Inoculation was first practised in Scotland in 1726 at Aberdeen, on eleven persons, by Mr. Maitland, who had come home from Turkey; and, as one of these cases proved fatal, a violent prejudice arose against it, in consequence of which it was for 20 years after this discontinued in that part of the country. At Dumfries, it was practised first in 1733, during the prevalence of a malignant variolous epi demic ; but in other parts of Scotland it was not adopted till about the year 1753.
In Ireland, it was first introduced in 1723 by Mr Hall, surgeon in Dublin, who inoculated 16 persons. Other 9 operations were performed about tire same time, and of these the number that died was three,—a circumstance of a discouraging tendency.
In England, inoculation declined (hiring the twelve years after 1726, i.e. till 1738. It was now, however, making considerable progress in the transatlantic world. The popish missionaries introduced it among the aborigines of South America, to whom the natural small-pox was highly desti uctive. In 1738, when a fatal epidemic prevailed in South Carolina, in cr.vsequence of infection imported in a slave ship from the coast of Africa, Mr Moubrav, surgeon, introduced inoculation, and perlormed it on 450 persons. He was followed by Dr Kirkpatrick and some others, so that the number of the inoculated soon amounted to about 1000. Among these there were eight deaths. Dr Kirk patrick published, in London, an essay on inoculation, in the year 1743. The practice was soon after introduced at Philadelphia, and in some of the West India islands, where it proved still more successful in checking the progress of a fatal epidemic. The accounts of this success contri buted to the revival of inoculation in England in 1751, and the subsequent year s. Serjeant Ranhy had, in 1751, inoculated 1000 persons. The writings of Dr. Mead and Dr. Frewen had considerable weight on the side of inoculation.
In 1746, a scheme was proposed by some public spirit ed characters, among %%horn were several persons of high rank, for a hospital for the reception of patients casually affected with small-pox, and another for inoculating the poor. This was immediately opened, under the designa tion of " The Middlesex County Hospital for small-pox." Other two were soon after established, and their plan was greatly extended. In 1750, there was an institution, which consisted of three houses; viz. one in Old street, for pre paling the patients for inoculation, another in Frog-lane, Islington, for receiving them when the disease appeared, and a third in Lower street, Islington, fur patients labour ing under natural small-pox.
The opinions which then existed on the necessity of a long preparatory course of medicine rendered the business of this charity tedious 'and expensive. The patients were subjected to this process for a whole month ; and, that they might not be exposed in the interim to any casual in fection, a great number was inoculated on the same day, and no inoculation was performed till these were removed from the house of preparation, and the house subjected to a process of purification. Thus the inoculations were only once in seven weeks, and the patients were subjected to confinement for two months. This institution had to con tend with the prejudices of the populace, who regarded it as a source of calamitous infection to the neighbourhood in which it was established, and insulted the patients in the grossest manner as they passed along after their dis missal. Application was even made to the Lord Chancel lor to have it suppressed as a nuisance. This of course proved effectual.
Dr. Madox, Bishop of Worcester, who was made presi dent of that institution, was a most zealous and enlightened advocate of inoculation, and preached an eloquent sermon in recommendation of it, exhibiting a luminous contrast to the intemperate abuse which Massey had poured on it thirty fears before, and it so happened, that it was deliver ed from the same pulpit. It was after wards published, and contributed considerably to the promotion of the cause. It now made an uninterrupted progress, though still opposed with equal violence by a few individuals. Its friends watched assiduously the attacks of the enemy; di%:nes, as well as physicians and surgeons, co-operated in %indicating and recommending 0, and all opposition ceased, except from persons of very low character.
In France, it made a similar progress. in whieliit had to encounter opposition, which was apparently formidable, but betrayed equal weakness and absurdity as that which we have already described. Dr. Ilecquet expressed so great an antipathy to inoculation, as to question the lawful ness of performing a certain operation which goes under that name on trees, and stigmatised it as contrary to the laws of nature, and strongly savouring of magic.