Part 10

It is most material to a right understanding of this whole subject to observe, that a Yellow Fever Epidemic had broken out at this very time in an adjoining island, St Jago. It is stated by Dr Stewart, in his Report in the Admiralty Correspondence, that “in the adjoining island at Porto Praya, there was Yellow Fever whilst the ship was at Boa Vista.” Captain Simpson states that it recurred in the following year at Porto Praya; “is common there at times and quite endemic.”

That co-incident with the presence of the “Eclair” at Boa Vista one of these epidemic seasons was impending, was declared by the usual indications, which in warm climates precede and accompany such visitations. These premonitory signs on this occasion were a great fall of rain at an unaccustomed season; the consequent accumulation of large quantities of stagnant water in and about the towns and villages; the occurrence of extraordinary heat; the prevalence of light winds with frequent calms rendering the weather extremely sultry and oppressive; the appearance of sporadic cases of fever of more than common intensity; the almost simultaneous outbreak of pestilence amongst cattle and other domestic animals; and the visitation in greater numbers than common of destructive insects.[36]

Footnote 36:

See note, p. 16.

These prognostications were so manifest as to excite the attention and alarm of the intelligent classes of residents. The Governor-General states:—

“Great falls of rain took place at a very advanced period of the season, which remained stagnant.”

The British Consul says:—

“Up to the month of October, extraordinary heat and the fall of a large quantity of rain had been experienced, events which were surprising to the oldest inhabitants.”

The British Judge says:—

“Stagnant water had settled in great quantity at the back of the town, to which was joined great heat in the weather.”

Dr King says:—

“The information received on the island in 1846, fully corroborated what is stated in the above extracts, the periodical rains, contrary to what usually happens, did not set in till late in September. In October, November, and December the winds were light and variable, with frequent calms, and the weather became in consequence extremely sultry and oppressive. The grass and green crops were nearly destroyed by the long previous drought, and what little appeared after the rains was devoured by the locusts, which visited the island in greater numbers this year than was ever known to be the case before.”

Though Dr M‘William, on his inspection of the island with a view to ascertain the true cause of the pestilence, took no notice of any of these premonitory signs of its approach, Sir William Burnett was fully aware of their signification, and calls special attention to one of the most important of them in his Report to the Lords of the Admiralty.

“I beg to lay before their Lordships,” he says, “an extract of a letter from the Governor-General of the Cape de Verd Islands, and likewise extracts of letters from Mr Macaulay and the British Consul, residents on the island of Boa Vista, distinctly showing the very remarkable state of the weather preceding the attack of the inhabitants of the island, which very important circumstance in a case of this kind I regret to observe Dr M‘William has omitted to take any particular notice of.”

The event foreshadowed by these occurrences rapidly followed. As early as the middle of September a few cases of unusually malignant fever broke out, but, as has been already stated, the first case that attracted public attention occurred on the 12th of October; a few others followed during the remainder of this month; a still greater number broke out in the beginning of November, and the epidemic came to its height in the latter half of November, continuing to prevail throughout December, and recurring for several months in the following year.

As in epidemic outbreaks in general, so in this instance, individual or sporadic cases occurred some time before the appearance of the epidemic in its true and proper form. On minute inquiry, it was discovered that one if not two cases occurred as early as the 14th of September (Pathi), another on the 20th of September (Roque), and a third on the 21st of September (Agostinho): no other cases, at least none that attracted attention, appeared to have occurred until the one already mentioned (Gallinha), on the 12th of October. These sporadic cases all occurred in the ordinary localities of epidemic disease, and among individuals belonging to the classes that usually furnish its first and chief victims.

At Boa Vista, in addition to other proofs of the presence of a stagnant and pestilential atmosphere, there was the evidence derived from the prevalence of unusual sickness and mortality among domestic animals.

“That the common air,” says Dr King, “which was inhaled by every living thing on the island was in an epidemic condition in the months of October, November, and December of both years, is sufficiently demonstrated by the simultaneous occurrence of universal sickness and great mortality among the cattle (including horses, cows, mules, donkeys, and goats) at the very time that fever was raging among the inhabitants. And, further, there was this remarkable coincidence, that after an interval of some months and the disappearance of the disease both in man and beast, the same fever broke out again in the towns and villages about the rainy season of the following year, and was again accompanied by the same murrain among the cattle, which in the two seasons proved fatal to two-thirds of the whole stock of the island.”

These considerations afford all the evidence which the nature of the case admits of, that the sickness which affected the island on this occasion arose, not from the landing of the sick of the “Eclair,” but from climatic and endemic causes.

