London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Battersea 1896

Report upon the public health and sanitary condition of the Parish of St. Mary, Battersea during the year1896

This page requires JavaScript

64
Although Woodville's 'Hospital lymph' appears to have
been widely distributed by himself and by Pearson, and thus to
have been the source of the lymph used in various places in the
early days of vaccination, it was not the only source even in those
days. Pearson also obtained lymph from Cow.Pox at a dairy in
the Marylebone Road, and used this 'in certain situations,'
which may be presumed to include places elsewhere than in the
Hospital. He also speaks of having obtained lymph from the
cow from a third source. Jenner again, who received and used
some of Woodville's Hospital lymph, also obtained lymph from
some other courses; for instance, from a cow at a Mr. Clark's
farm in Kentish Town. Further, Woodville, in 1800, speaks of
his having at various times procured the vaccine virus as
produced in different cows, which, when used at the Hospital,
produced the same effects as the Gray's Inn Lane lymph.
The view that Cow.Pox protects against Small.Pox thus
put forward by Jenner, and supported by Woodville and Pearson,
speedily attracted great attention among both the profession and
the general public. Controversies, as might be expected, arose
both on the main point whether protection was really afforded and
on various subsidiary points; but, within a very short time, the
new doctrine found general acceptance in England.
In 1800 a declaration of adhesion to the doctrine was issued
with the signatures of many of the leading physicians and surgeons
of London, and to this in the following year many others added
their names. In various large cities the resident medical men
made known collectively their approval.
In 1802 a Committee of the House of Commons made a
report on the utility of the discovery of the protective power of
Cow.Pox, and upon Jenner's claim to be considered as the
discoverer. A number of witnesses of extensive experience in the
profession were examined. It is important to notice that the
Committee not only stated the result of the evidence to be favourable
to the protective effect of vaccination, but that vaccine