The House of Commons Committee were unable to find out with numerical precision how much more prevalent the fever was in 1817-18 than in the years preceding[309]. To their surprise they found that in six of the general hospitals of London, which admitted cases of fever, “no register is kept in the hospital to distinguish the different varieties of disease.” The apothecary of St Luke’s Workhouse told them that he attended, on an average of common years, about 150 cases of fever; in the last year [1817] the number rose to 600; and they were assured by several besides Bateman, that the great decrease of the deaths from “fever” in the London bills of mortality during a space of fourteen years at the beginning of the century (1803-17), was not a mere apparent decrease, from the growing inadequacy of the bills, but was a real decrease.

The epidemic which began in 1817 continued in London throughout the years 1818 and 1819, chiefly in the densely populated poorer quarters of the town. Two instances of the London slums of the time came to light before the House of Commons Committee on Mendicity and Vagrancy in 1815-16: firstly, Calmel’s Buildings, a small court near Portman Square, consisting of twenty-four houses, in which lived seven hundred Irish in distress and profligacy, neglected by the parish and shunned by everyone from dread of contagion; and, secondly, George Yard, Whitechapel, consisting of forty houses, in which lived two thousand persons in a similar state of wretchedness. The dwellings of the poorer classes in London at this period, before the alleys and courts began to disappear, were described thus generally by Dr Clutterbuck[310]:

In England, generally, this epidemic of 1817-19 is somewhat casually reported. One writes from Witney, Oxfordshire, “on the prevailing epidemic,” which began there in July, 1818, among poor persons, in crowded, filthy and ill-ventilated situations. At first it was like the ordinary contagious fever of this country, “a disease familiar to common observation”; but afterwards it showed choleraic and pneumonic complications. Sometimes the parotid and submaxillary glands were inflamed; petechiae were absent[311]. The type of fever at Ipswich in the spring of 1817 was contagious (e.g. six cases in one family) and sthenic, or of strong reaction, admitting of bloodletting, according to the teaching which Armstrong, Clutterbuck and others had been reviving for fevers[312]. Those instances, one from Oxfordshire the other from Suffolk, must stand for many. Hancock says that the fever of 1817-19 “visited almost every town and village of the United Kingdom[313].” Prichard says that it began in Ireland, “where the distress was most urgent, and afterwards prevailed through most parts of Britain,” some of the more opulent also being involved in the calamity. As to its prevalence in the manufacturing towns of Yorkshire we have ample testimony. The Leeds House of Recovery, which had not been fully occupied at any time since its opening in 1804, received 178 cases in 1817, and 254 in the first ten months of 1818. Of the latter, 66 came from low lodging-houses, of whom upwards of 50 were strangers. Of 50 admitted in January, 1818, 20 came from four or five lodging-houses in March Lane, and from another locality equally bad—Boot and Shoe Yard; while the rest of the 50 in that month came from houses and streets in the same vicinity. March Lane was one of the worst seats of the great Leeds plague in 1645. By the month of April, 1820, the epidemic had decreased a good deal in Leeds, the cases becoming at the same time more anomalous[314].

The following is one of the Rochdale cases:

At Halifax in the summer of 1818, typhus (or relapsing fever) had increased so much that fever-wards were added to the Dispensary. It had been alarmingly fatal in a high-lying village near Settle. It was prevalent in Ripon, Huddersfield and Wakefield; and had been brought from Leeds to Atley. A Bradford physician visited 27 cases of fever in one day at a neighbouring village. Throughout Yorkshire, it was confined to the lower orders, and was not very fatal[316]. At Carlisle it began about July, 1817, and became somewhat frequent in the winter and spring following; of 457 cases treated from the Dispensary 46 died, or 1 in 10[317]. At Newcastle, a mild typhus (typhus mitior) broke out in the autumn of 1816, not in the poorer quarters, but mostly among the domestics of good houses in elevated situations. There was much privation at Newcastle, as elsewhere, at this time, among the poor. Murchison takes this fever of the autumn of 1816 at Newcastle to have been enteric or typhoid; but it is described as a simple continued fever, with vertigo, headache, and bloodshot eyes, lasting from five or six days to four or five weeks, ending usually without a marked crisis, and causing few deaths[318]. The epidemic continued in Newcastle for three years, the admissions to the Fever Hospital from 4 Sept. 1818, to 4 March, 1819, having been 160, with 12 deaths. Dr McWhirter wrote, in April, 1819, that he saw on his rounds as dispensary physician “too many of the obvious causes of fever,” including the filth and wretchedness of the poor inhabitants: “one rather wonders that so many escape it than that some are its victims[319].”

