are many possible chances in this opera- | when that City happened to possess tion to communicate disease. There may 1,000,000 of inhabitants, some 4,000 be neglect on the part of the vacci- persons died in one year of small1-pox. nator, for whom it is to be said that he Therefore, these vaccinators now say has to get through a large number of that the deaths before vaccination was cases in a short time. And yet you ask introduced into London were 4,000 per us to accept vaccination by compulsion, 1,000,000. It is quite as unfair as if I when you have not taken the commonest took the epidemic years of 1871-2, and precautions of science to ascertain whe- said so many thousands had died under ther the operation may be safely per- vaccination, and had given that average formed! You are forcing this upon our per 1,000,000. The House may be surpopulation, when you have no right to prised to learn that in 1881 there were do it. Dr. Buchanan wrote a Memo- 57,000 deaths from bronchitis, 48,000 randum some time ago, in which he de- from phthisis, 33,000 from heart dismonstrated the extraordinary benefits of ease, 17,000 from scarlet fever, 13,000 vaccination. He saidfrom whooping cough, and 13,000 from cancer. I will not mention such causes as drowning by accident; but pleurisy caused from 1,200 to 1,300 deaths, and boils 1,066. I come on to small-pox, the deaths from which are given at 648. [Ironical cheers.] Will hon. Gentlemen tell me why, in 1871-2, there died 44,000 of small-pox? Then the population had been vaccinated, for vaccination had been brought into perfect play in 1857, and the population was enjoying its unrestricted advantages. Now, I want to point out the increase of the deaths from infantile diseases in one year owing, as we contend, to vaccination. The argument on the one side is, small-pox once very rife; now very greatly reduced. The catechism founded upon that is this "Of course, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated live under the same conditions." He ought to have known that there are a large number of persons who cannot safely be vaccinated, either from illhealth, or from proneness to inflammatory disease, and who are more likely than any others to catch the small-pox and die of it. The unvaccinated class consists of those who cannot be vaccinated because it is dangerous-children and others. But it consists also of all your nomad population, of your arabs, tramps, and poor people, who live under the conditions most opposed to health, and most likely to render them liable to this disease. Now, what do you think of the reasoning laid before the British public by the head of the Medical De- -What is the cause that scarlet fever is partment of the Local Government so rife? The answer is-" Nature." Board? It is that, from a medical and What is the cause when it diminishes? statistical point of view, the unvacci- "Nature." What is the cause when nated and the vaccinated live under cholera increases? "Nature." What is exactly the same conditions. I hope the cause when small-pox is abundant? before we have gone on long we may "Nature." What is the cause when begin to use our own judgment, as well small-pox is scarce and rare? "Vacas rely on eminent medical men. I cination." It is a question of statistics would call the attention of the House to founded upon very doubtful evidence. a case in which a poor woman, an inmate How do you find out the unvaccinated? of St. Pancras Workhouse, in this Me- You have Returns from the hospitals; tropolis, was, by order of the medical but in confluent small-pox you cannot find officer, vaccinated within a few hours of the marks if there has been vaccination. her confinement; and I would ask if the People, too, have been admitted with 16 Department will stop that most inhumane or 17 marks; but how do you tell? practice? I do not believe that the Medi- They may ask the poor patient when he cal Profession, as a body, approve of the is nearly dying. It may be poor Joe, practice. It is monstrous that poor waifs from Tom-all-alone's, and the medical and strays, in such circumstances, should man naturally says-"Write it down be subjected to vaccination when ad-unvaccinated."" But people say to mitted to a workhouse. You will be surprised to hear that small-pox is 72nd in the order of diseases and in the order of fatality last year. It is said that last century, during an epidemic in London, I you-" Do you accuse the whole of a investigating these matters, and if a thing is doubtful they will, according to their prepossession, put it down this way or that way. ["No, no!"] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say "No, no; " but will they put themselves in the position of those who are collecting these facts? Do they imagine that a medical man, whose time is busily occupied with the living sufferers, will go searching the arm of a poor dead patient? Why, he would do it at risk to himself. Even in the last year or two a surgeon has fallen a victim, though he was vaccinated; and nurses have been attacked and died of small-pox. The Report of the Registrar General, who is not a medical man, contains pages of reasoning facts in favour of vaccination. They are all possessed with a belief in vaccination, and they stand by it. Now, there are seven or eight diseases specially inoculable by vaccination; and all or most of these have increased the number of deaths of children