Report of Dr. Sidney Coupland on the outbreak of small-box in the Dewsbury Union in 1891-2.
- Coupland, Sidney, 1849-1930.
- Date:
- 1894
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Report of Dr. Sidney Coupland on the outbreak of small-box in the Dewsbury Union in 1891-2. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.
147/250 (page 65)
![same road where a miner (J. A., No. 174) was lying ill. This was one of the few cases not removed to hospital. The child (No. 12) was unvaccinated, she sickened on August 16th (J. A. was ill from July 25 to about August 12th), and died in the hospital on August 26th. Mrs. H. (No. 17), attacked on September 19th, was in- oculated on both nipples by the infant (No. 18) she was suckling at the time; this child being removed to hospital on the 10th three days after its rash appeared. The father (No. 19) was attacked on September 24. T. M. (No. 24), a dealer in cast-off clothing, fell ill on September 11; he had possibly been infected in the course of his trade. F. C. (No. 25), a lad employed in a large grocery store, was attacked simultaneously October 18-91, with a com- panion of his (No. 26), who lived in a district where some cases had recently occurred. Mrs. W., set. 75, had a mild attack of small-pox, which occurred on October 18th. She had been nursing some neighbour's children (Nos. 21 and 23), in one of whom the rash appeared on October 5th. T. W., a delicate unvaccinated child of two years old was admitted into hospital (No. 133) on November 25th, in a moribund state. This case had been notified as variola, but was subsequently regarded by the medical attendant as one of chicken-pox. A sister of this patient, set. 5, had also had chicken-pox two days before. Her case is not included in this record. R. S., m., 3st. 19 (No. 41), a weaver employed in a mill at Batley, sickened on January 9, 1892. He stated that he was working next to a lad whose sister had died from small-pox. [This may be No. 72 in Batley Register, a child who developed the rash on December 21 and died on January 11.] Mrs. D. (No. 48), living in an open district on high ground may have been infected through her husband who visited houses in Batley to collect rates. She was attacked on January 19. Her sister, Mrs. H. (No. 61), who came to see her before her removal on the 24th, sickened with small-pox on February 4th. In this month a family of eight members living in the Vulcan Road all suffered excepting the father. The first to be attacked was a lad of 19 (W. H., No. 47), who com- plained of illness on January 15, and was removed to hospital on the 21st, the day following the appearance of his rash. He was employed as a teamer (carter). His mother and her other five children all developed the rash on February 1st, and were removed to hospital on the 2nd. The two youngest, set. six and two years respectively, were unvaccinated. These two had confluent attacks; those of Mrs. H. and W. H. were of the coherent type, the rest were mild attacks. P. H., a plumber, 17 years (No. 49), sickened on January 21. He had visited his brother-in-law in Batley (No. 118 in Batley Register) during the attack of small-pox from which the latter was suffering (rash appeared in this case January 5, and he was removed to hospital January 9, when he died). A brother of P. H. living in Batley (No. 164 in Batley Register) also took the disease (rash, January 16th). P. H., a miner, aet. 18 (No. 51), attacked on January 29th; was probably infected by a fellow-miner (M. C, No. 45) with whom P. H. sat up one night before his removal to hospital on January 18. In the month of February a considerable number of cases occurred amongst the children attending one of the largest and best managed elementary schools in Dewsbury. The first known to have sickened was L. N., a girl, 9 years of age (No. 173), living in Ernest Jones Street. She was attacked on February 3rd, and removed to hospital on the 11th; her two brothers, J. N., Eet. 5, and E. N., set. 7 (Nos. 89 and 86), were attacked on the 20th and 21st respectively. On February 5th, B. S., a girl of 12 (No. 68), was attacked and removed to hospital on the 12th. She was unvacci- nated and her three sisters and one brother, also unvac- cinated and also attending this school, took the disease, the dates of each of their illnesses being February 19th, 22nd, 24ih, and 25th respectively (Nos. 88, 90, 9^1, 93). The father, E. S., a weaver, vaccinated (No. 87), fell ill on February 20th ; the only member of the household of seven who escaped being Mrs. S., aet. 35, vaccinated. On February 5th also the head mistress, Miss G., set. 34 (No. 62), was attacked. She had been in delicate health for the past two years; her infantile vaccination had been unsuccessful, but she was vaccinated successfully at the age of 17- She was removed