Thus far there has been little besides Bateman’s essay to indicate the nature or type of the fever in England. In Ireland it was to a large extent relapsing fever, and, as we shall see, it was so also in Scotland. Bateman found less than a tenth part of the cases at the London Fever Hospital to have relapses, which was an unusually large proportion, in his experience. Elsewhere in England the tendency to relapse was either wanting or the relapses were described or accounted for in other ways; to understand this it has to be kept in mind that the epidemic was the occasion of a great revival of blood-letting, a practice which had fallen into disuse in fevers since the last half of the 18th century, and was something of a novelty in 1817. The fever of that year was undoubtedly abrupt in its onset, strong, “inflammatory,” with full bounding pulse, beating carotids, hot and dry skin, intense headache, suffused eyes, and the like symptoms, which seemed to call for depletion. The common practice was to bleed ad deliquium, which meant to ten, or fourteen, or twenty ounces, at the outset of the fever. There was hardly one of the writers upon the epidemic, unless it were Bateman, an advocate of the cordial and supporting regimen, who did not consider the stages or duration of the fever as artificially determined by the blood-letting, and not as belonging to the natural history.

In order to show how much the treatment by blood-letting dominated the view of the fever itself, of its type, its stages, or duration, I shall take the Bristol essay of Prichard, who adopted phlebotomy, as he says, at first tentatively and with some fear and trembling, but at length practised it vigorously, having found it to answer well[320]. The epidemic of fever in Bristol began about June, 1817, and lasted fully two years. The first cases brought to St Peter’s Hospital, which was the general workhouse of the city, were of wretched vagrants found ill by the wayside or abandoned in hovels. About the same time forty-two felons in the Bristol Newgate, “one of the most loathsome dungeons in Britain, perhaps I might say in Europe,” were infected, of whom only one died, and he of a relapse. From June, 1817, to the end of 1819, there were 591 cases in the poor’s house, 647 in the General Infirmary, and 975 treated from the Dispensary, making 2213 cases, of which a record was kept. But there were also many cases in private practice among the domestics, children, and others in good houses, such as those on Redcliff Hill. The cases in the poor’s house were classified by Prichard as follows:

The “genuine form,” or ground-type, according to Prichard, was “simple fever,” of which the cases with cephalic symptoms were merely the more protracted or more serious. “The pneumonic, hepatic, gastric, enteric and rheumatic forms may be regarded as varieties”—the gastric and hepatic being cases mostly in summer with jaundice, the enteric in autumn and winter with diarrhoea and dysentery. Nearly all these patients were bled within four or five days from the commencement of the disease: “in a very large proportion of the cases the fever was immediately cut short”; when it did not end thus abruptly, its symptoms declined gradually, and the attack was over within eight or ten days. After the blooding “sleep very frequently followed, and a partial or sometimes a complete remission of the symptoms.” Only one case of relapse is mentioned, No. 118, of the year 1818, and that was a relapse in a very prolonged case: the patient was admitted on 6 October, had a relapse on 18 November, and was discharged on 23 December. Prichard has not one word in his text to suggest relapsing fever; the bulk of his cases were simple continued fever, with or without cephalic or other local symptoms, ending in four, six, eight or ten days, while some were cases of typhus gravior. The fever was undoubtedly contagious: it spread through whole families, and in St Peter’s Hospital itself it attacked seventy of the ordinary pauper inmates, including a good many lunatics.

The Epidemic of 1817-19 in Scotland: Relapsing Fever.

Let us now turn to the epidemic in Scotland, where the relapsing type was as marked as in Ireland, if not more so. The destitution in the Scots towns in the autumn of 1816, and following years, was fully as great as anywhere in the kingdom, although the peasantry of Scotland were not famine-stricken, as those of Ireland were. The state of the poorer classes in Edinburgh was graphically set forth in an essay by Dr Yule, in 1818[321], and in an article in Blackwood’s Magazine the year after. Vigorous efforts to relieve the distress were made by the richer classes, and a special fever-hospital was opened at Queensbery House, the admissions to which, together with the fever-cases at the Royal Infirmary, were as follows:[322]

Of this epidemic several accounts were published at the time, including one by Welsh, superintendent of the fever hospital, which is dominated, like the Bristol account of Prichard, by the idea that blood-letting cut short the fever[323]. Christison, who had experience of the relapsing form in his own person[324], describes also two other forms mixed with the cases of relapsing fever: a mild typhus, the typhus mitior (typhus gravior being exceedingly rare in that epidemic), and a form which began like the inflammatory relapsing synocha, and gradually after a week put on the characters of mild typhus.