under one year of age, as shown by a Return moved for by me (No. 433), 1877. Among them syphilis. Another disease is cancer, which has greatly increased in the population of all ages. It has increased 70 per cent. Now, the House would like to pause, and turn to the medical gentlemen and ask them, can they guarantee us against the possibility of this fearful disease being propagated by vaccination? The study of this question by medical men is yet in its infancy. They are busy with microscopes, and saying that certain diseases can only be conveyed if there is a speck of blood in the vaccine. They really know little about the subject yet, and until they have amply satisfied us that they are agreed among themselves, we ought not to approve of these compulsory laws. Diseases of the mesenteric glands, or internal scrofula, have increased 30 per cent; and it is highly probable that that may have been caused through vaccination, until the contrary is ascertained. Twenty-fourth in order of fatality on the list of diseases comes scrofula, which has maintained its previous rate. The next is the disease of syphilis; this has increased 127 per cent, and has multiplied four-fold in proportion to the births, as compared with the rate in 1847, when the statistics were first taken. The 61st cause of death is one of phlegmon or boils; this has just Mr. Hopwood doubled. This heading formerly included pyæmia or blood poisoning, now separated; and we can easily see that boils and pyæmia are the sort of disease that could be easily conveyed by vaccination. In these circumstances, is it to be wondered at that the law is evaded and prosecutions take place? I hope this House, as the guardian of public liberty, will set itself with determination to have these prosecutions stopped. They have amounted to thousands. Poor men have had their beds sold from under them, both here and in Ireland, and have been forced to endure cruel poverty, because, in their own simple language, they had seen So-and-so's child dying, or little Mary suffering dreadful pains in consequence of vaccination. And yet the magistrates are called upon to perform these duties under a law so little supported by scientific knowledge, and so discredited by competent persons. I believe it is tottering to its downfall, and I hope this House will not be the last of the Legislative Assemblies-I hope it will be among the first-to take off this iron grip from a suffering population, and say that no man shall, against his will, incur the dangers to his offspring which this practice offers. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is in expedient and unjust to enforce Vaccination under penalties upon those who regard it as unadvisable and dangerous."-(Mr. P. A. Taylor.) SIR JOSEPH PEASE, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to leave out That," in all the words after the word " order to insert the words "A Select Committee of this House be ap pointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether a limitation of the accumulation of penalties for non-vaccination can be effected without endangering the practical efficiency of the Vaccination Acts," said, that when he saw his hon. Friend's Notice on the Paper he assumed that the hon. Gentleman would dwell rather on the question of penalties than argue how far the law relating to vaccination had been successful or otherwise. For his own part, his voice had been always raised against cumulative penalties upon those who had refused to have their children vaccinated. The whole action of that House had, generally speaking, been against cumulative penalties. There were several arguments again such penalties as sanctioned by there e pre sent Vaccination Laws. In the first place, they worked most unjustly. The rich man was able to pay them; but the poor man, who was unable and was unaided by his friends, was obliged to go to gaol. And yet what they wanted to do was left undone, because they dared not take the child out of its mother's arms and have it vaccinated according to their Statutes. It was in the Consolidation Act of 1867 for the first time that the cumulative penalty was laid down, and ever since there had been a great outcry against the hardship and injustice of the infliction. In 1871, a Committee appointed by the House, and composed of very able men, sat to consider this subject. On that Committee were, among others, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), the late Mr. Stephen Cave, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), Lord Robert Montagu, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert); and they came to the unanimous conclusion that when two penalties or one penalty of £1 had been imposed on the parent, no further penalty should be inflicted in respect of the same child. That recommendation of the Committee was based upon the opinions of the ablest authorities that could be obtained by the House. A great deal of feeling existed as to these Penalty Clauses, and the popular dislike of them had occasioned a long series of difficulties. In 1875 a Blue Book was published, which contained statistics of the prosecutions under the Act. If these figures were brought down to date they would show that an enormous number of persons had since been prosecuted and fined, and that very many children still remained unvaccinated. Indeed, so great were the difficulties experienced by the Boards