First, then, I must observe to you, that the part of the indictment, which accuses the Prisoner, in general, of preserving the lives of the King’s subjects, depends entirely on the deposition of Mr. Robert Houlton; for though the evidence of Dr. Baker, and Mr. Chandler, may, in some degree, corroborate his testimony, yet they are, of themselves, insufficient. Some regard is certainly due to Mr. Houlton’s sacred function; but if you believe the gentleman who spoke to his character; if you view him in the light of a mere _nostrum-puffer, a Merry-Andrew to the stage-itinerant_; in that case, you are not only to disregard his function, but the whole of his evidence. But, in justice to the Prisoner, I must farther observe, that though you were to admit the evidence of Mr. Houlton in full force and virtue; yet, as it hath been very sufficiently proved, that there are a considerable number of operators, who are equally guilty of preserving the lives of the King’s subjects, you will doubtless consider this as a malicious prosecution, and on that account alone you will be justified in acquitting the Prisoner: for though, in general, to sin with a multitude be no excuse, yet the nature of this offence is such, that unless he be found singularly guilty, he is hardly guilty at all. But he is likewise accused of administering medicines, the composition of which is unknown to the faculty in general. In answer to this charge, Dr. Ruston hath demonstrated, that calomel is the principal ingredient, and several other witnesses have deposed, that calomel hath long been an universal medicine on these occasions. Of this part of the indictment therefore the Prisoner stands fairly acquitted. As to what relates to the other part of his practice, after the evidence you have heard, you can have no doubt, that he cannot with the least appearance of justice be accused of singularity, as his cold regimen, his mode of preparation, and method of communicating the disease, are at this time exactly similar to the practice of almost every other inoculator in this kingdom. But admitting that you are satisfied of the reality of his great success in the practice of inoculation, a natural question will arise, namely, to what particular circumstance is that success to be attributed? Before we attempt to solve this problem, let us first recollect the several opinions of those who have been examined relative to this matter. Mr. Houlton’s opinion was, that it is owing to certain secrets in the art; but it hath plainly appeared in the course of our proceedings that no such secrets exist. Dr. Baker was of opinion, that the success is principally to be ascribed to the free use of cold air; but in answer to this, I must observe, that there have been cases, particularly one related by Dr. Glass, in his late pamphlet, in which this was found insufficient.