POCK-MARKED FACES.
One of the arguments for vaccination at this day runs thus—“How do you account for the absence of pock-marked faces? When I was young, forty years ago, nothing was commoner than countenances disfigured by smallpox.” Occasionally the reminiscence is transferred to a mother or grandmother, who is reported to have said that she remembered when every third or fourth person was pitted.
We need not take seriously the motherly or grand-motherly reminiscences, so apt to be touched with the glamour of years. Confining ourselves to living memories, the owners thereof may, perhaps, be surprised to learn that the transformation for which they personally avouch was effected before they were born, or were qualified observers; and before vaccination was sufficiently practised to have wrought the change; and here is the evidence, as set forth in the reports of the National Vaccine Establishment, and printed by order of the House of Commons. Under the following dates we read—
1822.—As a proof of the protecting influence of Vaccination, we appeal confidently to all who frequent theatres and crowded assemblies to admit that they do not discover in the rising generation any longer that disfigurement of the human face which was obvious everywhere some years since.
1825.—The deaths by Smallpox amounted to 1,299 in 1825, a much greater number than has been reported for some years past. From this melancholy statement it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the lower orders of society continue to be prejudiced against Vaccination, and allow Smallpox to take its course.
And yet what argument more powerful can be urged in favour of Vaccination than the daily remark which the least observant must make, that in our churches, our theatres, and in every large assemblage of the people, to see a young person bearing the marks of Smallpox is now of extremely rare occurrence.
To what can the freedom from the vestiges of so loathsome a disease be attributed, but to the protecting influence of Vaccination? for Variolation has now been disused by all respectable practitioners for some time past.
1837.—The rarity of an example of disfigurement by Smallpox now to be found in the theatres, in churches, or in any large assemblage of the people, affords proof that Vaccination has lost none of its efficacy.
Pock-marked faces are by no means uncommon at this day in London, though their number has diminished through more careful nursing and the use of well-known means for preventing disfigurement; and whoever cares to pursue the inquiry will discover that the majority of the marked have been vaccinated and many re-vaccinated—a proof that it is not the rite which prevents the scars.
The general impression we derive from the reports of the Establishment, 1808-40, is that they proceeded from men who were committed to vaccination, but had no profound faith in its efficacy; who were averse from the admission of its impotence, and ultimately held by it as possibly the best available defence against smallpox. With ample means and opportunities for investigation, they made no discovery, nor achieved any advance in practice, nor apparently conceived that there was either discovery or advance to be made. They accepted smallpox as a mysterious ordinance of Nature, with cowpox for a probable antidote, and there stuck fast, thoughtless and helpless. They did not even observe that smallpox was specially a disease of the young and the poor, nor deduce conclusions therefrom. They had their money, and went through an appropriate routine, and there their action ended.
FOOTNOTES:
[275] History and Practice of Vaccination, p. 223.
[276] History and Practice of Vaccination, p. 226.
[277] Baron’s Life of Jenner, vol. ii., p. 398.
[CHAPTER XXXVI.]
THE NATIONAL VACCINE ESTABLISHMENT—1841-50.
Along with the prohibition of Variolous Inoculation in 1840, Parliament passed an Act for the provision of Vaccination out of the poor-rate. A scheme had been formulated and petitioned for by the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association in 1838, with the expectation that the Government might be induced to create a multitude of places for “regularly educated vaccinators, with suitable salaries, in districts sufficiently numerous to embrace the whole of the poor population of the country.” The House of Commons being of a thrifty turn in those days, did not however favour such a magnificent development of place and pay under the National Vaccine Establishment, and disposed of the project by referring the provision of vaccination to the parochial authorities, who might be trusted to do what was needful with due regard to economy. In every union, and in every parish that was not in union, it was provided that there should be one or more medical practitioners appointed by the Guardians for the gratuitous vaccination of the inhabitants, with remuneration from the rates according to the number operated upon.[278] This accession to their burdens met with anything but welcome from the ratepayers in general. Contracts for vaccination at so much per head were submitted for competition, and those who accepted the rite at the public expense were spoken of as paupers, and in some places had their names published to “shame them.” To remove the stigma of pauperism from the parish prophylaxy, an Act was passed in 1841 in which it was declared that public vaccination was not of the nature of “parochial relief, alms, or charitable allowance,” and did not therefore deprive the recipient of any “right or privilege,” or subject him “to any disability or disqualification whatsoever.”[279]
The reports of the National Vaccine Establishment from 1841 to 1850 continued to be of the same perfunctory character. They usually started with a profession of confidence in vaccination, after the fashion of Mrs. Micawber’s resolution never to desert Micawber; the signature to which declaration by the President and Senior Censor of the Royal College of Physicians, and the President of the Royal College of Surgeons being accompanied with a douceur of £100 to each. For example, we read—
1841.—Smallpox has prevailed epidemically with considerable severity since our last Report; but we do not abate an iota of our confidence in Vaccination as the best protective against its malignant influence.
