Page:Remarks on the British Quarantine Laws.djvu/29

25] doctrine of pestilential contagion was, for the first time in the history of the world, even partially submitted to a formal, although a delusive, investigation. Upon my return from Constantinople, in January 1816, after having, by actual experiment, obtained practical confirmation in what has vulgarly and improperly been termed the Plague of the Levant," of the validity of my previous theoretical demonstration of the non-existence of pestilential contagion, I entered into correspondence with, and made reports upon the subject of my researches, to various branches of the administration. This correspondence led to a reference of the results of my researches, by the Privy Council, to the College of Physicians, in 1818; and their reports not being considered decisive of the question, the subject was, early in 1819, referred to a select Committee of the House of Commons. I shall here consider only such parts of the reports of the College of Physicians to the Privy Council, and of that of the Committee of the House of Commons, as relate more immediately to the Quarantine or Sanitary laws. On this subject, the College report, March 31, 1818: "The doctrine of contagion appears to us to be wholly 'unshaken' by any argument which Dr. Maclean has advanced; at the same time we think it probable that some of the personal restrictions enforced in the establishments for quarantine, might be modified, without risk to the public safety." Here the two limbs of the same short sentence are in direct contradiction to each other. If the doctrine of contagion were confirmed, and if the usual sanitary precautions were justifiable and efficient, it could not possibly happen that these precautions "might be modified," by which the college doubtless mean being mitigated, without risk to the public safety." On the contrary, did the public safety in any degree depend upon the precautions in question, they could not be too rigidly enforced; and in such case, instead of being modified, they ought to be carried to the highest degree of strictness of which they are susceptible. This glaring inconsistency of the College renders their opinion on this point of no value. In another place, I shall more particularly point out the invalidity and absurdity, as well as the unfairness of their reply to the Privy Council, concerning my work on epidemic diseases, as it respects the main question of contagion; intending to confine myself here to what strictly relates to the quarantine laws. The select Committee of the House of Commons inform us, that they abstain from giving any opinion on the nature and application of the quarantine regulations, as not falling within the scope of inquiry to which they have been directed" (Report, 4th July 1819). This seems a very inexplicable conclusion. Considering that the College, in their corporate capacity, had declared