To sum up the whole of this case, then, it appears that the evidence in favour of the allegation that fever was imported into Boa Vista by the “Eclair,” amounts to this: that four men, not of the ship’s crew, were attacked with fever while performing military service in a locality in which no fewer than 60 of the crew themselves were seized; that one man not of the ship’s crew who worked as a labourer on board the ship “about eight” or “two” days, had a slight attack of fever, while 62 men also not of the ship’s crew, and who also in like manner worked as labourers on board the ship a longer time, were wholly unaffected; and that a month after the sailing of the vessel, a woman was attacked with fever who happened to be a next-door neighbour to two of the soldiers who had served on duty at the Fort—one of whom was unaffected, and the other not even confined to bed—simultaneously with the children of the labourer (Pathi) who resided in one of the dirtiest localities of the island.

Against such evidence, if evidence it can be called, must be weighed the following countervailing considerations:—

It is admitted that the “Eclair” had been exposed on the coast of Africa to the causes which usually develope epidemic fever in that country; that intensity was given to those causes by circumstances which occurred at Sierra Leone, where she took in green wood as fuel, and where her men went on shore during the rainy and sickly season, and indulged in the unlimited use of ardent spirits; that her hold was in a pestiferous condition, and that a quantity of putrid mud had collected between her timbers. It is proved that the fever which broke out under these circumstances was the common endemic African coast fever, which, it is admitted, is not contagious, and which is assumed to have become contagious on this particular occasion, expressly to account for its alleged importation. It is admitted that on the landing of the ship’s crew at Boa Vista, though the men mixed freely with the islanders,—though the officers lodged in the town,—and though, when some of them became sick, they were nursed by the inhabitants,—there was no communication of the disease in a single instance. It is admitted that of seventeen washerwomen who washed the linen of the officers and crew, not one became infected, although all these women, except two, suffered severely from the disease at subsequent periods after the epidemic became general. It is admitted that with the exception of one case, which has been proved on inquiry to have been no real exception, 87[37] labourers worked on board or in the neighbourhood of the ship daily, and returned to their homes at night, without taking any precautions,—without becoming themselves infected,—and without communicating infection to any individual of their families;—though, like the washerwomen, the greater part of these men suffered severely when the epidemic became general. It is admitted that the Cape de Verde Islands are within the Yellow Fever zone, and are liable to frequent and severe outbreaks of epidemic fever. It is admitted that the physical and social conditions of Boa Vista are eminently those which are found by universal experience to localize epidemic diseases whenever an epidemic influence is present. It is admitted that the “Eclair” arrived at Boa Vista at the season of the year when endemic fevers usually prevail. It is admitted that at the very time of her arrival, Yellow Fever was actually prevailing at Porto Praya, in the island of St Jago, into which it is not alleged that the disease had been introduced by importation. It is admitted that some time before the outbreak of the epidemic, the atmospheric and other conditions which usually precede and accompany the development of epidemic disease, were so manifest as to attract general attention. It is proved that sporadic cases of the disease appeared, as is usual, some time before the presence of the epidemic was declared in its distinct and recognized form. It is admitted that the epidemic influence extended to animals as well as man, a mortal epizootic disease prevailing over the whole of the island at the same time. It is proved that the epidemic did not break out until about a month or six weeks after the “Eclair,” with all her crew, healthy and sick, had left the island. It is admitted that a similar epidemic appeared among men and animals the following year, not imported, but entirely of local origin.

Footnote 37:

The aggregate number of the lists furnished by Dr M‘William.

A consideration of these circumstances has satisfied most of those who have inquired into the case, that the arrival of the “Eclair” at Boa Vista with fever among her crew, and the occurrence of a similar disease on the island, were mere coincident events, and that the appearances which might at first view have given some colour to the notion of importation were fallacious.

Among those who arrived at these conclusions were—The Governor-General, who says:—

“The disease was perfectly endemic. Not one of those who emigrated to the different islands of the Archipelago had the disease or communicated it to others. It did not make its appearance till a month after the departure of the steamer.... The disease had its origin in the great falls of rain which took place at a very advanced period of the season, and which remained stagnant in the neighbourhood of the place.”

Mr Rendall, the Consul, who says:—

“The competent officers of the ‘Eclair’ at all times pleaded that the fever which had appeared and rested on board was nothing more than the ‘common African coast fever;’ the opinion of the medical men on the spot continued to be that the fever was merely the common African fever, and that no danger existed of its spreading among the people.”

Mr Macaulay, the Judge, who says:—

“So long an interval had elapsed between the departure of the ‘Eclair’ and the appearance of the first serious case of fever in the town, that we were all disposed in the first instance to attribute it, as well as the general sickness of the place, rather to stagnant water, which had settled in great quantity at the back of the town, joined with the great heat of the weather and the dirty state of the streets. The ‘Eclair’ had left Boa Vista nearly a month before any case of fever exhibited itself in the town.... No injury whatever had resulted from the unrestricted intercourse which had subsisted during the whole of the ‘Eclair’s’ stay in the harbour, between the officers and men (not in the hospital at the fort) and their friends on shore.”

