circumstances which entitle it to much consideration. This ship had been
officially pointed out to him (as the Medical Officer of Quarantine) as
being strongly suspected. The responsibility of his office was thus
brought fully before his eyes, and he had _then_ no motive for making a
false report of his inspection of the ‘Dygden’s’ master and crew,
because the epidemic had not at that period commenced. If he had
observed any reasonable grounds for suspicion, he had only to fall in
with the rumour, and recommend that none of the persons or susceptible
articles on board should be permitted to land. The conduct and
declarations, therefore, of Dr Hennen, as a responsible public officer,
under such circumstances, when, if he erred at all, it would probably be
on the side of _over caution_, I hold to be most material.”
Such is a fair specimen of the evidence adduced on this occasion to
establish a positive case of importation. It breaks down at every point.
There is complete failure in the proof that Yellow Fever existed on
board the ship; there is complete failure in the proof that there was
the slightest connection between the ship and any persons on shore; and
there is even failure in the proof that the individuals who are alleged
to have introduced the disease were really affected with a malady of the
same nature as the epidemic that subsequently prevailed.
The Judge Advocate thus states the conclusion at which he arrived after
a careful examination of the proceedings of the Commission:—
“I am of opinion that the evidence brought forward has totally failed to
prove that the late epidemic disease was introduced from any foreign
source, either by the Swedish ship ‘Dygden’ or by any other means; and I
am further of opinion that the late epidemic had its origin in
Gibraltar.”
Medical observers on the spot, not members of the Board, but who
carefully watched its proceedings, it is believed, without any
exception, arrived at the same conclusion. Thus Dr T. Smith sums up the
result of his examination of the subject in the following words:—
“That it was not imported I think every candid man will admit who has
deliberately weighed the evidence given on the subject before the Board
of Commissioners, and the facts I have stated. Every endeavour to
establish the importation doctrine has failed, and both the Colonial
Secretary, Sir George Murray, and Sir James McGrigor, Director-General
of the Army Medical Department, I have heard, are convinced there is not
the slightest ground for such a belief; but, on the contrary, that there
is every reason to suppose the disease owed its origin to causes within
the walls of the garrison.”
Several comments were made by those who paid attention to the subject at
the time, on the manner in which this investigation was conducted, which
appear to deserve notice.
Complaints were made that the result of the inquiry was prejudged. In
proof of this it was found that the President of the Board, a few days
before it held its first meeting, addressed to the military secretary of
the garrison an official letter in which, among other observations
directly tending to a prejudgment of the case, he affirms, that “the
fever in question has often been traced to importation, and against this
source _only_ must we look for its prevention.”
It appears further that before the meeting of the Board an official
intimation of the views and wishes of the local authorities was
promulgated in the Government Gazette, into which nothing is admitted
but by authority, in the following words:—
“The scourge from which we have been by Divine Providence just delivered
must be an exotic of some kind. It is in its origin independent of
everything inherent in the soil which we inhabit, incapable of existing
among us during the winter months, and totally distinct from and
unconnected with the Remitting and Intermitting Fever, which may be said
to be unknown in this garrison.”
“Two causes,” observes Mr Howell, “concurred to operate injuriously upon
the proceedings of the Board: _First_, the conviction universally
prevalent among the _civil_ population of Gibraltar, that the prosperity
of that community would be undermined if it should be proved that the
epidemic had been generated on the spot, because of the prohibitions and
restrictions which it was anticipated would in that case be inflicted
upon its commercial intercourse with other places. Hence the notion that
not only the last epidemic, but that all its predecessors had been
imported from some foreign country was not only anxiously supported by
the unanimous voice of the civil community, but it was with equal
unanimity believed that a different doctrine would be fatal to the
commercial prosperity of the place. From this feeling of self-interest
it is to be admitted that the _military_ were exempt, a distinction
between the two classes which ought to be taken into account in
estimating the value of the evidence taken by the Board, and more
especially the evidence of the medical practitioners.