The admissions for fever to the Glasgow Infirmary, which was then the only charity that received fever cases, had been at a somewhat low level since the last epidemic in 1799-1801. They began to rise again with the distress of 1816:—

Admissions for Fever, Glasgow Infirmary.

At the height of the epidemic in 1818 an additional fever hospital was opened at Spring Gardens, to which 1929 cases were admitted in that and the following year. Great efforts were made in Glasgow to “stamp out” the contagion by disinfectants and removal to hospital[325]; but the course of the epidemic seemed to follow the economic conditions more than anything else.

The outbreak at Aberdeen was later than in the south of Scotland, having begun in August, 1818. The infection was said to have been brought to the city by a woman who found a lodging in Sinclair’s Close. A group of houses in the close, covering an area of seventy by fifty feet and containing one hundred and three inmates, became the first centre of the fever. The scenes described are like those of the Irish epidemics: in one room, a man, his wife, and five children were lying ill on the floor; in another, a man, his wife and six children; in a third, a young girl, whose mother had just died of fever, was left with three infant brothers or sisters. More than three-fourths of the denizens of the close were “confined to bed in fever, and all the others crawling about during the intervals of their relapses.” The value of all the furniture and clothing belonging to 103 persons could little exceed £5. There was a horrible stench both within and without the houses (relapsing fever being remarkable for its odour). Yet this close was usually as healthy as any other part of the town. A House of Recovery, with sixty beds, was opened in the Gallowgate, and thirty beds were given up to fever-cases in the Infirmary of the city. Besides those ninety hospital cases at the date of 17 December, 1818, it was estimated that were three hundred more. Begging had been put down, so that the contagion had not spread to the richer classes. Despite these removals to hospital, the epidemic became more general about the New Year, 1819, and of a worse type; two physicians died of it, and some others had a narrow escape. At the outset, the fever had been of the relapsing kind—“subject to relapses for a third and fourth time, more especially when they return too early to their usual labour[326].” At a later period the epidemic seems to have become ordinary typhus, as it did also in Ireland and elsewhere; and it was called typhus in the essay upon it by Dr George Kerr[327].

The extent of this epidemic of 1818-19 over Scotland generally is not known; but the following notice of it in a country parish of Forfarshire was probably a sample of more that might have been given.

The epidemic of 1817-19 brought into prominence two questions, the one theoretical, the other practical. The theoretical question (not debated at the time) was touching the place or affinities of relapsing fever in the nosology. Christison maintained that it was the inflammatory fever, or synocha of Cullen, showing a peculiar tendency to relapse. The fever of the same epidemic period in England was also undoubtedly a fever of strong or inflammatory reaction, corresponding to Cullen’s definition of synocha, but it relapsed much less frequently than in Ireland and Scotland in the same years. Even in Ireland and Scotland there were always many cases of “relapsing fever” which did not relapse. The law of its relapses was reduced to great simplicity by a physician learned in fevers, Dr John O’Brien, in the Dublin epidemic of 1827. The bulk of that epidemic was a fever of short periods—three, five, seven or nine days, most of the attacks ending on the fifth or seventh night of the fever. The attack being ended in a free perspiration, there might or might not happen, after an interval, a relapse, and again a relapse after that, or even a third. The five-days’ fever was more liable to relapse than the seven-days’ fever, the seven-days’ fever more liable than the nine-days’ fever, the fevers of the longest periods not liable at all. In other words, the sooner the patient “got the cool,” by a night’s sweating, the more liable he was to have one or more relapses[329].

The logical position of relapsing fever was completed by Dr Seaton Reid, of Belfast, when he proposed, in his account of the epidemic in 1846-7, to call it Relapsing Synocha[330]. Other fevers have shown a tendency to relapse in certain circumstances. Three fevers which have many points in common, the sweating sickness, dengue and influenza, are all subject to relapses. It was doubtless of the sweating sickness that Sir Thomas More was thinking when he wrote: “Considering there is, as physicians say, and as we also find, double the peril in the relapse that was in the first sickness.” Plague, also, might relapse, or recur in an individual once, twice, three times, or oftener in the same epidemic season. Enteric is an instance of a long-period fever which has at times a tendency to relapses[331]. None of these, however, can dispute the claim of relapsing synocha to be relapsing fever par excellence. For whatever reason, the short-period fever of times of distress and dearth or famine has shown a peculiar tendency to relapse, and has shown that tendency more in the 19th century than in the 18th, and more among the Irish and Scotch poor than among the English.

