“The influence of fear and the depressing passions has also been considered as very powerful in predisposing persons to be affected with typhus contagion. There can be no doubt that fear has a tendency to produce a temporary depression of the physical powers; but, as has been already shown, there is no proof that persons of a naturally spare or weak habit of body, who are generally very sensitive, are more liable to fever than those of an ordinary constitution; this opinion must also be considered hypothetical. Indeed the facts, as far as our inquiries have enabled us to judge, seem to prove that the apprehension of fever, more particularly when it is not epidemic, is very rarely felt until the person is actually seized with the disease; for some cannot recollect of a single circumstance by which they could be exposed to contagion; and a considerable number of those who had undoubtedly been exposed to it were only made aware of the fact when it had been elicited by cross-examination. We are quite aware that cases may be brought forward of sensitive individuals who have been seized with fever soon after visiting a person labouring under the disease; but as this fact can be opposed with at least an equal number of persons who were destitute of fear, and yet caught it after an exposure to contagion, no conclusion whatever can be drawn from them. It must be observed, however, that though there is no proof that persons who are naturally weak in body or of a sensitive disposition are more susceptible of fever than those who are naturally vigorous and robust, yet that, during famine or commercial distress, poverty, by depressing the mind and lowering the physical status from insufficient aliment, does powerfully predispose a community to become affected with fever. This has been already shown in a former part of the essay, and has been again alluded to in order that the distinction might be made between an individual of naturally weak mental and physical stamina, and one who has been reduced to that state by deficient nutriment.”
There appears to be little evidence on one side or the other in support of this last hypothesis, other than such as that cited from Dr. Davidson himself; but it is to be observed that the wet or bad seasons, which suspend agricultural industry and much labour in the towns, is usually of a character of itself to predispose to disease, if not to produce it; and that it does propagate it amongst all classes, high and low, in proportion to their exposure to it. It appears to be highly probable that the privation attendant on the stoppage of work, by diminishing the means for the purchase of fuel, of soap, &c., and in various ways by inducing lax habits of life, may increase the amount of exposure to and loss from the all-pervading cause.
The preponderant evidence given on this subject by the great majority of the medical officers in England who are accustomed to visit the labouring classes in their own dwellings, is however of the tenor of the following from the medical officer of the Whitechapel union acting in Spitalfields parish.
Mr. Byles, the medical officer of the Whitechapel union:—
“What is the number of cases you have had to visit during the year 1841 as a medical officer?—I think the number of cases I have had to visit during each year since the commencement of the Union has been upwards of 2,000 cases of various disease, of which 1,400 were cases out of the workhouse.
“Has the present winter been unhealthy?—I do not think it has; there has been an increase of fever cases during the last month. The number of cases is, however, still below the average of 1838.
“Is there not, however, unusual distress in your district, comprehending Spitalfields and a portion of Whitechapel?—Yes, there is: I believe that more than half the looms are out of work.
“Do you not find that fever attacks in greatest number those who are out of work?—On the contrary, the greatest number of the cases of fever we have are those who fall ill during the time they are in employment. I think they are more attacked when in work, when the windows are closed, and there is no ventilation. Many of them are obliged to work with closed windows, to keep out the moist air, and prevent the dust blowing upon their work. When they are out of work, they are more out of doors looking after work, more in the open air, and that very exercise may be the means of keeping them in health. This observation applies to the weavers. I find that they have generally less fever when they are out of work. The reverse, I think, holds as respects out-door labourers, such as those who work at the docks. When they are out of work, they stand about waiting in the cold, and when cold, they generally take cheap gin, and no food: they catch cold, and on going to their close filthy habitations, their cold is apt to generate fever.
“There was an unusual amount of fever prevalent in Spitalfields and Whitechapel, was there not, in the year 1838?—Yes, there was; in the proportion, perhaps, of more than two to one of the present amount. My last account for the year ending Lady-day, 1842, was about 250 fever cases; it has been as high as 800.
“Did it prevail proportionately amongst the weavers?—Yes, I believe it did.