of Guardians that the Local Government Board, while the late Government was in Office, sent out a Circular begging the Guardians not to prosecute the same person more than once, lest "fruitless contests" with the parents should tend to defeat the object of the Act by exciting sympathy for the persons prosecuted. Surely the Local Government Board must have felt, when they issued that Circular, that the law as it stood was very unsatisfactory. He was one of those who had been vaccinated and re-vaccinated without finding any benefit or any harm from it. For his own part, he held that the balance of evidence was decidedly in favour of vaccination; but it seemed certain that the operation was not always harmless. A well-known authority on the subject had, in fact, admitted this, and had said that it was impossible to guarantee either perfect safety or perfect care in the performance of the operation, and cases had even been known in which syphilitic eruptions had been caused by vaccination from an apparently healthy child. These and similar facts naturally created alarm; and he thought, therefore, that while the law should be enforced quietly and judiciously the accumulated penalties did more harm than good. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee of this House be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether a limitation of the accumulation of penalties for nonvaccination can be effected without endangerActs,"-(Sir Joseph Pease,) ing the practical efficiency of the Vaccination instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: Sir, if the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) meant nothing more than it expresses, a very short argument would be necessary to meet it. But it must be read between the lines, as a distinct attack on vaccination, root and branch. When my hon. Friend began his agitation, he did not dispute the protective powers of vaccination; but he objected to its compulsory application. That is all that is implied in express terms in his Resolution now; but his speech shows it means much more than it expresses. In the mind of my hon. Friend, vaccination itself is an evil thing, and ought to be extirpated. If he so believed, his Resolution ought to express his belief, and he should bring in a Prohibitory Act, as was done in the case of inoculation in 1840. My hon. Friend and the Association with which he acts attack vaccination on two grounds. The to call attention to what vaccination really is; and I hope the House will not surrender itself entirely to medical opinion, but that it will consider for itself. Let us see what certain medical men say as to this horrible poisoning. Many are shocked at this practice already; and, if not, I believe they will be as soon as they are fortified by inquiry into the matter. The famous John Hunter, no doubt, by some, may be said to be old-fashioned; but the Medical Profession regard him still as one of the greatest physiologists. He did for himself what Dr. Corey has done, inoculated himself to test scientific results, and gives his opinion that "Any extraneous substance introduced into the blood modifies the vitalized or living fluid. The introduction, by communication, of minerals or vegetable poisons is hazardous, and in certain cases may be destructive; but the introduction of animal products from any living body, be it a man, a cow, or an ass, is infinitely more pernicious, because, like it, it is vitalized." denied it and jeered at it. But, in a few days, it transpired that Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, one of the greatest authorities on syphilis, could give evidence on the subject. He came before the same Committee, and stated that it was too true that syphilis was conveyed by vaccination, and gave it as his opinion that it was impossible to tell in all cases whether the child from whom lymph was to be taken was or was not syphilitic. A Member of this House described to me the results of re-vaccination upon himself. He was urged to be re-vaccinated some three years ago, and at last, on the persuasion of his doctor, he gave way. What was the result? The doctor said-"I have found a good subject-a most beautiful child -Ï know all its history-from which to procure the vaccine. The child is a perfect picture of health." My friend was vaccinated from that child, and in a fortnight or three weeks he broke out with a most loathsome eruption, extending from head to foot. There was nothing to justify or account for it but the vaccination. The disease would not yield to treatment, and my friend was sent to Harrogate to take the waters. There he put himself under another physician, who informed him that he had been vaccinated with impure lymph. Here was a Member of this House, possessing every security that wealth could give him, and able to obtain the highest medical services. Then, compare the case of a poor man compelled to bring his child to the public vaccinator, and who cannot help himself. A police magistrate for London told me that more than once he has had a child brought to him who was one mass of Those who have been congratulating sores. The mother said "The child themselves on being re-vaccinated will, was well till it was vaccinated," and the perhaps, take that piece of evidence, magistrate believed it. This is testi- and discuss it in relation to their own mony as to suffering which is still case. Dr. Buchanan