Captain Simpson, who says:—

“If I give my opinion on the fever that was on board the ‘Eclair,’ I should say it commenced at Shebar: and it was to be expected that men being exposed in boats to night duty during the rains, would be sickly; that it was likely to be much increased at Sierra Leone by the long continuance of the vessel there, and the men having leave to go on shore during this season, when this place is so very unhealthy, and seamen always so incautious; the occupation of the ‘Eclair’s’ officers and ship’s company on board the ‘Albert’ in clearing the holds, at all times a very dangerous work in the Tropics; and the use of green wood for fuel. In fact, I should have been very much surprised if the ‘Eclair’ had not been sickly.”

Sir William Burnett, who, in reporting on the case to the Lords of the Admiralty, says:—

“After a careful perusal of the papers he (Dr M‘William) has sent, I am compelled to say that I cannot conscientiously arrive at the conclusion the Doctor has done, namely, that the fever was occasioned by intercourse with the ‘Eclair.’”

Sir William Burnett adds, with reference to the general question of importation:—

“With respect to the importation of the disease into various places, except in one instance, and that even is surrounded with doubts (I mean that of Her Majesty’s sloop ‘Bann’), I entirely disbelieve it. Both the surgeons of Bermuda Hospital most distinctly deny on two occasions that the epidemic which prevailed in 1843 was imported or contagious; I have also caused the medical reports of Jamaica Hospital for more than twenty years to be examined; and though hundreds of patients with yellow fever in all its most appalling forms, including black vomit, &c., have been treated in that establishment, not one of the medical officers in charge of the hospital have ever hinted at the disease being contagious; and if it be needful I can cite numerous other instances.”

As to the apprehension that the crew of the “Eclair” might have imported the disease into England, he says:—

“I have no hesitation in declaring my firm belief that the sick men of the ‘Eclair’ when that ship arrived at the Motherbank, might have been landed at Haslar Hospital and placed in the well-ventilated wards of that establishment without the public health suffering in the smallest degree. It is a fact well known, and of the truth of which I can give the most satisfactory proof, that during the autumn of every year merchant-ships arrive in our harbours loaded with the produce of the coast of Africa, having perhaps lost great part, nay in some instances the whole, of their crew by the fever of the country; or some are still labouring under fever when the ship arrives in the Thames, and are sent to the hospital in that state; yet no instance is known of any infection having been produced by such procedure; in fact it is perfectly certain that it never did take place.”

Dr King, who says:—

“The inhabitants in general are firmly persuaded that the fever was imported by the ‘Eclair’ and afterwards spread throughout the island by contagion from one person to another. I have taken considerable pains to trace out and discover the supposed morbid concatenation, but in vain. It becomes, therefore, a duty to express my opinion decidedly, that there is no satisfactory proof of the disease having been propagated by contagion, or from a specific poison which is said to emanate from the bodies of the sick, the dying, or the dead.”

The case of the “Eclair,” as has been already stated, is the one on which the greatest reliance is placed in proof of the importation of epidemic disease.

* * * * *

It is needful to advert to one instance more of alleged importation; namely, the introduction of the Yellow Fever epidemic of 1828 into the Garrison of Gibraltar by the ship “Dygden.” This case has been more rigorously examined than any other, and on that account it exhibits a better specimen than can usually be obtained of the manner in which the evidence for these cases is commonly got up.

The most positive assertions having been made that this epidemic was introduced into Gibraltar by a ship from the Havannah, the “Dygden,” the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir George Murray, appointed a Special Commission to inquire into the facts of the case; consisting of the Judge Advocate, the Colonial or Civil Secretary, the Captain of the Port, and head of the quarantine department, the Town Major, or head of the police, the Principal Medical Officer of the garrison, and a Staff Surgeon. It was the desire of Sir George Murray that the Governor should act as president, on the ground that “as the proposed investigation is merely to ascertain a fact, it may be more properly accomplished by the careful examination of impartial witnesses than by the application of scientific research;” but Sir George Don, “not finding himself equal to the task,” appointed, by desire of the Secretary of State, conveyed in a subsequent despatch, the British Superintendent of Quarantine, Sir William Pym, to preside in his place.

The facts alleged and attempted to be established before the Board with a view to prove that this epidemic was imported by the ship “Dygden” were, that this ship had arrived from the Havannah with Yellow Fever on board; that while in quarantine in the bay, she was visited from the garrison by a family of the name of Fenic, and that the first cases of the epidemic occurred in this family.

