Thomas Beddoes to the Printers of The Bristol Gazette and Public Advertiser and of Felix Farley’s Bristol Journal, 12 April 1803
TO THE PRINTER
Rodney-Place, Clifton, 12 April
Sir,
I do not mean to entertain your readers by a return of irrelevant asperity. But a few words may shew how little any thing, yet advanced, affects the arguments for the contagious nature of the Influenza.
Second-hand facts, loosely stated in general terms, are no admissible evidence. To the establishment of either proposition, a variety of minute reports are requisite. How often did we hear a common cold and quinzy styled influenza. To the unprofessional such mistakes were inevitable. By the profession they could with difficulty be, at times, avoided. Most of my numerous medical correspondents confess their inability to discriminate always; and have not the nosologists defined the influenza a contagious catarrh?
The example of children is the most unfortunate possible – I mean except that of lunatics. In 1782, the most experienced and sagacious practitioners declared the influenza to be propagated by contagion, but expressly mentioned children as less liable. I should therefore rather appeal to manufacturers and soldiers in barracks, were any appeals beyond families necessary. I do not suspect any design to mislead. But in combating an easy, safe, and strongly sanctioned plan of preservation, how strange to overlook what stands recorded, as to the peculiarities of the cause of danger!
But, Sir, though I suspect nicer observations would have diminished the number of exceptions, I fully admit their existence. Certainly it required no prophetic power to foretell, that the influenza would occasionally affect one or two among many individuals in a family. Is it not so with the measles, hooping-cough, and so on? But do these exceptions overturn the conclusion deducible from the very numerous acknowledged instances of seizure in succession? The contrary is so obvious that I am almost ashamed to insist upon it. The exceptions must apply with equal force against any other general cause imaginable; and yet, again, some general cause there must be for so general an effect. – Observe too I pray you, with how much greater force these exceptions apply against the only other general cause, yet alleged. The whole, it has been stated, is owing to the atmosphere. But with what advantage may an opponent reply: Impossible! These boys that so heedlessly expose themselves to the keenest winds! These girls, of all human creatures the most susceptible of unkindly impressions from external agents. My dear Sir, were the mischief in the air, these must have suffered the most.
But the last chapter in the history of our influenza completely exculpates the atmosphere. Since the milder weather, the disorder has appeared and run its course in various places just as in Paris, London, and Bristol. – In dark ages, the atmosphere was esteemed the great reservoir for the seeds of general diseases. We have gained some knowledge of nature, and behold the air not simply exonerated, but proved, on its free admission, to be the destroyer of these very seeds. – I had forgot indeed what we have heard of the portentous change of fresh into putrid meat upon being just hoisted aloft: but, Sir, it might, I presume, as truly be asserted, that a guinea, on being tossed up, would come down a halfpenny.
The evidence for infection rests upon points like these. The influenza seizes, like our common infectious febrile disorders. Usually, several persons, living together, have it one after another. Repeatedly in 1782, when diseased persons appeared in places before free, those about them were seized, and the complaint became general. The same thing has been observed of our current epidemic. Invalids the most carefully screened from the cold of the atmosphere, have been seized after other members of the same family. Some instances which I have seen will, when fully related, prove, I trust, very striking. I add, that in none out of various trials, did it spread where recourse was had to acid fumigations. Nay, an individual, surrounded by these fumes, has been freely approached with impunity, but in a house not fumigated he has appeared to give the infection. For myself, I would not rest the whole question upon the protective power of this process. It will, I hope, be followed where the complaint shall appear late. It may save so much suffering, so many lives and constitutions. The chance it affords can be the only reason for introducing the subject into a popular publication. You could not insert the mass of facts, necessary to a full discussion, unless like the Moniteur, you published seven sheets of supplement. What has been stated may yet have its application, and that before the return of the influenza if it familiarize the public with the idea of acid fumigations in febrile epidemics. Burning brimstone, and the vapours of aqua-fortis manufactories, are, in truth, likely to hurt people with a cough, and must be very disagreeable to others. Luckily, they have no more to do with the proposed measure than the smoke of Etna has on the fires of Vesuvius.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant.
Thomas Beddoes
Published: 1. The Bristol Gazette and Public Advertiser, 14 April 1803. 2. Felix Farley’s Bristol Journal, Vol. 54, no. 2824, Saturday 16 April, 1803.