The promoters of the Society, operating under the prestige of Jenner’s name, resolved to hold their annual festival on his birthday, the 17th of May; and at the first dinner in 1803 he was subjected to flatteries enough to turn any man’s head who does not know the reckless insincerity that prevails on such occasions. It was the adulation connected with the formation of this Society that as much as anything induced Jenner to set up as west-end physician. The attempt of the middle-aged country doctor was the occasion of much grim humour, and his consequent embarrassments were the concern of his friends for many a day. Apart from the inherent difficulties of the enterprise (social rather than medical) Jenner was constitutionally deficient in method and assiduity. Wrapped up in his wife and family, business was always set aside when they claimed his affectionate regard; and to leave London for Gloucestershire for some domestic cause was in his eyes procedure that required no defence—all which might be amiable, but it constantly annoyed and frustrated his associates; and it is not thus encumbered that any man can expect to make way in the world. When the anniversary in 1804 came round, Jenner was at Berkeley, and when pressed to attend he wrote—
Though a post-chaise might bring up my body, my mind would be left behind. One cause of my absence, among many others, is the sad state of Mrs. Jenner’s health. I cannot leave her even for a day with any comfort to my feelings. My friends, who honour the glorious cause of Vaccination by assembling on the 17th, will, I trust, admit my apology. It is my intention to collect a few staunch Vaccinists on that day at my cottage. I shall give them some roast beef, not forgetting a horn or two of good October. We shall close the day with bumpers of milk-punch to the health of the Friends of Humanity at the Crown and Anchor; and if it were not for the indisposition of my poor wife, we should roar like bulls.
If Jenner was idle and self-indulgent, Walker was the reverse. He was a fine specimen of the Genus, Fanatic. Possessed with a lust for what he called Vacciolation, he had a brow of brass, nerves of steel, and habits like clockwork. Thirteen stations were opened in London where cowpox was inoculated gratis, and in eighteen months Walker was able to announce that 12,288 patients had been operated on, and that 19,352 charges of virus had been dispatched to the country and foreign parts; whereon Baron observes—
The effect of these exertions was immediately perceived by a striking diminution of the number of deaths from smallpox within the Bills of Mortality. In 1803 they amounted to 1173; in 1804 they were only 622. The contrast will appear still greater when it is considered that the deaths amounted to 2409 in the year 1800; and that the annual average of deaths for fifty years previously was 2018.[131]
The passage is noteworthy as representative of many similar passages in the literature of Vaccination. It might be described as dishonest, but the craft is so transparent that the epithet would be extravagant. The probable explanation is, that Vaccination had come to be regarded as so unquestionably beneficial that anything might be asserted in its favour, and that anything was true. Else a child might have asked how 12,000 or 24,000 vaccinations could by any possibility affect an immediate diminution in the deaths from smallpox in a population of eight or nine hundred thousand. Baron would also lead his readers to suppose that the low mortality of 1804, namely 622, was unexampled, though with the Bills of Mortality before him, he might have seen that the deaths in 1797 fell to 522; and he knew that the low figure of 1804 was not maintained, but rose to 1685 in 1805. But as remarked, any statement, if only it be favourable to Vaccination, is expected to pass muster as veracious, and the public credulity justifies the expectation.
Let us look at the London Bills for ourselves, taking the last ten years of the 18th and the first ten years of the 19th Centuries, and try to discover what they teach.
| Years. | Burials from all Diseases. | From Smallpox. | From Fevers. | From Measles. |
| 1791 | 18,760 | 1747 | 2013 | 156 |
| 1792 | 20,213 | 1568 | 2236 | 450 |
| 1793 | 21,749 | 2382 | 2426 | 248 |
| 1794 | 19,241 | 1913 | 1935 | 172 |
| 1795 | 21,179 | 1040 | 1947 | 328 |
| 1796 | 19,288 | 3548 | 1547 | 307 |
| 1797 | 17,014 | 522 | 1526 | 222 |
| 1798 | 18,155 | 2237 | 1754 | 196 |
| 1799 | 18,134 | 1111 | 1784 | 233 |
| 1800 | 23,068 | 2409 | 2712 | 395 |
| ——— | ——— | ——— | —— | |
| 196,801 | 18,477 | 19,880 | 2707 |
It is to be observed, that we have not here the record of the deaths in the whole of London, but merely the number of intramural interments, which diminished as a number of graveyards became gorged beyond capacity of decomposition and assimilation, and relief was sought in the cemeteries of extra-mural parishes, such as St. Pancras and Marylebone. It is only thus that the diminishing number of burials (which ranged from 25,000 to 30,000 during many years of the 18th Century) is to be accounted for. In this light we have to consider the following table, where we note fewer burials, less smallpox, less fevers, but more measles.
Years. | Burials from all Diseases. | From Smallpox. | From Fevers. | From Measles. |
| 1801 | 19,374 | 1461 | 2908 | 36 |
| 1802 | 19,379 | 1579 | 2201 | 559 |
| 1803 | 19,582 | 1202 | 2326 | 438 |
| 1804 | 17,038 | 622 | 1702 | 619 |
| 1805 | 17,565 | 1685 | 1307 | 523 |
| 1806 | 17,938 | 1158 | 1354 | 530 |
| 1807 | 18,334 | 1297 | 1033 | 452 |
| 1808 | 19,954 | 1169 | 1168 | 1386 |
| 1809 | 16,680 | 1163 | 1066 | 106 |
| 1810 | 19,893 | 1198 | 1139 | 1031 |
| ——— | ——— | ——— | —— | |
| 185,737 | 12,534 | 16,204 | 5680 |