In my last letter I adverted to the opinion forwarded to his Majesty's
Council on the 9th of June last from the College of Physicians, in which
the cholera, now so prevalent in many parts of Europe, was declared to
be communicable from person to person. We saw that they admitted in that
letter (see page 16 of the Parliamentary Papers on Cholera) the limited
nature of the proofs upon which their opinion was formed; but I had not
the reasons which I supposed I had for concluding, that because they
used the words "ready to reconsider," in their communication of the 18th
of same month to the Council, they intended to _reconsider_ the whole
question. Indeed this seems now obvious enough, as one of the Fellows of
the College who signed the Report from that body on the 9th of June
(Dr. Macmichael) has published a pamphlet in support of the opinion
already given, in the shape of a letter addressed to the President of the
College, whose views, Dr. Macmichael tells us, _entirely coincide_ with
his own; so that there is now too much reason to apprehend that in this
quarter the door is closed. Contagionist as I am, in regard to those
diseases where there is evidence of contagion, I find nothing in Dr.
Macmichael's letter which can make an impression on those who are at all
in the habit of investigating such subjects,[2] and who, dismissing such
inductions as those which he seems to consider legitimate, rely solely
on facts rigorously examined. He must surely be aware that most of the
points which he seems to think ought to have such influence in leading
the public to believe in the contagion of cholera, might equally apply
to the influenza which this year prevailed in Europe, and last year in
China, &c.; or to the influenza of 1803, which traversed over continents
and oceans, _sometimes in the wind's eye, sometimes not_, as frequently
mentioned by the late Professor Gregory of Edinburgh. Who will now stand
up and try to maintain that the disease in those epidemics was
propagated from person to person? Could more have been made of so bad a
cause as contagion in cholera, few perhaps could have succeeded better
than Dr. Macmichael, and no discourtesy shall be offered him by me,
though he does sometimes loose his temper, and say, among other things
not over civil, nor quite _comme il faut_, from a Fellow of the College,
that all who do not agree with him as to contagion "will fully abandon
all the ordinary maxims of prudence, and remain obstinately blind to the
dictates of common sense!"--_fort, mais peu philosophique Monsieur le
Docteur_. The time has gone by when ingenious men of the profession,
like Dr. Macmichael, might argue common sense out of us; it will not
even serve any purpose now that other names are so studiously introduced
as _entirely coinciding_ with Dr. Macmichael; for, in these days of
reform in every thing, _opinions_, will only be set down at their just
value by those who pay attention to the subject.
[Footnote 2: I presume that I shall not be misunderstood when I say,
_Would that the cholera were contagious_--for then we might have every
reasonable hope of staying the progress of the calamity by those cordon
and quarantine regulations which are now not merely useless, but the
bane of society, when applied to cholera or other non-contagious
diseases.]
Referring once more to the Report of the 9th of June, made by the
College to the Council, and signed by the President as well as by
Dr. Macmichael, the cholera was there pronounced to be a communicable
disease, when they had, as they freely admit, "no other means of judging
of the nature and symptoms of the cholera than those furnished by the
documents submitted to them." The documents submitted were the
following, as appears from the collection of papers published by order
of Parliament:--Two reports made to our government by Dr. Walker, from
Russia; a report from Petersburgh by Dr. Albers, a Prussian physician;
and a report, with inclosures, regarding Russian quarantine regulations,
from St. Petersburg, by Sir W. Creighton. Dr. Walker, who was sent from
St. Petersburg to Moscow, by our ambassador at the former place; states,
in his first report, dated in March, that the medical men seemed to
differ on the subject of contagion, but adds, "I may so far state, that
by far the greater number of medical men are disposed to think it not
contagious." He says, that on his arrival at Moscow, the cholera was
almost extinct there; that in twelve days he had been able to see only
twenty-four cases, and that he had no means of forming an opinion of
his own as to contagion. In a second report, dated in April from St.
