The history of small-pox in Australia, 1788-1908 / compiled from various sources by J.H.L Clumpston.

Date:
1914
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The history of small-pox in Australia, 1788-1908 / compiled from various sources by J.H.L Clumpston. 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.

    183/210 (page 159)
    The next record we have of 8mall-pox, though it was not recognised as such, was in .1829, when Sturt relates (in a passage to which Mr. Kusden draws attention) that the blacks on the Darling, a tributary of the Murray, were suffering from what he terms a singular malady, which showed itself in the form of a violent eruption all over the body. Sir Thomas Mitchell, however, who followed Sturt to the Darling in 1835, recognised by its traces as small-pox the disease which had puzzled Sturt in its active form. Both authors agree, however, as to the great mortalit}^ which it had occasioned among the tribes, as Mitchell says, almost depopulating the Barling. In 1831 Sturt made his celebrated exploration of the River Murray, and in his account of the trip refers on several occasions to certain virulent diseases from which the numerous tribes he met were suffering. On one occasion he says, leprosy of the most loathsome description, the most virulent cutaneous eruptions and glandular affections, absolutely raged through the whole of them. Now, what was this leprosy, this virulent cutaneous disease of which no one has ever heard since ? Would Sturt have known leprosy if he had seen it ? What has become of it ? All we know on the subject is that ten years after Sturt's gallant whaleboat voyage. Eyre resided on the Lower Murray, and recorded the facts that a disease very similar to the small-pox, and leaving similar marks upon the face, appears formerly to have been very prevalent, but I have never met with an existing case. . . . It is said to have copne from eastward originally. Here we have a second instance of Sturt's failure to recognise small-pox, and of another who came after him doing so. In confirmation of Eyre's statement we have also that of Taplin, who speaking of some of the Lower Murray tribes, says : They have a tradition that some 60 years ago a terrible disease came down the Murray and carried off the natives by hundreds. This must have been small-pox, as many of the old people now have their faces pitted, who suffered from the disease in childhood. The destruction of life was so great as seriously to diminish the tribes. Hence we see that in one direction at least, small-pox found its way from sea to sea. That such was the case, I have never known any one to gainsay, except Mr. Rusden, who reiterates that at that time small-pox did not exist on the Murray, his argument being that had it existed, Sturt and McLeay would not have allowed the sufferers, as they did, to pull them about and finger them all over. Setting aside an argument which can have no force whatever until it has been shown that Sturt was acquainted with the appearance of small-pox, which there is every reason to believe he was not, it may be remarked that Mr. Rusden invites us to believe that though the explorers would not have endured such treatment {i.e., pulling about and fingering) if small-pox had existed among the natives, the explorers had no objection to the friendly hug of mere leprous savages, a peculiarity of taste which it is strange to see extending to a whole party. In conclusion, I beg to remark that towards the close of 1841, or the beginning of 1842, being then resident with one of my brothers close to the junction of the Goulburn and Murray, we saw a blackfellow absolutely suffering from small-pox, a circumstance concerning which my brother and I had some conversation a few weeks since. I need hardly add that a large number of blacks in the neighbourhood had faces pitted, fur- rowed, and distorted with small-pox. A few of these probably yet remain. As regards native pock, unless a sort of pustular itch from which both the blacks and their dogs used to suffer, be indicated by the term, I may frankly confess that I never saw during my 35 j^ears' experience anything among them to which I can suppose it to refer. One medical man, I notice, refers to it, and it would be interesting to know in what year and in what locality it was met with, and what medical men generally think on the subject. I am, &/C., EDWARD M. CURR. To the Editor oj the Argus. Sir,—I may say the reading of the correspondence in your columns on the above has caused considerable interest, and shows how different may be the recollections of those of 40 years ago. In having a finger in the pie, I may say Mr. Rusclen's research and explanation are certainly founded on reasonable conclusions as to the fact of the disease having visited Port Philip (Victoria) before its occupation by the whites. In 1837, Captain Hutton, of the East India Company Service, occupied the country north of the junction of the Coliban and Campaspe River, having his home station on what is now known as the Wild Duck, then the Vincent, near its junction with the MTvor Creek. His lowest station on the Campaspe was where now stands the Clare Inn, and the river s])anned by a beautiful bridge. Up to the month of May, 1838, the blacks were on the ground, apparently friendly with us, but covertly hostile, as it proved, for they killed the men, and took away the sheep, about 800, making for the Murray, and had I'cached the Big Plain, now Rest- down, before they were recovered.