So long, my Lord, as the distemper has raged in Great Britain, not one attested proof has been brought of any beast having this disease regularly more than once. I make no doubt but these creatures may be liable to eruptions of different kinds; but as all sorts of eruptions, says Dr. Mead[25], are not the small-pox, nor measles, so every pustule is not a sign of the plague. Thro’ ignorance, or fraud, persons may have been deceived in purchasing cattle, and have lost them, as well in England as in the provinces of France mentioned by the Marquis; but until a second infection be proved, the general opinion must prevail in this case, as in the small-pox: for tho’ many have insisted on the same thing with regard to the small-pox, yet a single instance, properly vouched and attested, has never been produced, either after recovery from the natural way, or from inoculation; unless what is frequently the case with nurses and others attending the small-pox, that is, pustules breaking out in their arms and face, be allowed as the signs of a second infection. The farmers and graziers in Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire, Kent, and Yorkshire, from whence I have written testimonies, all agree, that they never knew of a beast having the contagious distemper more than once. In this county particularly, Mr. J. Mehew, the farmer mentioned in my Essay, has now among his stock at Godmanchester _eight cows_, which had the contagious distemper the first time it appeared in Godmanchester in 1746. It returned in 1749, 1755, and 1756; the two last not so generally over the town as the two former years. All these four times Mr. Mehew suffered by the loss of his cattle; yet those _eight cows_, which recovered in 1746, remained all the while the distemper was in the farm the three years it raged, were in the midst of the sick cattle, lay with them in the same barns, eat of the same fodder, nay of such as the distempered beasts had left and slabbered upon, drank after them, and constantly received their breath and steams, without ever being in the least affected. Is not this a convincing proof? If in general the cattle be susceptible of a second infection, how comes it, that not one of these _eight_ cows were affected? In the years abovementioned the distemper spared no beast, but such as had recovered from that disease: and this is confirmed to me by Mr. Mehew’s father and brother, all the chief farmers of Godmanchester, and is the opinion of all the farmers and graziers in Huntingdonshire, who are so thoroughly convinced of there being no second infection, that they are always ready to give an advanced price for such cattle as have recovered from the contagious distemper.