Petersburg, this gentleman repeats his former statement as to the
majority of the Moscow medical men not believing the disease to be
contagious (or, as the College prefer terming it, infectious), and gives
the grounds on which their belief is formed, on which he makes some
observations. He seems extremely fair, for while he states that,
according to his information, a peculiar state of the atmosphere "was
proved by almost every person in the city (Moscow), feeling, during the
time, some inconvenience or other, which wanted only the exciting cause
of catching cold, or of some irregularity in diet, to bring on cholera;"
that "very few of those immediately about the patients were taken ill;"
that he "did not learn that the contagionists in Moscow had any strong
particular instances to prove the communication of the disease from one
individual to another;" and that he had "heard of several instances
brought forward in support of the opinion (contagion), but they are not
fair ones:" he yet mentions where exceptions seem to have taken place as
to hospital attendants not being attacked, but he has neglected to tell
us (a very common omission in similar statements), whether or not the
hospitals in which attendants were attacked were situated in or near
places where the atmosphere seemed _equally productive of the disease
in those not employed in attending on sick_. This clearly makes all the
difference, for there is no earthly reason why people about the sick
should not be attacked, if they breathe the same atmosphere which would
seem to have so particular an effect in producing the disease in others;
indeed there are good reasons why, during an epidemic, attendants should
be attacked in greater proportion; for the constant fatigue, night-work,
&c., must greatly predispose them to disease of any kind, while the
great additional number always required on those occasions, precludes
the supposition of the majority so employed being _seasoned_ hospital
attendants, having constitutions impenetrable to contagion. Those
questions are _now_ well understood as to yellow fever, about which so
much misconception had once existed. The proofs by disinterested authors
(by which I mean those unconnected with quarantine establishments, or
who are not governed by the _expediency_ of the case) in the West
Indies, America, and other places, show this in a clear light; but the
proofs which have for some time past appeared in various journals
respecting the occurrences at Gibraltar, during the epidemic of 1828,
are particularly illustrative. By the testimony of three or four
writers, we find that _within certain points_, those in attendance on
sick, in houses as well as hospitals, were attacked with the fever, in
common with those who were not in attendance on sick; but that, where
people remained at ever so short a distance beyond those points, during
the epidemic influence, _not a single instance_ occurred of their being
attacked, though great numbers had been in the closest contact with the
sick, and frequently too, it would appear, under circumstances when
contagion, had it existed, was not impeded in its usual course by a very
free atmosphere:--_sick individuals, for instance, lying in a small
house, hut, or tent, surrounded, during a longer or shorter space of
time, by their relatives, &c._ A full exposure of some very curious
mis-statements on these points, made by our medical chief of the
quarantine, will be found from the pen of the surgeon of the 23d
regiment, in the _Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal_, No. 106.[3]
Those who are acquainted with the progress of cholera in India, must be
aware how a difference in the height of places, or of a few hundred
yards (_indeed sometimes of a few yards_) distance, has been observed to
make all the difference between great suffering and complete
immunity:--the printed and manuscript reports from India furnish a vast
number of instances of this kind; and, incredible as it may appear, they
furnish instances where, _notwithstanding the freest intercourse_, there
has been an abrupt line of demarcation observed, beyond which the
disease did not prevail. A most remarkable instance of this occurred in
the King's 14th regiment, in 1819, during a cholera epidemic, when the
light company of the regiment escaped almost untouched, owing to no
other apparent cause than that they occupied the extremity of a range of
barrack in which all the other companies were stationed! so that there
would truly seem to be more things "on earth than are dreamt of in the
philosophy" of contagionists. This seems so remarkable an event, that
the circumstance should be more particularly stated:--"The disease
commenced in the eastern wing of the barracks, and proceeded in a
westerly direction, but suddenly stopped at the 9th company; the
light infantry escaping with one or two slight cases only."--(_Bengal
Rep._ 311.) It appears (_loc. cit._) that 221 attacks took place in the
other nine companies. We find (_Bombay Rep._ p. 11.) that, from a little
difference in situation, two cavalry regiments in a camp were altogether
exempt from the disease, while all the other regiments were attacked.