“The _second_ cause operating injuriously upon this inquiry was the
publication, in the official government newspaper (into which nothing is
admitted except by official authority), on January 12, 1829, of an
article authoritatively announcing that the late epidemic had been
imported into Gibraltar, and denouncing as void of common sense any
person who should hold a different opinion. This official notification
of the feelings of the local Government (preceding as it did by only 12
days the appointment of the Board of Inquiry) could hardly fail to
encourage evidence on one side, and discourage evidence on the other.”
Complaints were also made that there was a partial selection of
witnesses.
“It always appeared most extraordinary and ‘unjustifiable,’” says Dr
Gillkrest, “that on this kind of inquiry, which was intended by the
Secretary of State to be so beneficial to the interests of humanity, the
Superintendent of Quarantine, as president, should have assumed the
right in several instances of selecting the witnesses, which obviously
prejudiced the question, and by which much of the truth was intercepted.
“Several medical officers of the garrison who had much experience
respecting the progress of the epidemic, were either not examined at
all, or only in a very imperfect manner. I was among the latter, being
surgeon to the 43rd Regiment, and present during the whole epidemic.
After a very limited examination, I officially informed the President,
by letter, that I had much to state; but, like others, I was not called
afterwards.
“From what I felt due to the service of which I had been a member for so
many years, as well as the cause of truth, I was induced to protest
against such proceedings, which protest will, I presume, be found with
the documents connected with the inquiry forwarded from Gibraltar to the
Colonial Office in London.”
Complaints were further made of the mode of collecting the evidence
adopted on this occasion, which was such as to excite the suspicion of
some of the members of the Commission, and to lead eventually to their
condemnation of it, and their repudiation of the Report which was
founded upon it.[38]
Footnote 38:
_See_ Letter of Sir George Murray, and reply of Colonel Chapman, the
Civil Secretary, p. 274;—also Report of Judge Howell, Second Report on
Quarantine of the General Board of Health, Appendix II., pp. 245, 273.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX.
A return of the Sanitary Works carried out in those towns to which the
Public Health Act has been applied, was laid on the table of the House
of Commons, on the 12th of April last, and ordered to be printed (No.
176, Session 1866). In view of the threatened Epidemic, however, the
unusual labour cast upon the Local Government Office,—now charged with
the superintendence of Local Boards of Health,—must render it improbable
that time can be found to examine the proof of this important return
before the end of the Session.
At this still early period in the progress of Sanitary Reform, any such
return must be manifestly imperfect; yet it will probably be found that
ten times the sum mentioned in the text[39] is already known to have
been expended on these works; and previous returns show that about a
million and a half sterling has, in addition, been laid out in the
provision of Extramural Cemeteries.
Footnote 39:
See p. 57.
The effect of these measures, in reducing the mortality of the
population, cannot of course be calculated at present with any degree of
accuracy; because no statistics of this nature can be reliable, unless
based upon an average of many years. It will, nevertheless, be
exceedingly interesting to watch the results of these improvements in
the civilization of England; improvements which have been, perhaps,
mainly effected by the labours of Dr Southwood Smith.
That such Sanitary appliances are not yet all that could be wished in
many of our larger towns, is abundantly exhibited by the following
extract from the Quarterly Report of the Registrar-General for January,
February, and March, 1866.
“If the map of England were shaded to represent the rates of mortality
of last quarter in the registration districts, the eye, travelling from
the lighter south to the darker north, would be instantly drawn to a
spot of portentous darkness on the Mersey; and the question would be
asked whether cholera, the black death, or other plague, imported with
bales of merchandise, had been lately introduced into its busy and
populous seaport. Happily this has not been the case; but fever,
probably developed or aided by the mild and damp atmosphere of the
season, and by overcrowding in an increasing population, has been busy
and fatal in Liverpool, and in other towns of the same county and of
Yorkshire. The annual mortality of the borough of Liverpool in the three
months was excessive, and demands immediate and earnest consideration;
it rose to 4.593 per cent. This implies that if this death-rate were
maintained for a year, 46 persons out of 1000 in the population would
die in that time, or 15 more than died in Glasgow, its northern rival,
19 more than in London. The mortality in the city of Manchester, though
far less than that of Liverpool, was higher than in any other of the 13
selected towns of the United Kingdom; it was 3.742 per cent.; and that
of Leeds was hardly less.”
THE END.
------------------
JOHN CHILDS AND SONS, PRINTERS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).