Thus, it would seem that Drs Latham and Roget, summoned to solve a problem the nature of which they were unable to understand, initially clutched at the diagnostic straw offered by Dr Hutchison when he identified (incorrectly as we can now be sure) scorbutic dysentery in a few patients. They magnified his error by applying this label to nearly half the inmates of the penitentiary—all on the basis of spots on the legs, some of them “so small as to be almost imperceptible to the naked eye”,146 even the more noticeable of which were “small brown spots like flea-bites”.147 Another support offered for the diagnosis was their autopsy finding of “Ecchymoses; that is, spots of the same kind as those which on the skin constitute scurvy” on the intestines of “two prisoners who died dysenteric”.148 Neither these cutaneous spots nor the ecchymoses would now be accepted as diagnostic criteria for scurvy. Clearly, the diarrhoea and deaths had a cause; if not scorbutic dysentery then what was the aetiology?
A good description of the symptoms suffered by the prisoners is given by Dr Augustus Granville who visited in June 1823:
With some few exceptions all the prisoners I saw or examined, have been labouring under various modifications of a bowel complaint, for two, and some few cases, three months, with more or less intensity in the attack, so that in some it appeared as common diarrhoea attended with pain in the belly, &c. and in others, as dysentery with fever, and in some few cases, with the appearance of blood in the evacuation; … some were recovering from a first and a second relapse they had had after recovery; … some who were ill and complaining, had had only one or two evacuations a-day, while others had had eight, nine, ten, eleven, and even twelve.149
Thirteen of those whose death seemed to have a gastro-intestinal cause had diarrhoea as a main feature, although, as Dr Granville noted in the patients he saw, its duration varied considerably: from a few days to over three months. Although it might seem to a modern investigator that an infective agent was at work, this was far from obvious at the time. Some of the parliamentary enquiry witnesses actually attributed diarrhoea to the improvement in diet after 1 March (this was the opinion of Mr Anthony White, the consultant surgeon to the prison);150 and lemon juice—as prescribed by Dr Hutchison—was thought to cause diarrhoea,151 whilst Drs Latham and Roget, initially firmly wedded as they were to the “scorbutic dysentery” theory, at that stage felt that it could not be infective because “the officers and servants of the Establishment, together with their families, residing within the walls of the prison, and amounting to 106 individuals, were universally exempt from the disease”.152 Also: “marsh miasmata always arise during the hot, and never during the cold seasons of the year”153 and “individuals … employed in the kitchen by day, and had access to richer diet, were universally exempt”.154 All this they concluded, ruled out an infective aetiology and confirmed that the dietary was at fault. In fact they were wrong about the staff who had been affected; “three or more” of the turnkeys using the same privies as the prisoners suffered,155 and Dr Latham himself describes the death of an infirmary nurse suffering from “the reigning disease in the prison”.156 Cases of diarrhoea continued well after the diet was improved—in fact their number increased—and, again to quote Dr Latham, “From 16th of February to June, 132 prisoners were admitted, namely, 127 males, and five females. Of these 103 suffered the disease, namely, ninety-eight males, and five females”, and one of these died.157 Clearly, a diet deficient in vitamin C and other nutriments could not be blamed for these illnesses and we can now be fairly sure that an infective agent was responsible. And yet, the disease did not spread outside the prison. There was just one exception—this to the family of the Revd Dr Bennett who had employed a female prisoner, herself already sick, in his household.158 Otherwise there was no disease in the surrounding area159 and even within the prison it spread only to “inferior officers”—the “superior officers who lived distinct from the prisoners, were free from it”.160 The inference seems to be that spread was by direct contamination of food, probably from a carrier, who in all likelihood was one of the female kitchen staff since the disease continued among the women even after their removal from the penitentiary. It is impossible to be sure of the diagnosis nearly 200 years after the event—there are a large number of possible food- and water-borne agents, including perhaps most probably amoebic or bacillary dysentery or campylobacter, to which the outbreak might be attributed.
We can be certain that the reduction in diet from a (by modern standards) just-about-adequate 2300 k.cal. daily to a meagre 1850 k.cal. did not help (again these figures—which are for the men, the women received less—are estimates but are probably in the correct range). It is self-evident that a poorly nourished patient, who is also suffering from low morale, will fare less well when challenged by any illness than would otherwise be the case. Almost certainly, some of the tuberculosis deaths were accelerated by under-nutrition; and in this context it is significant that latent tuberculosis flared up in a volunteer subjected to complete deprivation of vitamin C.161 However, the fact that so many of the deaths took place (and that the diarrhoea persisted—particularly among the women) after the dietary had been improved strongly suggests that its reduction was not a major factor in this outbreak of disease.