Previous to closing these remarks, which seemed to me called for on
Dr. Walker's second Report, it is fair to state, that in certain Russian
towns which he names, he found that the medical men and others were
convinced that the cholera was brought to them "_somehow or other_," an
impression quite common in like cases, as we learn from Humboldt, and
less to be wondered at in Russia than most places which could be
mentioned. It will not be a misemployment of time to consider now the
next document laid before the College, to enable them to form their
opinion,--the Report of Dr. Albers, dated in March, and sent from St.
Petersburg;--this gentleman, who was at the head of a commission sent
by the Prussian government to Moscow, states, that at St. Petersburgh,
_where the disease did not then reign_, the authorities and physicians
were contagionists; but at Moscow, where it had committed such ravages,
"almost all strenuously maintain that cholera is not contagious." The
following extract seems to merit particular attention:--
"When the cholera first reached Moscow, all the physicians of this city
were persuaded of its contagious nature, but the experience gained in
the course of the epidemic, has produced an entirely opposite
conviction. They found that it was impossible for any length of time
completely to isolate such a city as Moscow, containing 300,000
inhabitants, and having a circumference of nearly seven miles (versts?),
and perceived daily the frequent frustrations of the measures adopted.
During the epidemic, it is certain that upwards of 40,000 inhabitants
quitted Moscow, of whom a large number never performed quarantine; and
notwithstanding this fact, _no case is on record of the cholera having
been transferred from Moscow to other places_, and it is equally
certain, that in _no situation_ appointed for quarantine, _any case of
cholera has occurred_. That the distemper is not contagious, has been
yet more ascertained by the experience gathered in this city (Moscow).
In many houses it happened, that one individual attacked by cholera was
attended indiscriminately by all the relatives, and yet did the disease
not spread to any of the inmates. It was finally found, that not only
the nurses continued free of the distemper, but also that they
promiscuously attended the sick chamber, and visited their friends,
without in the least communicating the disease. There are even cases
fully authenticated, that nurses, to quiet timid females labouring under
cholera, have shared their beds during the nights, and that they,
notwithstanding, have escaped uninjured in the same manner as physicians
in hospitals have, without any bad consequences, made use of warm water
used (a moment before) by cholera patients for bathing.
[Footnote 3: The writer of this, who may be known by application at
the printer's, when the present excitement is at an end, is not only
prepared to show, _on a fitting occasion_, the correctness of the
statements of Dr. Smith as well as those by Dr. O'Halloran just
referred to--but also, that in the investigations, in 1828, connected
with the question of yellow fever at Gibraltar, facts were perverted
in the most scandalous manner, in order to prove the disease imported
and contagious:--that individuals had been suborned:--that persons had
been in the habit of putting leading questions to witnesses:--that
those who gave false evidence have been, in a particular manner,
remunerated:--that threats were held out:--and, in short, that
occurrences of a nature to excite the indignation of mankind, took
place on that occasion; and merited a punishment, not less severe,
than a Naval Officer who should give, designedly, a false bearing and
distance of rocks.]
"These, and numerous other examples which, during the epidemic (we
ought, perhaps, to call it endemic) became known to every inhabitant of
Moscow, have confirmed the conviction of the non-infectious nature of
the disease, a conviction in which their personal safety was so much
concerned.
"It is also highly worthy of observation, that all those who stand up
for contagion, _have not witnessed_ the cholera, which is, therefore,
especially objected to their opinion by their opponents." He closes by
the observation, "The result of my own daily experience, therefore,
perfectly agrees with the above-stated principle, namely, notwithstanding
all my inquiries, I _have met with no instance which could render it at
all probable that the cholera is disseminated by inanimate objects_." The
words in italics are as in the Parliamentary papers on Cholera, pp. 8 and
9. Here is something to help to guide people in forming opinions, and to
help governments on quarantine questions; but owing to a portion of the
"perverseness" which Dr. Macmichael in anger talks about, Dr. Albers
still _speculates_ upon cholera being contagious, and the College, it
would seem, take up his speculations and sink his very important facts.
