Emphatic likewise was his protest against the exaggeration of the inoculators.
A natural simple smallpox seldom kills, unless under very ill management, or when some lurking evil that was quiet before is roused in the fluids and confederated with the pocky ferment.[47]
At this point we may see the judgment and the fears of the English people had gone against inoculation, and the practice appeared destined to gradual extinction. According to the inoculators, their work was thus summarised—
| 182 inoculations | in 1721 and ’22, | with 3 deaths. |
| 292 ” | in 1723, | with 6 deaths. |
| 40 ” | in 1724, | with 1 death. |
Prince Frederick and Prince William were among the inoculated of 1724.
| 256 inoculations | in 1725 and ’26, | with 4 deaths. |
| 124 ” | in 1727 and ’28, | with 3 deaths. |
Dr. Scheuchzer, in 1729 tabulated[48] the cases and results of these years, 1721-28, as follows—
| Age. | No. oper- ated upon. | Success- fully inoculated. | Had imperfect Smallpox. | Did not take. | Died. |
| Under 1 year, | 24 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 1 to 2, ” | 34 | 33 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 2 to 3, ” | 65 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 3 to 4, ” | 91 | 88 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
| 4 to 5, ” | 65 | 63 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| 5 to 10, ” | 257 | 249 | 3 | 5 | 3 |
| 10 to 15, ” | 140 | 131 | 1 | 8 | 1 |
| 15 to 20, ” | 104 | 95 | 3 | 6 | 2 |
| 20 and upwards, | 110 | 91 | 6 | 13 | 2 |
| Unknown, | 7 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| –— | –— | — | — | — | |
| 897 | 845 | 13 | 39 | 17 | |
Thus stood the account by the inoculators’ own showing, and it was by no means a satisfactory balance-sheet. What strikes one painfully in looking over it, is the vast preponderance of the young and defenceless (780 out of 897) upon whom the abominable experiment was tried. “Helplessness which commands the protection of the brave is the opportunity of the investigating sneak.” Whilst the inoculators argued laboriously that if some danger attended artificial smallpox, it was trifling to that attached to the spontaneous disease (among other obvious replies), it was maintained that only after much wider experience could it be known what were the precise effects of inoculation. Inoculation, as introduced by Maitland in 1721, had proved vastly different after acquaintance, and there was no telling what remained to be revealed. As Dr. Wagstaffe observed—