The practical question that came to the front in the epidemic fever of 1817-19 was that of isolation hospitals for the sick. It was thus stated by Dr Millar, of Glasgow, in a letter of advice to the authorities of Aberdeen:

This was the well-meant but somewhat fanatical application of a trite and commonplace notion. It was well understood by reflective persons at that time, who were quite sound on the contagiousness of fever, that the whole question of segregating the poor in fever hospitals was beset with difficulties, not merely of expense but also of expediency. A Select Committee of the House of Commons sat upon it in 1818, and published their report, with the minutes of evidence, on the 20th May. So much had been said in Parliament by Peel and others, and said so truly, of the spreading of fever all over Ireland by whole families turned adrift in beggary, that the Select Committee were full of ideas of contagion, and of the great opportunity of suppressing fever by destroying its germs or seeds. But they had soon occasion to learn that a fever may be potentially contagious, yet not contagious in all circumstances, and that segregation in fever hospitals had a rival in dispersion through general hospitals. Half-a-dozen London physicians of position, answering respectively for Guy’s, St Thomas’s, the London, St Bartholomew’s, St George’s, the Westminster and the Middlesex Hospitals, declared that they mixed their cases of contagious fever in the ordinary wards among the other patients; and when asked by the astonished Committee whether the fever did not spread, they answered one after another with singular unanimity, “Never,” which under cross-examination, became in one or two instances, “hardly ever,” as, for example, in the evidence for St Thomas’s Hospital, where a sister and a nurse had caught fever and died. The point of this London evidence was that the great safeguard against febrile contagion was free dilution with air, and that the great provocation of a contagious principle was to “concentrate” the cases of fever[333]. The Bristol experience in the same epidemic, although it did not come before the Select Committee, was wholly in agreement with medical opinion in London. The fever-cases there were received either into St Peter’s Hospital, which was the city poor-house, or into the General Infirmary. The former was an old irregular building, badly ventilated, in which the contagion spread freely to the ordinary inmates and became very virulent. Contrasting with the apartments of the old poor’s house, the wards of the Bristol General Infirmary were spacious, lofty, well-ventilated:

The same practice was kept up in the Edinburgh Infirmary until 1858 or longer; Christison, who gives a diagram of an ordinary ward with four fever-beds in it, declared in 1850 that there had been no spread of fever for fifteen years before, except on one occasion, when the rules of the house were neglected[335]. The bold policy of dispersing fever-patients among the healthy was begun by Pringle and Donald Monro during the campaigns of 1742-48 and 1761-63 in the Netherlands and North Germany. They found that concentration raised the contagion to high degrees of virulence and that dispersion weakened it to the point of non-existence, Monro’s success at Paderborn in 1761 having been of the most signal kind[336].

The Select Committee of 1818 were more influenced by what they were told of the good effects of the earliest Houses of Recovery, at Waterford, Manchester and other places in the end of the last century. For several years after their opening they were little needed, the epidemic which gave the immediate impulse to their establishment having subsided in due time both in the towns provided with Houses of Recovery and in the innumerable places where no such provision had been made. The recommendations of the Committee do not appear to have been carried out; for the London Fever Hospital, in Pancras Road, which had been enlarged to seventy beds when the epidemic began in 1817, remained the only special fever hospital in London until the establishment of the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in 1870[337].

The confusion of commerce, depression of trade and lack of employment which followed the Peace of Paris, and gave occasion to the British and Irish epidemic fevers of 1817-19, gradually righted themselves. The price of wheat, which would have been still higher after the four-months drought of 1818, but for large imports, gradually fell, and was about 50s. in 1821, and 40s. in the winter of 1822-23. After that, it rose somewhat again, and the third decade of the century, in the middle of which occurred the great speculative crash of 1825, was on the whole a hard time for the working classes. The history of fever has few illustrations between the epidemic of 1817-19 and that of 1826-27, excepting the great famine-fever of Connemara and other parts of the West of Ireland in 1822, elsewhere described, which coincided with a somewhat prosperous time in England and called forth a princely charity[338].

The Relapsing Fever of 1827-28.

