease existed on board; the head of the Quarantine Department, after
an official examination into the fact, affirms that there is no evidence
whatever to disprove the truth of the captain’s statement, and the
Quarantine Medical Officer, after “a minute inspection of the captain
and crew,” states that he “found them all in perfect health.”
“I have minutely inspected the captain and crew,” he says, “whom I found
in perfect health. The reason for putting this ship in quarantine for 40
days was, that two men died on the passage. It is now 66 clear days
since the first man died, and 61 since the death of the last, and
nothing like disease has since appeared, nor have I the most distant
reason to apprehend danger to the public health from any circumstances
connected with the ‘Dygden.’”
Mr Howell calls special attention to this report of the medical
officer:—