(12)
No. 11.—The case of Ramphal, aged 60, a Brahman landlord. His uncle was a
leper. His wife became a leper when he was 38 years old, they continued to live
together, and he himself became a leper at 50.
30. It may be seen that in cases Nos. 7 and 11, there is evidence of hereditary
taint sufficient to account for the appearance of the disease, although the wife had not
been affected.
In No. 1 a young man deliberately married a leper woman, and became himself a
leper at the early ago of 24. It seems at least likely that the man had reason to think
he himself was not free from hereditary taint, although he states to the contrary.
In No. 6 a man marries a woman whoso grandfather and father had been lepers.
In No. 10 a man marries a woman whose father had died of leprosy. I think the same
remark applies to these cases.
In No. 2 a woman marries a man whoso father and elder sister had been lepers.
The same remark is applicable, although perhaps less forcibly than in the case of a man
who marries a woman of notoriously leper family. In No. 5 a woman marries a man
whose elder brother was a leper.
Of the four remaining cases Nos. 3, 4, 8, and 9. In No. 8 the early age at
which the man was affected, at 18, points forcibly to hereditary taint.
Altogether I think the conclusion probably well founded, that at least the majority
of these cases in which both husband and wife suffered were cases of intermarriages
between members of leprous families, the hereditary taint existing both in husband and
wife.
31- But, granting that this conclusion may not be warrantable, still the fact re-
mains that of 855 cases of cohabitation, than which no closer form of human inter-
course can be imagined, only 11 or 1.3 per cent, are discoverable, in which suspicion of
the communication of the disease from the husband to the wife, or from the wife to the
husband, arises.
Gauged by this test, the probability of any contagious origin of leprosy, arising out
of the ordinary intercourse of lepers with the general public, becomes infinitesimal. A
view, farther strengthened by the fact, that in some cases of the 855 above mentioned,
it is recorded that a leprous husband had married two or three wives, who cohabited
with him without in any such instance any wife being affected with leprosy.
32. Yet, although infinitesimal, it cannot bo declared non-existent, as viewed by
the light thrown on this point in the histories under consideration. For in addition
to the perhaps doubtful cases recorded above, one leper at Cawnpore attributed the
disease to contagion, in that he had lived next door to a shopkeeper who was a leper.
And, most important of all, Dr. Fitzgerald records the case of a Colonel in the Indian
Service, who some years ago became a leper, and could account for his misfortune only
by the fact that he had continued to cohabit with a native woman after she had been
attacked with leprosy.
33. In regard to hereditary taint as a cause of the disease, the histories contain
valuable evidence which may bo classified as follows :—
Number of lepers who
acknowledged that
such of their rela-
tions suffered from
leprosy.
Grandfather or grandmo-ther.
}.,
Father or mo-ther.
173
Relationships.
Uncle or aunt.
46
Brother or sister.
61
Cousin.
5
Father-in-law or mother-in-law
7
Not stated.
2G
No relation af-fected or "does not know"
1,194
Total
1,531