Letters on the Cholera Morbus.. Fergusson William
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 diarrhœa."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.
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
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