The epidemic of relapsing fever which was at a height in Dublin in 1826, did not culminate in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other towns of Scotland until 1828. It was a somewhat close repetition of the epidemic of 1817-19, except that it was chiefly an affair of the towns, owing to depression of trade and want of work following the great crash of commercial credit in 1825-26. In Glasgow, the admissions for fever to the Royal Infirmary began to rise in 1825[339]:

Glasgow: Admissions for Fever.

At Edinburgh the cases of fever treated in hospital were fewer in ordinary years than at Glasgow, but they rose to a higher point in the epidemic years[341]:

Edinburgh: Admissions for Fever.

Christison gives the following account of the epidemic in Edinburgh in 1827-28:

The epidemic of relapsing fever in 1826-28, which made a great impression in the towns of Ireland and Scotland, has left few traces in specially English records. But it is clear that there was some increase of fever about the same time in London; and it becomes a matter of interest, as well as of no little difficulty, to ascertain the type or types of the same. It was just after this quasi-epidemic in London that Dr Burne published his essay on fevers, the preface bearing the date of 28th February, 1828[343]. The materials of this essay came from Guy’s Hospital, and they were both clinical and anatomical. The author seeks to find a common name for all varieties of continued fever, the name that he chooses being “Adynamic Fever.” “By far the greater number of cases,” he says, “are of the first or second degree only of severity, and not dangerous.” These were cases of “simple continued fever,” or fever of short duration, with flushed face, suffused eyes and other signs of the “inflammatory” type, or of synocha. Although Burne does not give the exact proportion of cases with relapse, as Bateman had done for the London epidemic of 1817-18, yet he makes it clear that relapses did occur, and he discusses the phenomenon in a manner which makes his testimony interesting: “Convalescents are more liable to a relapse after the adynamic fever than after any other disease; and this may be accounted for by the very enfeebled and exhausted state in which the powers of the system are left.” His relapses were obviously a return of the original fever, beginning again suddenly in the midst of convalescence with flushing of the face, headache, dry tongue, and scanty urine, and with a great access of febrile heat in the night, a disturbance of the system which generally continued for several days, while in some it went off sooner with a diarrhoea. He assigned three principal causes for the relapse—overloading the enfeebled but craving stomach, walking out in the open air too soon, and giving way to emotion[344].

The references to relapse apply almost certainly to fevers of the shorter periods (synocha or “inflammatory” fever), and not to those cases of enteric fever which did undoubtedly occur in the practice of Guy’s Hospital in the same seasons.

Typhoid or Enteric Fever in London, 1826.

The identification of enteric fever and relapsing fever respectively, or the separation of each from typhus, became actual in Britain at one and the same time. I have already said all that seems necessary as to the earlier appearances of relapsing fever on the stage of epidemiological history. This will be the fitting point in the chronology, the third decade of the 19th century, to bring in the question of enteric or typhoid fever. As to its identification, or recognition as a distinct species, that was not really completed, to the satisfaction of everyone, until the elaborate analysis of the symptoms respectively of typhus and enteric fevers by Sir William Jenner in 1849-51[345]. But, for ten years before that, the co-existence with maculated typhus of a different long-period fever, having abdominal symptoms and abdominal lesion, had been recognised, and the characteristic ulceration or sloughing of the lymph-follicles of the ileum, with sphacelation of the mesenteric lymph-glands, had been clearly described by several London physicians and depicted in coloured plates, in the years 1826 and 1827, during an unusual prevalence of such cases in London. The authentic history of enteric fever in Britain really begins with these writings by physicians of St George’s and Guy’s Hospitals. But, as it is improbable that the type of fever was absolutely new in the years 1825 and 1826, it may be asked whether the enteric type cannot be discovered in the old accounts of British fevers, and if so, whether we may assume in the past as much enteric fever relatively to spotted typhus, relapsing fever, or simple continued fever, as in the period after 1850.

Having adverted to this point from time to time in the preceding history as it arose, for example in connexion with Willis’s fever of 1661, Strother’s fever of 1727-29, the Rouen fever of 1750, and other instances both in children (remittent or convulsive or comatose fever of children) and in adults, I shall not recapitulate farther back than the beginning of the 19th century.