Sir William Creighton's Report gives what puports to be an extract from
a memorial of his on cholera, given in to the St. Petersburg Medical
Council, tending to establish the contagious character of the disease;
and with this a report by the extraordinary committee appointed by the
Emperor to inquire into the Moscow epidemic. The disease had not appeared
at St. Petersburg when he drew up his Memorial, and it does not appear
from any-thing which can be seen in the extracts he furnishes, that he
had personal knowledge of any part of what he relates. He gives the
reported progress of the disease on the Volga and the Don, but is
extremely deficient exactly where one might have expected that, from the
greater efficiency of police authorities, &c., his information on
contagion would have been more precise, viz., the introduction of the
disease into Moscow, which could not, it would seem have been by material
objects, for, according to the Committee, composed "of the most eminent
public officers,"--"the opinion of those who do not admit the possibility
of contagion by means of material objects, has for its support both the
majority of voices, and the scrupulous observance of facts. The members
of the Medical Council have been convinced by their own experience, as
also by the reports of the physicians of the hospitals, that, after
having been in frequent and even habitual communication with the sick,
their own clothes have never communicated the disease to any one, even
without employing means of purification. Convalescents have continued to
wear clothes which they wore during the disease--even furs--without
having them purified, and they have had no relapse. At the opening of
bodies of persons who had died of cholera, to the minute inspection of
which four or five hours a day for nearly a month were devoted, neither
those who attended at their operations, nor any of the assisting
physicians, nor any of the attendants, caught the infection, although,
with the exception of the first day, scarcely any precautions were used.
But what appears still more conclusive, a physician who had received
several wounds in separating the flesh, continued his operations, having
only touched the injured parts with caustic. A drunken invalid having
also wounded himself, had an abscess, which doubtless showed the
pernicious action of the dead flesh, but the cholera morbus did not
attack him. In fine, foreign _Savans_, such as Moreau de Jonnés and
Gravier, who have recognized, in various relations, the contagious nature
of the cholera morbus, do not admit its propagation by means of goods and
merchandise." (_Parl. Papers on Chol._ p. 13.) With the above documents
the Council transmitted to the College a short description of the process
of cleaning hemp in the Russian ports; and, lastly, the copy of a
letter to the clerk of the Council from our ever-vigilant, though
never-sufficiently-to-be-remunerated, head guardian of the quarantine
department, who, taking the alarm, very properly recommends, as in duty
bound, that a stir be forthwith made in all the pools, and creeks, and
bays, &c., of the united kingdom, in order that all those notoriously
"susceptible" old offenders, skins, hemp, flax, rags, &c., may be
prevented from carrying into execution their felonious intention of
covering the landing of a dire enemy. In truth, from the grave as well
as from the sublime, there often seems to be "but a step;" and in
reading over this gentleman's suggestions about _susceptibles_ and
_non-susceptibles_, one may fancy himself, instead of being in the
land of thinking people, to be in the land of Egypt, where, as we are
informed (Madden, 1825), the sage matrons discuss the point, whether a
cat be not a better vehicle for contagion than a dog:--a horse may be
trusted, they say, but as to an ass, he is the most incorrigible of
contagion smugglers;--of fresh bread we never need be afraid, but the
susceptibility of butcher's meat is quite an established thing:--or we
might fancy ourselves transported to regions of romance, where it is
matter of profound deliberation, whether an egg shall be broken at the
large or the small end. Such things are too bad for the nineteenth
century; and in England, too, with her enlightened parliament! But until
these questions are better examined, our guardian must bestir himself
about articles susceptible of cholera contagion, while he enjoys his
good quarantine pay, his good half pay from another department as I
believe, and withall, if we are not misinformed, a smart pension from
the Gibraltar revenue, for what granted nobody can tell.
The documents above referred to, would appear then to be the whole on
which the College admit that they formed their opinions, and people may
now judge whether the verdict be according to the evidence, or whether
it be not something in the _lucus a non lucendo_ mode of drawing
conclusions:--most persons will probably think that, on such evidence,
there might at least have been a qualified opinion. It appears, however,
that having come to _a decision_ on the 9th of June, that the disease
was communicable from person to person, they in three days after,
approved of persons being sent to Russia to find out whether they had
decided rightly or not. Are we now to expect that, should the occasion
need, they will heroically make war against their own declared opinion?
