Mr. Thorpe, a farmer and grazier near Gainsborough in Lincolnshire, has had beasts recovered from the distemper, which have herded with cattle fallen ill afterwards, and never met with a single instance of a second infection.
Mr. Lostie, an eminent surgeon at Canterbury, has inquired for me of the farmers and graziers in that part of Kent, and about Romney-Marsh; and from whence no belief of a second infection can be had.
The Rev. Dr. Fountayne, Dean of York, writes me word, that no beast has been known, in his neighbourhood, to have had the distemper twice. And several persons from that county, and others, have told me the same thing.
If the above testimony of persons of character and veracity, together with the concurrent persuasion of farmers in general, be allowed of, it must be determined, that there is no instance of a second infection. Supposing now it should appear, that this distemper is regularly, as in the natural way, tho’ in a milder manner, produced by inoculation, and that inoculation secures a beast also from a second infection; then undoubtedly inoculation will be recommendable.
The very few trials made in England, and those not with the greatest exactness or propriety, will yet serve to put this matter out of all doubt.
The Rev. Dean of York had five beasts inoculated, by means of a skein of cotton dipped in the matter, and passed thro’ a hole, like a seaton, in the dew-lap. Of these five, one cow near the time of calving died: the other four, after going thro’ the several stages of this contagious disease, recovered; two of which, being cows young with calf, did not slip their calves. All four have herded with distempered cattle a long while, and never had the least symptom of a second infection.
Mr. Bewley, a surgeon of reputation in Lincolnshire, inoculated three beasts two years old, for Mr. Wigglesworth of Manton, in the dew-lap, and with mucus from the nostrils. All three had the regular symptoms of the contagious distemper in a mild manner, recovered, and tho’ they herded a twelvemonth after with five or six distempered beasts, they never were the least affected. Mr. Bewley also declared to Mr. Thorpe, that there never was one instance produced, that he knew of, of a second infection.
Since it is plain, that notwithstanding neither well-digested pus was made use of, nor incisions made in the properest places, and it may be supposed few medicines were given; yet inoculation succeeded so as to bring on the distemper in a regular and mild manner, as appears by the cows with calf not slipping their calves. One may fairly conclude, that in this contagious distemper, like unto the small-pox, the practice of inoculation is not only warrantable, but much to be recommended.
But how comes it then, that neither by application, digestion, nor inoculation, the distemper was not communicated in France?
The Marquis says, that this distemper is not communicated but from one beast to another immediately. I must beg leave to say, that to my knowlege the distemper in February 1756 was carried from the farm-yard, where I visited some distempered cattle, to two other farm-yards, each at a considerable distance, without any communication of the cattle with each other, and merely by the means of servants going to and fro, or of dogs.