Dr. Gatti told you, that he paid little regard to preparation, because the people in the Levant are successful without it.
Mr. Chandler, who had already been examined by the Counsel against the Prisoner, being recalled, gives it as his opinion that the success of this Suttonian practice is owing entirely to the manner of communicating the infection, which, as it is performed openly, can be no secret.
The next witness was Dr. Glass, who informed the Court that there is a certain operator in Somersetshire, who without any preparation at all hath inoculated seventeen hundred with the loss of two patients only. Being asked his opinion as to the cause of the success of this new method, as it is called, he told you, that he believed it to be principally owing to the exhibition of sudorific medicines during the eruptive fever.
Dr. Dimsdale deposed, that he hath practised inoculation in a very extensive manner for twenty years past without the loss of a patient; that his practice is very similar to that of the Prisoner at the bar; but that he has often inoculated without any preparation, and with equal success; and that he ascribes his success chiefly to the cool regimen, and to his method of communicating the infection with recent fluid matter.
The last witness called was Mr. Monthly Review, who spoke to the character of the Rev. Mr. Houlton, on the credit of whose testimony the fate of the Prisoner at the bar almost entirely depends.
Gentlemen of the jury, having thus briefly summed up the evidence on both sides, intentionally neglecting to animadvert as I went along, I shall now endeavour, as far as I am able, to state this complicated affair in such a manner, as to reduce it to a few simple questions; and if, after all, it should appear, that what hath been deposed be insufficient to explain the great mystery, I shall think it my duty, for the sake of truth, and in justice to the Prisoner at the bar, to give you as much of my own opinion as may be necessary to lead you to an equitable determination.
First, then, I must observe to you, that the part of the indictment, which accuses the Prisoner, in general, of preserving the lives of the King’s subjects, depends entirely on the deposition of Mr. Robert Houlton; for though the evidence of Dr. Baker, and Mr. Chandler, may, in some degree, corroborate his testimony, yet they are, of themselves, insufficient. Some regard is certainly due to Mr. Houlton’s sacred function; but if you believe the gentleman who spoke to his character; if you view him in the light of a mere nostrum-puffer, a Merry-Andrew to the stage-itinerant; in that case, you are not only to disregard his function, but the whole of his evidence. But, in justice to the Prisoner, I must farther observe, that though you were to admit the evidence of Mr. Houlton in full force and virtue; yet, as it hath been very sufficiently proved, that there are a considerable number of operators, who are equally guilty of preserving the lives of the King’s subjects, you will doubtless consider this as a malicious prosecution, and on that account alone you will be justified in acquitting the Prisoner: for though, in general, to sin with a multitude be no excuse, yet the nature of this offence is such, that unless he be found singularly guilty, he is hardly guilty at all.
But he is likewise accused of administering medicines, the composition of which is unknown to the faculty in general. In answer to this charge, Dr. Ruston hath demonstrated, that calomel is the principal ingredient, and several other witnesses have deposed, that calomel hath long been an universal medicine on these occasions. Of this part of the indictment therefore the Prisoner stands fairly acquitted.
As to what relates to the other part of his practice, after the evidence you have heard, you can have no doubt, that he cannot with the least appearance of justice be accused of singularity, as his cold regimen, his mode of preparation, and method of communicating the disease, are at this time exactly similar to the practice of almost every other inoculator in this kingdom.
But admitting that you are satisfied of the reality of his great success in the practice of inoculation, a natural question will arise, namely, to what particular circumstance is that success to be attributed? Before we attempt to solve this problem, let us first recollect the several opinions of those who have been examined relative to this matter.