For my part I expect from them all that should be expected from men; and
the liberal part of the world will not fail to see from this, that I do
not despair of even Dr. Macmichael, being still open to conviction. Let
it not be for a moment understood that, in any-thing which has been
said, or which may remain to be said respecting this gentleman, or in
any-thing which may be hereafter said respecting Dr. Bisset Hawkins's
work, I mean to insinuate that contagion in cholera is not with them a
matter of conscience; but I certainly do mean to say that their zeal has
manifestly warped their judgment; and not only this, but that it has
prevented them from laying statements before the public on the cholera
questions with all the impartiality we might have expected from
gentlemen of their character in the profession.
In Dr. Macmichael's pamphlet, consisting of thirty-two pages, and
professing to be a consideration of the question, "Is cholera
contagious?" we scarcely find the disease mentioned till we come to page
25; the pages up to this being occupied chiefly by a recapitulation of
opinions formerly given "on the progress of opinion upon the subject of
contagion;"--on the opinions of old writers as to the contagion of
plague, small-pox, measles, &c.:--he would infer that whereas small-pox
and certain other diseases have, by more accurate observations made in
comparatively modern times, been taken from the place they once held,
and ranged among diseases decidedly contagious, so ought cholera also
to be now pronounced contagious! As an inducement to us to adopt this
as good logic, he assures us that the list of diseases deemed contagious
by wise men is on the increase--that non-contagionists are _perverse_
people, _blunderers_, and so forth! As to his epithets, it shall only be
said that among the disbelievers of contagion in cholera, and certain
other diseases probably reputed contagious by Dr. Macmichael, are to be
found hundreds possessing as much candour, as cultivated minds, and as
much practical knowledge of their profession, as any contagionists,
whether they be Fellows of a College or not; but as to the statement
of Dr. Macmichael, is it true that we have been adding to the list of
contagious diseases? Not within the last fifty years certainly. Even the
influenza of 1803 was, if I mistake not greatly, termed, very generally,
"infectious catarrh," but what professional man would term the influenza
of 1831 so? Are there not yet remaining traces of the generally exploded
doctrine of even contagion in ague, at one time attempted to be
maintained? M. Adouard, of Paris, still indeed holds out. Do we not know
that Portal, at one period of his life at least, would not, for fear of
"infection," open the body of a person who had died of phthisis? Where
is the medical man now to be found who would set up such a plea? or
where, except in countries doomed to eternal barbarism, are patients
labouring under consumption avoided now, as they were in several parts
of the world at one time, just as if they laboured under plague, and all
for the simpleton's reason that the disease _often runs through
families_? What disinterested man will, on due examination of all that
has been written on yellow fever, stand up now in support of its being a
contagious disease, of which some thirty or forty years ago there was so
general a belief? On croup, and a few more diseases, many still think it
_wise to doubt_. Is dysentery, known to make such ravages sometimes,
especially in armies, considered now, as at one time, to be contagious?
If Dr. Macmichael's pamphlet was intended altogether for readers not of
the profession, _which seems very probable_, his purposes will perhaps
be answered, at least for a time, but I do not see how it can make an
impression on medical men. Why not have been a little more candid when
quoting Sydenham on small-pox, &c. and have quoted what that author says
of the disease which he (Dr. M.) professes to write about,--the cholera?
The public would have means of judging how far the disease which was
prevalent in 1669, resembled the "cholera spasmodica," &c., of late
years. Many insist upon an identity (Orton among others), and yet
Sydenham saw no reason for suspecting a communicable property. It might
have been more to the point had Dr. Macmichael, instead of quoting old
authorities on small-pox, measles, &c. quoted some authorities to
disprove that Orton and others are wrong when they state it as their
belief that some of those old epidemics in Europe, about which so much
obscurity hangs, were nothing more or less than the cholera spasmodica.
Mead's short sketch of the "sweating sickness" does not seem very
inapplicable:--"Excessive fainting and inquietude inward burnings,
headach, sweating, vomiting, and diarrhoea."[4] In the letter to the
President of the College we see no small anxiety to prove that the
malignant cholera is of modern origin also in India, for the proofs from
Hindoo authorities, as given in the volume of _Madras Reports_, are
slighted. These Reports, as well as those of the other presidencies,
are exceedingly scarce, but whoever can obtain access to them will find
in the translations at pp. 253 and 255 (not at page 3, as quoted by
Dr. Macmichael), enough probably to satisfy him that cholera is the
disease alluded to there. But I think that we have at page 31 of
Dr. Macmichael's letter, no small proof of a peculiarity of opinion, when
we find that he there states that the evidence in the _Madras Reports_
of the existence of epidemics of malignant cholera in India, on several
occasions previous to 1817, rests on imperfect records, and that the
description of the disease is too vague to prove the identity with the
modern spasmodic cholera; for in this opinion he seems, as far as I have
been able to discover, to stand alone among writers on cholera;--indeed
it seems established, _on the fullest authority_, that cholera, in the
same form in which it has appeared epidemically of late years, has
committed ravages in India on more than one occasion formerly:--this is
fully admitted by Mr. Orton, an East India practitioner, who is one of
the few contagionists.
[Footnote 4: If the progress of the sweating sickness was similar to
that of cholera, the advice of the King to Wolsey was sound; for instead
of recommending him to rely on any-thing like cordon systems, or to shut
himself up surrounded by his guards, he tells him (see _Ellis's_
letters) to "fly to _clene_ air incontinently," on the approach of the
disease. I use the words _approach of the disease_ occasionally, as it
is a manner of expression in general use, but it is far from being
strictly applicable when I speak of cholera; _the cause_ of the disease
it is which I admit travels or springs up at points, and not the disease
itself in the persons of individuals, or its germs in inanimate
substances.]
For one piece of tact the author of the letter deserves great credit;
for whereas his College collectively, when forming their opinion on the
questions proposed to them by the Council, seemed to throw all India
records overboard,--he, in his individual capacity, as author of the
letter, sends after them all the Russian reports in support of
contagion; for anxious as he is to prove his point, not a word do we get
of the _on dits_ so current in Russia about persons being attacked with
the disease from smelling to hemp arrived from such or such a place;
from having looked at a boatman who had been up the Volga or down the
Volga, &c. &c.: all which statements, when duty inquired into, prove to
be unsupported by any thing in the shape of respectable authority, and
this is now, in all probability, pretty generally known to be the case,
as Dr. Macmichael must be quite aware of.
To the medical gentlemen of India who have been concerned in the
official reports, which do them, _en masse_, so much credit, Dr.
Macmichael is little disposed to be complimentary; and, indeed, he seems
to insinuate that those were rather stupid fellows who did not come to
what he is pleased to consider "a just and right conclusion," as to
contagion; he thinks, however, that he has got a few of "the most
candid" to join in his belief. We shall see whether he had better
reason to look towards the Ganges and Beema for a confirmation of his
doctrines, than he had toward the Don or the Volga. How does the case
stand with respect to one of the gentlemen whom he quotes,--Mr. Jukes,
of the Bombay Establishment? This gentleman, like all who speak of
cholera, mentions circumstances as to the progress of the disease
which he cannot comprehend, and Dr. Macmichael shows us what those
circumstances are; but Dr. Macmichael does not exhibit to us _what does_
come perfectly within Mr. Jukes's comprehension, but which is not quite
so suitable to the doctor's purpose. This omission I shall take the
liberty to supply from an official letter from Mr. Jukes in the Bombay
Reports:--"I have had no reason to think it has been contagious here,
neither myself nor any of my assistants, who have been constantly
amongst the sick, nor any of the hospital attendants, have had the
disease. It has not gone through families when one has become affected.