There was a certain amount of post-mortem observation in the 18th century, especially in camp sicknesses, by Pringle and others; but there is no trace of intestinal ulceration among their fatal fevers. It was found, however, in the epidemic of 1806 among the troops at Deal, and it is probable that Ferriar’s cases at Manchester about 1804, and Bateman’s cases of continued fever in London from 1804 to 1816, were in some part enteric, although the anatomical test is wanting. That was a period when there was singularly little of the old London fever in the houses of the poorer class. Then came the remarkable “constitution” of relapsing or simple continued fever, from about 1816 to 1828, the relapsing character of which was far more obvious in Ireland and Scotland, than in London, Bristol, or elsewhere in England, but was not altogether unobserved in London, whether in 1817-19 or in 1827-28. The relapsing type disappeared after that for fifteen or twenty years, and was replaced by typhus more maculated than had been seen for many years. But, before the relapsing or simple continued fever disappeared for a time, enteric fever was seen in London in company with it.

The chief season of enteric fever in London was the autumn of 1826, following a long period of great drought and heat. The remarkable weather of that season was the same in England, Ireland and Scotland, and is thus described for the last by Christison:

In August, 1826, Dr Cornwallis Hewett, of St George’s Hospital, published ten fatal cases of enteric fever, four of which had occurred in his own practice, six in the practice of his colleagues[347]. The first was admitted on 23 April, 1825, the latest on 3 July, 1826. While his paper was under hand, he had read in the Medico-chirurgical Review for July, 1826, some extracts from Bretonneau’s paper on “Dothiénentérite” (enteric fever), and he pronounced the London cases to be the same as those recently observed at Tours. Several other cases occurred at St George’s Hospital in the autumn of 1826, three of them reported by Dr Chambers[348]. At the very same time, there was a run of enteric cases at Guy’s Hospital. Dr Bright says: “Fever occurred with considerable frequency among the patients who presented themselves for admission into Guy’s Hospital, during the months of October, November and December, 1826. On the whole, the disease was not severe.” The more comprehensive account of these cases was given by Burne, early in 1828, from which it appears that the bulk of them were fevers of the shorter period, that there were relapsing cases among them, and that some were cases of enteric fever, verified by post-mortem examination[349]. It was the enteric cases that attracted the notice of Dr Bright, who says nothing of the relapsing cases, or of cases of simple continued fever. The fact that the intestinal mucous membrane may become diseased during fever was, he says, “long known in particular cases, but never suspected to be so general till brought into view by the French physicians, and which has lately been illustrated in this country with great beauty [this does not mean in plates] by the pens of my able and assiduous friends Dr Chambers and Dr Hewett.” He gives ten fatal cases, with coloured plates of the intestinal or mesenteric lesion in some of them, the earliest coloured plate having been made from a case admitted on 13 October, 1825, and the most typical plate of the sloughing Peyer’s follicles from a case admitted on 25 November, 1826. He gives also eleven cases of recovery, to show the benefit of treating the diarrhoea by calomel[350]. Nearly all the cases occurred in the end of the year, either of 1825 or 1826; and Burne confirms this when he says that the cases with enteric lesion were found at Guy’s Hospital only in autumn. Some two years after, in 1830, Drs Tweedie and Southwood Smith, physicians to the London Fever Hospital, described cases of fever with ulcerated intestine and sphacelated mesenteric glands. After that, the interest shifted to typhus, which reappeared in London of an unusually maculated type; so that the years 1826-30 make a somewhat distinct period in which the new fever, with enteric lesion, was an engrossing medical topic. It is tolerably certain that it was the unusual seasons of 1825 and 1826 which brought enteric fever into prominence; while, as soon as it became frequent, it could hardly have escaped the systematic apparatus of clinical case-taking and post-mortem examination, with preservation and drawing of specimens, for which Guy’s Hospital was already noted under the influence of Bright and his colleagues, and in which the staff of St George’s Hospital would appear to have been not less competent. Although Dr Hewett, in 1826, identified his cases with the dothiénentérite of Bretonneau, yet neither he nor Dr Bright took the abdominal ulcerations or sloughs as distinctive of a new kind of fever. They regarded them rather as a new complication of “idiopathic” typhus fever, a “complication” which appealed to them more on the side of treatment than of systematic nosology; hence the writings of both physicians are occupied mainly with the benefit of calomel in relieving the congestion of the bowels and in checking the diarrhoea.

It is undoubted that cases of enteric fever in 1826-27 were relatively more numerous in London than in Dublin and Edinburgh, where the epidemic fever was almost wholly of the relapsing type. In Edinburgh, at least, the comparative infrequency of enteric fever for years after it had been recognized in Paris, Tours and other French cities, and had been found in London as a common autumnal type, can be proved beyond cavil. Writing long after of the first epidemic of relapsing fever in Edinburgh, Christison said: