stated that he had made inquiries from the authorities at that place, and that he discovered the whole statement to have been without the smallest foundation, and furnishes the particulars of cases which occurred in the dock-yard, among which were some deaths; this has never since been replied to—so much as a caution in the selection of proofs.

To show, further, how absurdly statements respecting the efficacy of cordons will sometimes be made, it may be mentioned that M. D'Argout, French minister of public works, standing up in his place in the chamber, on the 3rd instant (Septr.), and producing his estimates for additional cordons, &c., stated, by way of proving the efficacy of such establishments, that in Prussia, where, according to him, cordon precautions had been pre-eminently rigorous, and where "le territoire a été defendu pied à pied," such special enforcement of the regulations was attended with "assez de succès:" in the meantime the next mail brings us the official announcement (dated Berlin, Sept. 1) of the disease having made its appearance there!

To conclude, for the present: if there be one reason more than another why the question of cholera should be scrutinized by the highest tribunal—a parliamentary committee—it is, that in the "papers" just issued by the Board of Health, the following passage occurs (page 36):—"But in the event of such removal not being practicable, on account of extreme illness or otherwise, the prevention of all intercourse with the sick, even of the family of the person attacked, must be rigidly observed, unless," &c. There are some who can duly appreciate all the consequences of this; but let us hope that the question is still open to further evidence, in order to ascertain whether it be really necessary that, in the event of a cholera epidemic,

"The living shall fly from
The sick they should cherish."

LETTER II.

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

Pt_1
[Pg 10] 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.

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

Pt_1
[Pg 11] 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