It is very unlike contagion too, in many particulars." &c.--(_Bombay
Reports_, page 172.)--Ought we not to be a little surprised that so
great an admirer of candour, as Dr. Macmichael seems to be, should,
while so anxious to give every information to his readers, calculated to
throw light upon the subject of cholera, omits the above important
paragraph, which we find, by the way _immediately precedes_ the one upon
opinions and difficulties which he quotes from the same gentleman? But
let us examine what the amount of force is, which can be obtained from
that part of Mr. Jukes's paper, which it does please Dr. Macmichael to
quote:--"If it be something general in the atmosphere, why has it not
hitherto made its appearance in some two distinct parts of the province
at the same time? Nothing of this kind has, I believe, been observed. It
still seems creeping from village to village, rages for a few days, and
then begins to decline." I find myself unable, at this moment, to
ascertain the extent of Mr. Jukes's means of obtaining information as
to what was passing in other parts of his province; but I think the
following quotation, on which I am just now able to lay my hand, will
not only satisfactorily meet what is here stated, but must, in the
public opinion, be treasured, as it serves at once to displace most
erroneous ideas long prevalent, and which, I believe, greatly influenced
men's decisions as to contagion:--"It may, then, first be remarked,
that the rise and progress of the disorder were attended by such
circumstances as showed it to be entirely independent of contagion for
its propagation. Thus we have seen that it arose at nearly one and the
same time in many different places, and that in the same month, nay,
in the same week, it was raging in the unconnected and far-distant
districts of Behar and Dacca." (Bengal Reports, p. 125.) Again (p. 9),
that in Bengal "it at once raged simultaneously in various and remote
quarters, without displaying a predilection for any one tract or
district more than for another; or any thing like regularity of
succesion in the chain of its operations." In support of what is stated
in these extracts, the fullest details are given as to dates and places;
and at page 9 of those Reports, a curious fact is given, "That the large
and populous city of Moorshedabad, from extent and local position
apparently very favourably circumstanced for the attacks of the
epidemic, should have escaped with comparatively little loss, whilst all
around was so severely scourged." This seems to have been pretty similar
to what is now taking place with respect to the city of Thorn, which
remains free from cholera, though the communication is open with divers
infected places in every direction. Should Thorn still be attacked by
the disease (as it sooner or later will, in all human probability), the
contagionists _par métier_ will try to establish a case of hemp or
hare-skin importation, I have no doubt. I wonder much that Dr.
Macmichael or Dr. B. Hawkins, when favouring us with eastern quotations,
did not give the public the opinion of Dr. Davy, who is so well known
in Europe, and who saw the cholera in Ceylon; his conjecture (quite
accessible, I believe, to every medical man in London) may perhaps be
as valuable as that of any other person. The following is a copy of
it:--"The cause of the disease is not any sensible change in the
atmosphere; yet, considering the progress of the disease, its epidemic
nature, the immense extent of country it has spread over, we can hardly
refuse to acknowledge that its cause, though imperceptible, though yet
unknown, does exist in the atmosphere. It may be extricated from the
bowels of the earth, as miasmata were formerly supposed to be; it may
be generated in the air, it may have the properties of radiant matter,
and, like heat and light, it may be capable of passing through space
unimpeded by currents; like electricity, it may be capable of moving
from place to place in an imperceptible moment of time." Dr. Davy is an
army physician, and the report of which this is an extract, may be seen
at the Army Medical Office, a place which, of late years, has become a
magazine of medical information of the most valuable kind in Europe.
There is this difference between army and other information on cholera,
that (whether in the King's or E. I. Company's service) the statements
given by the medical gentlemen have their accuracy more or less
guaranteed by a certain system of military control over the documents
they draw up: thus, in the circumstance already noticed as having
occurred in the 14th regiment, we have every reason to rely upon its
accuracy, which we could not have in a similar statement among the
population of any country; and we have, I think, no reason to believe
that in pronouncing the cholera of Ceylon not contagious, Dr. Davy, as
well as two other gentlemen of high character and experience (Drs.
Farrel and Marshall), have not gone upon such data as may bear scrutiny.