to the hospital on February 10th, and died there on the 17th. Another teacher, 0 S2693, Miss D., of Liversedge, was attacked with discrete small- pox on February 6th {see Liversedge). On February 7th, T. S., set. 7 (No. 75), unvaccinated, in the same school and living in Vulcan Road, was attacked; he died in hospital on the 23rd. E. E., a girl, £et. 11 (No. 67), living in Cossham Street, was attacked on February 8th, and removed to hospital on the 12th ; she also was unvacci- nated, and her brother, set. 16 (No. 94), vaccinated, fell ill on February 25th. Lastly, on February 15th, a boy of eight years (A. S., No. 74), unvaccinated, living in Vuican Road, next door but one to his schoolmate, T. S., was attacked with confluent small-pox. The origin of this outbreak is not quite clear. It may have been due to children attending the school from an infected house. I was informed by Mr. A. (brother-in-la\v to Miss G.) that about a fortnight before her illness. Miss G. noticed that two children were ailing and feverish. She sent them home, and learnt subsequently that there was small-pox in their house; but I have no record of any child at this school having the disease prior to February 3rd in this year; two of the earlier cases in the epidemic (July 1891) were children who did attend there ; and subsequent to this period others of the same school were attacked from time to time, but without any such marked evidence of infection at the school as in this series of eases. It is noteworthy, however, that of 57 school children (from all schools) who had small-pox 34 were the first (in 16 in- stances the only case) cases that arose in their respective families. F. P., ast. 18 (No. 70), engaged as a charwoman said that two weeks before she was taken ill (February 8th) she was visited by a friend from Batley, who brought her a present of a fur cape. This friend was employed at a mill where some cases of small-pox had recently occurred. F. P. also stated that Mr. and Mrs. A. at whose house she was working were ill about a week after she was removed to hospital. If their illness was small-pox it must have been so mild as to have passed unrecognised, for there was no notification made of it. A friend of H. P., viz., K. C. (No. 98), was attacked on February 29th. H. T., set. 16 (No. 71), engaged in Postal Telegraph service, living at Woodville, Leeds Road, was attacked February 12th. He had been re-vaccinated a year pre- viously, but it did not take, and he had no clear marks of his primary vaccination. His sister, a dressmaker, set. 37 (No. 99), sickened on March 1—(H. T. had been removed to hospital on February 15th)—and his brother, set. 27 (No. 101), on the 3rd. The infection may have been brought to this house by a neighbour (No. 69), who sickened about the same time, and who was occupied as an insurance agent in visiting parts of Dewsbury, then infected with small-pox. An instance of re-infection of a house may here be cited. It is in a court off High Street, Dawgreen, a block of eight privies, being situated in the centre of the un- paved area, surrounded by houses. One of them, a tenement of two rooms, was occupied by a family of nine, of whom A. C, a schoolboy, ast. 10 (No. 73), unvaccinated, was attacked with small-pox on February 16th, and re- moved to hospital on the 19th, where he stayed for seven weeks. No other case occurred in this dwelling until May 24th, i.e., fully 6 weeks after H. C. had returned home. At this date (May 24th) S. E. C, a school girl, set. 9 (No. 219), the only other unvaccinated inmate, fell ill, and was removed to hospital on May 28th, where she remained till July 4th. E. B., f., 16 (No. 96), a weaver, V-ing at Batley Carr, who fell ill on February 25th, worked at a mill next to the sister of a lad who had died in the Batley Small-pox Hospital. (? Batley Reg., 2/8, admitted to hospital Feb- ruary 6th.) E. W., m., 20 (No. 97), attacked February 25th, may have been infected through W. H. L. (No. 94), whose sister (No, 67) was removed to hospital on February 12th. M. A. B., f., 35 (No. 106), a friend of No. 98 (above referred to), was attacked on March 4th ; she could hardly, however, have been directly infected by No. 98, but pro- bably indirectly through her from No. 70. No. 103 is the case of a miner, attacked on March 5th, attributed to infection of the house by a woman who came to stay there whilst her own house was being fumigated. He infected his younger brother, attacked March 19th (No. 126). No. Ill is the case of the man who drove the hospital ambulance. He had not been re-vaccmated, and indeed bore no marks of the vaccination alleged to have been done in infancy. He was attacked on March 8tb, removed I](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21518592_0147.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