has taken upon going on. Now, this is what the anti- himself to deal very hardly with the vaccinators protest against, and it is reputation of a brother medical man, what the whole Medical Profession has Dr. Guy, the vaccinator in the Norwich denied. Even Mr. Simon, who had de- disasters, in regard to this matter. Dr. nied the possibility, admitted that among Guy has in his time been rewarded and the replies he got to some 500 or 600 complimented; but Dr. Buchanan first applications he had sent out to medical ascribes malpractice to Dr. Guy in the men abroad, two or three of them had use of ivory points, and then admits that mentioned similar facts to him. The there is an inferior sort of ivory, unknown famous French surgeon, M. Ricord, re- to the operator, which might possibly ferred to already by my hon. Friend, retain that which would infect the vacgave his testimony that it was so. I cine. See how that points in the dishould like, as my hon. Friend has done, rection we are indicating-that there Mr. Hopwood That will be recognized as being true in the future. Many of the Medical Profession are opposed to that opinion, because they believe that such stuff as this is a preventive of a disease of which they exaggerate the proportions, and in regard to which they deny their own powers of treatment. A medical Staff officer in the Prussian Army, referring to the effects of vaccination on disease, says successfully re-vaccinated; and yet, in the exer"I myself have been vaccinated, and twice cise of my official medical duties during the late outbreak in Prussia, I have been attacked with small-pox in the most virulent and confluent form." are many possible chances in this opera- | when that City happened to possess tion to communicate disease. There may be neglect on the part of the vaccinator, for whom it is to be said that he has to get through a large number of cases in a short time. And yet you ask us to accept vaccination by compulsion, when you have not taken the commonest precautions of science to ascertain whether the operation may be safely performed! You are forcing this upon our population, when you have no right to do it. Dr. Buchanan wrote a Memorandum some time ago, in which he demonstrated the extraordinary benefits of vaccination. He said 1,000,000 of inhabitants, some 4,000 persons died in one year of small-pox. Therefore, these vaccinators now say that the deaths before vaccination was introduced into London were 4,000 per 1,000,000. It is quite as unfair as if I took the epidemic years of 1871-2, and said so many thousands had died under vaccination, and had given that average per 1,000,000. The House may be surprised to learn that in 1881 there were 57,000 deaths from bronchitis, 48,000 from phthisis, 33,000 from heart disease, 17,000 from scarlet fever, 13,000 from whooping cough, and 13,000 from "Of course, the vaccinated and the unvac- cancer. I will not mention such causes cinated live under the same conditions." as drowning by accident; but pleurisy He ought to have known that there are caused from 1,200 to 1,300 deaths, and a large number of persons who cannot boils 1,066. I come on to small-pox, safely be vaccinated, either from ill- the deaths from which are given at 648. health, or from proneness to inflamma- [Ironical cheers.] Will hon. Gentlemen tory disease, and who are more likely tell me why, in 1871-2, there died 44,000 than any others to catch the small-pox of small-pox? Then the population had and die of it. The unvaccinated class been vaccinated, for vaccination had consists of those who cannot be vacci- been brought into perfect play in 1857, nated because it is dangerous-children and the population was enjoying its unand others. But it consists also of all restricted advantages. Now, I want to your nomad population, of your arabs, point out the increase of the deaths from tramps, and poor people, who live under infantile diseases in one year owing, as the conditions most opposed to health, we contend, to vaccination. The arguand most likely to render them liable to ment on the one side is, small-pox once this disease. Now, what do you think very rife; now very greatly reduced. of the reasoning laid before the British The catechism founded upon that is this public by the head of the Medical De--What is the cause that scarlet fever is partment of the Local Government so rife? The answer is-" Nature." Board? It is that, from a medical and statistical point of view, the unvaccinated and the vaccinated live under exactly the same conditions. I hope before we have gone on long we may begin to use our own judgment, as well as rely on eminent medical men. I would call the attention of the House to a case in which a poor woman, an inmate of St. Pancras Workhouse, in this Metropolis, was, by order of the medical officer, vaccinated within a few hours of her confinement; and I would ask if the Department will stop that most inhumane practice? I do not believe that the Medical Profession, as a body, approve of the practice. It is monstrous that poor waifs and strays, in such circumstances, should be subjected to vaccination when ad-unvaccinated."" mitted to a workhouse. You will be surprised to hear that small-pox is 72nd in the order of diseases and in the order of fatality last year. It is said that last century, during an epidemic in London, "Vac What is the cause when it diminishes? But people say to I |