A respectable practitioner inoculated seven children for the Smallpox, five of whom had been purposely infected with the Cowpox by being made to handle the teats and udders of cows under the disease, and in consequence contracted the distemper. These five, after inoculation for the Smallpox, did not sicken, whilst the other two did. (P. 39.) These cases were examples of many; and if it be asked, why were not such inoculations repeated, we may take an answer from Mr. Fewster, surgeon, of Thornbury, who, in a practice of thirty years in Gloucestershire, inoculated thousands with Smallpox, and had known “numberless instances of Cowpox.” He wrote, 11th October, 1798-- In general, I think, Cowpox is a much more severe disease than the inoculated Smallpox; nor do I see any great advantage from its inoculation. Smallpox inoculation seems to be so well understood that there is very little need of a substitute. It is curious, however, and may lead to other improvements. (P. 104.) To show still further how Jenner’s communication was “in the air” ready for descent. Mr. Downe, surgeon of Bridport, wrote to Pearson, 1st August, 1798-- A few years ago when I inoculated a great number for the Smallpox, I remarked that I could not by any means infect one or two of them; and, on inquiry, I was informed that they had previously been infected with the Cowpox. I know that a medical man in this part of the country was injured in his practice by a prejudice raised unjustly that _he intended to substitute the Cowpox for the Smallpox in inoculation_. So great an enemy to improvement are the prejudices of the public in the country, that I think experiments of importance can only be made in hospitals. (P. 10.) Thus popular scandal anticipated what was called Jenner’s discovery! Nor was Pearson content simply to inquire of others: he experimented himself, and put Cowpox to the test a week or so before the appearance of Jenner’s _Inquiry_. He wrote--