As to Dr Hutchison, by his own account, his attitude to colleagues at the prison was, to say the least, somewhat acerbic. Shortly before his dismissal he wrote to the management committee:
With respect to what you alledge [sic] regarding my differences with the superior officers, that, with the exception of the chaplain (whom I believe to be the author of all these differences, and whom I shall ever consider as having acted a part most unworthy of his sacred function, by stooping to become a spy and tale-bearer, and by having, on a certain occasion, endeavoured to take away my character, by a most unfounded imputation,) I have lived on the best terms with the other officers, to whom I have never given the least cause of offence, unless such occasional admonitions as I was called upon to give, in the conscientious exercise of my duty, particularly to the matron and surgeon, could be so construed.162
The giving of admonitions, and his words: “Mr Pratt's opinion, even in medicine, which he has practised for thirty years, is, as the Committee knows, not worth one farthing” do not suggest a man seeking easy popularity.163 This assessment of Mr Pratt's worth was written in relation to a series of statements made regarding one of the justifications later offered for Dr Hutchison's dismissal: namely that the latter had—inappropriately and whilst under the influence of alcohol—ordered a warm bath for a dying patient.164 These well-orchestrated accusations were made by Mr Pratt, the matron and the nurses (“the old women” as Dr Hutchison refers to them). Arthur Griffiths (subsequently governor of the penitentiary) spoke of most of the officials resident at the penitentiary as being prone to “Gossip of course—probably worse, constant observation of one-another, jealousies, quarrels … subordinates ever on the look out to make capital of the differences of their betters, and alive to the fact that they were certain of a hearing when they chose to carry out any slanderous attack”.165 Dr Hutchison strenuously denied both charges and his habitual sobriety was attested to by a pantheon of distinguished medical men, including Sir Astley Cooper. Even the maligned chaplain, Dr Bennett, showed Christian charity in testifying that Dr Hutchison had not been drunk at the relevant time. His apparently disturbed state may have been the result of agitation because his sister, as a result of some unspecified misjudgement, had lost £400 of his money. Also, the fact that his front teeth were missing made his speech indistinct at times, perhaps leading to an impression of insobriety.166 Nonetheless, it suited the committee to accept his guilt; news of the problems in the penitentiary was beginning to appear in the press,167 and by sacking Dr Hutchison the committee sought to divert attention away from themselves—an aim in which they probably succeeded. They said that Dr Hutchison had “complained of the appointment by the committee of the two physicians to act with him in the prison; and represented this proceeding as unnecessary, and as a great indignity to him”,168 particularly as they were younger than he,169 and it was convenient for them to take the opinions of Drs Latham and Roget at face value: “The committee of the Penitentiary certainly heard with much surprize [sic], after they had only been told by Dr Hutchison in the course of the month of February of the existence of only a few cases of scurvy within their walls, that 400 cases of that kind were discovered in the investigation which took place in the beginning of March”.170 By the time assorted experts had cast doubt on the existence of “four hundred cases of that kind” it was too late, Dr Hutchison had already gone and his protestations went unheard. He had been scapegoated.
Health problems at Millbank continued; in 1842 William Baly wrote: “other forms of disease, which were described as parts of the epidemic of 1823, namely the fever, dysentery, and nervous affections, have frequently reappeared”.171 In 1827 there were nine male and two female deaths, a mortality rate of 1.7 per cent. On the surface this is an improvement on the pre-outbreak figure, but by then the practice of discharging prisoners on medical grounds had crept in and we can be sure that at least a few of the sixty-one males and twenty females pardoned in that year were mortally ill. Ten years after the reoccupation of the penitentiary further statistics were printed (Table 4). Again, so far as the mortality rate is concerned (2.5 per cent), these figures might seem to represent an improvement from the situation prior to 1823 but no such deduction can be drawn because of the unknown nature of the “discharged by medical recommendation” category. William Baly recognized that many such patients were terminally ill and on a case-by-case analysis of 355 discharges on medical grounds from Millbank between 1825 and 1842, suggested that about 35 per cent would have died soon after their release.172 On this basis, the 1827 mortality rate would double to over 3 per cent and the 1830 to 1834 rate would rise to nearly 4 per cent. This at a time when the mortality rate in most English prisons was in the range of 1 per cent to 2 per cent.173
Contemporaries attributed Millbank's high mortality to the low, damp situation of the prison, although in reality it was almost certainly related to the greater length of sentences served there. Whatever the reason, the (adjusted) death rate remained high. In 1839 from a daily average of 518 prisoners, five died (under 1 per cent), but twenty were pardoned and another four were removed to the hulks, all on medical grounds.174 By 1845, invalid prisoners were sent to the hulks at Woolwich in order to recover their health before transportation, the designation penitentiary was lost and the prison, having become no more than a holding facility, was closed and demolished in 1892.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to draw the following conclusions. There were a few cases of scurvy in the first few months of 1823 but all apparently responded to treatment. There was an excess number of deaths in the early part of 1823—some twenty more than would have been expected. None of these deaths was due to scurvy; many almost certainly had an infective aetiology originating in the gastro-intestinal tract; the nature of this infection remains uncertain. And finally, the reduction in diet was not the result of lack of concern for the prisoners' welfare on the part of the medical staff, but was an administrative decision taken in response to external pressure. Had medical advice given at the time been followed, the reduction would have been less draconian. Indeed, according to Dr Latham, commenting on a letter written by Mr Pratt to the management committee in March 1822 on the subject of the proposed dietary changes, the latter exhibited preternatural prescience:
The letter contained a prediction that, in the event of the change contemplated being carried into effect, those disorders, which actually did take place, would be the consequence. … He was himself accustomed to refer us to this prophecy and its verification, not without some exultation; and indeed, well he might … it is one of the most splendid instances of medical anticipation upon record.175