The epidemic of bubonic plague in 1894. Medical report. / by James A. Lowson.

  • Lowson, James A.
Date:
1895
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The epidemic of bubonic plague in 1894. Medical report. / by James A. Lowson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    11/72
    THE EPIDEMIC OF BUBONIC PLAGUE IN HONGKONG, 1894. ——♦-—■■ To write an historical introductioa upon the subject of Plaijue shouhl at the present moment be an easy matter, considerini^ the many chissical monographs and articles which have been written upon it within the last century. When the pre- sent outbreak occurred in IIonf2;koui^, tlie only authority that I had at my disposal was the article on Plague in Quain's Dictionary of Medicine by J. X. Radcliffe, the experiences that we have had here being to a considerable extent new to the present generation. Latterly, the articles in the Encyclopaadia Brittaunica and Davidson's Tropical Medicine—not to mention Heckeii's classical work—were brought to my notice. I have not been able to make myself familiar with the opi- nions of Cabiadis and others in print, consequently the notes on the disease which I now present are almost solel}^ founded on experiences here during the past year. The histor}^ of Plague, as regards the civilised West, has been told times without number, but, with the exception of liuciiEu's papers, the histoiy of the disease in the Far East is a jjcrfect blank. One would expect, seeing that China has the unenviable reputation of being the seat of the plague, that the Chinese classics would show some trace of the existence of epidemics of the disease. 1 have requested Mr. J. Dyer Ball, one of the most eminent, and certainly one of the most painstaking of Chinese scholars, to make careful enquiry into the subject, and the result is that,after months of diligent searching, he finds that Chinese history makes no reference to any epidemic w^hich has lelt a mark on the inefface- able records of time. The epidemic in Canton of 1894 is by far the most notice- able case (of which there is any record) of the disease carrying off large numbers of the population. The first time in contem[)orary history that plague has really made itself felt in China, was in 1844—^just after the Egyptian epidemic had left its mark on European medicine,—and in this case, by the records at hand, the epidemic did not work nearly so much havoc amongst the population as it did during the year recently finished. Plague has been practically endemic in Pakhoi for over twenty 3'ears, as has been recorded by Drs. Lowry and Horuer ; the only occasion when it has been at all epidemic being about ten years ago. The epidemic in Canton, according to the information at our disposal, began early in February 1894. During the four months following it Avas practically un- known in Pakhoi. Jn May it broke out in Hongkong, ninety miles from Canton, and three hundred and seventy miles from Pakhoi. Negative evidence is wanting to show that it did not come from Canton. Positive evidence is wantinsj to show that it came from Pakhoi. An average of 11,090 passengers came from Canton every week whilst only 64 came from Pakhoi. There were many patients fleeing from Canton on account of the plague,— none fleeing from Pakhoi. Most certainly tens of thousands of persons died from plague in Canton, from January 1st to May 1st, 1894, whilst, the dead were to be reckoned by tens only in Pakhoi during the same period, there being three or four steamers every da}' from Canton to Hongkong whilst there were only six in a month from Pakhoi. •Since 1873, it has been endemic in the province of Yunnan, a district about 900 miles from Canton, where the numbers dying of it yearly have been considerable. All this circumstantial evidence goes to prove that the disease was ira])orted to Hongkong from Canton (ancl not from Pakhoi) although in Canton it has been, unknown, until tlie present outbreak, since 1850. On March 2nd, 1894, a large Chinese procession was held in Hongkong, and as a result large numbers of people came from the, surrounding country, it being estimated that 40,000 of the lowest class coolies came from Canton for the occasion. It has been maintained by some^persons that this was the period during , which Hongkong became infected. It is possible, but it appears to me that before nine weeks had elapsed the epidemic would have reached such alarming proportions that it must have been noticed earlier. It was only in April that people were reported