The first witness called to prove this alleged visit to the ship was a woman of the name of Villalunga, who stated that she lived in the yard of Fenic’s house; that Fenic was a cigar-maker, that she assisted him in making cigars, that she heard the boy (Fenic’s son) say that he, his sister, and his father had been on board the ship in the bay on Sunday, the day before the boy was taken ill, and that the boy told her that they had been on board “to eat, drink, and make merry,” and “that his father had sold tobacco on board the ship.”

The next witness brought forward was a child Caffiero, 11 years old, who stated that he was in the habit of playing with the two Fenics: that he lived very near them; that he played with them _every day before their death_, and that he saw them _every_ day when they were sick in bed.

On these statements the Judge Advocate, Mr Howell, observes:—

“The only evidence which up to this period (April 10th) had been given to connect the illness in Fenic’s family with a visit on ship-board, is the hearsay tale told by Villalunga, nor did she give to Fenic and his two children any companion in their alleged Sunday excursion.” * *

“Eight days after his examination above mentioned, the boy Caffiero re-appears as a witness (viz., April 18th) with a story entirely new, and which, if credible, would be extremely material; because he affects to speak of facts which had before rested on the hearsay evidence of Villalunga, but of which facts Caffiero now, after the lapse of eight days, represents himself to have been an eye-witness. On this his re-appearance, however, he carefully abstains from giving any date, either day of the week, or month, or even season of the year. This cautious avoiding of dates may not unfairly be attributed to the variance between himself and Villalunga, in their respective journals of the illness of Fenic’s children. Caffiero now says, ‘I knew Salvo and Catalina Fenic, and went on board ship with them; _I do not recollect_ the day. We went on board a three-masted ship. _I do not recollect_ to what nation it belonged. We remained on deck and did not go below. We remained on board about one hour. Fenic, the father, took us on board; he rowed the boat himself; he ate and drank on board, and then brought _a bundle of clothes on shore_.’

“Until this time, neither he nor Villalunga said anything about a bundle of clothes.

“This boy’s second evidence thus proceeds:—‘I did not understand the language of the people on board the ship; they appeared to speak like Jews or Moors. I did not go on board more than once. When we landed on the wharf, the Maltese,’ _i.e._ Fenic, ‘_gave me some money, a pistoreen, and told me not to say anything to anybody about our having been on board_.’

“The effect which this was designed to produce is obvious, viz., that the ship visited was in quarantine, and Fenic, the Maltese, was conscious that he had committed an offence against the quarantine laws which rendered it necessary for his own safety that he should bribe this boy to secrecy. This story is full of incongruities; it is not probable that a man should select for his Sunday excursion, to eat, drink, and make merry, a ship in quarantine; it is more improbable still that Fenic should gratuitously place himself in extreme peril, by taking with him (to be witnesses of his offence) children of the artless ages of 10, 11, and 13, on an expedition which, in his own judgment, as demonstrated by his own act, he is convinced exposes him to severe punishment.

“But with regard to the ship ‘Dygden,’ I find that she had already received pratique, and had been admitted to free intercourse with the shore, on the 6th of August, _four days previously to the alleged visit of Fenic_, the date of which, notwithstanding Caffiero’s loss of memory on his second examination, had already been ascertained by Villalunga to have been Sunday, August 10th, on which day Fenic, therefore, could commit no crime by going on board; and the story of the bribe and injunction to secrecy resolves itself into a clumsy and ill-disguised attempt at giving a colour of guilt to a fabulous occurrence which, even if it had been real, would have been guiltless.

“His second evidence concludes thus:—‘My mother was a washerwoman, and washed for a black woman who lived next her. Fenic’s wife refused to wash the bundle of clothes that he brought ashore; he offered them to my mother, who also refused them; he then gave them to an Englishwoman: I knew her: _she is dead: I do not know her name, nor where she lived_.’ I find by my notes that he added, ‘This occurred during last winter,’ although the words are not entered upon the minutes. He was then asked, ‘What season of the year was it that you were on board of ship?’ To which he cautiously replied, ‘It was either summer or winter, I believe.’

“Evidence such as this, and given as I saw it given, bears on its face every character of falsehood; and disbelieving as I do this boy’s whole story, and at the same time considering his extreme youth, the testimony given by him has upon my mind the further operation of tainting with more than suspicion all the other evidence proceeding from the same class of witnesses, which consisted chiefly of hearsay in conversation with persons who had since died; because it would seem that this child must have been an instrument in the hands of some one of maturer age.”

The suspicion attached to the second appearance of this child is confirmed by a similar re-appearance of Villalunga, who, after sixteen days’ absence from the Board, on the 24th of April, again presents herself as a witness. She now remembers that Mrs Fenic had asked her to wash some clothes; that she did not wash them, being herself indisposed; but that she was told by Mrs Fenic that she put these clothes out to be washed.

Mr Howell thus comments on this second appearance of Villalunga:—