1845.—The unabated confidence with which we continue to regard Vaccination, etc., etc.
1847.—Nothing has occurred to diminish our confidence in the protective influence of Vaccination. It is true that Smallpox has now and then reappeared; and lately to an extent which has called for additional efforts on the part of all the officers of the Establishment; but we regard such recurrence as due to the ordinary operations of those periodical influences which give to the disease its epidemic character; and in some localities, as in Ireland, to that distress with which contagious diseases are so invariably associated.
The reporters apparently forgot that according to the doctrine of which they were the representatives, vaccination excluded the possibility of smallpox under whatever circumstances of atmosphere, filth, or privation. If only effective in the absence of the ordinary conditions of smallpox, wherein consisted the benefit of the rite?
Ceely of Aylesbury in 1839, and Badcock of Brighton in 1840, succeeded in inoculating cows with smallpox, and the resulting virus was described as cowpox, and used for vaccination far and wide. Apparently the procedure was not approved by the Vaccine Establishment, for we read in the report—
1841.—The matter we employ is obtained by succession from the original virus communicated by Dr. Jenner himself, and that we find is as effectual as ever. We may be excused therefore, we hope, if we discourage an incautious dissemination of matter obtained from new sources, which has not stood the test of ample experience.
The original virus communicated by Jenner himself! What was it? When the National Vaccine Establishment was instituted in 1808, the virus in circulation in London was accepted as stock, and it certainly had several origins. It was cowpox as discovered by Pearson; it was horsegrease cowpox and horsepox as derived from Jenner; and there is reason to believe it was smallpox from Woodville and others. The claim, therefore, to the possession of a specific variety of matter communicated by Jenner was fictitious.
Again, through the recurrent failure of vaccination to avert smallpox, the Board had to discountenance the assertion that their virus had lost its virtue through prolonged transmission—a reason which led some to prefer the fresh variolous stocks of Ceely and Badcock—
1840.—The experience of another year has afforded proofs of the propriety, in the present state of our knowledge, of preferring Vaccine Matter, the produce of the original virus furnished by Dr. Jenner, which has now passed happily through successive generations of subjects in the course of 43 years, and which forms the principal source of our supply, to any which may have been recently taken from the cow.
Here we have “the original virus furnished by Dr. Jenner” set forth as no more than “the principal source of supply.” The reports are characterised by many similar inconsistencies—
1845.—We regard as erroneous the belief that Vaccine Virus undergoes deterioration by being kept; in proof of which we are prepared to establish, by unquestionable documents, the striking fact, that Lymph which had been conveyed to and from India has retained its protective properties wholly unimpaired after a lapse of 20 years.
Another vexation of the Board was due to the assertion that the protective virtues of vaccination gradually wore out, and that the repetition of the rite was necessary for the maintenance of salvation. In the London Medical Gazette, 2nd August, 1844, it was proclaimed—
We are sorry to announce the extensive prevalence of Smallpox at this time among us. Revaccinate, Revaccinate, say we.
Such advice was essentially heretical and damnable; for Jenner affirmed and maintained—
That the human frame, when once it has felt the influence of the genuine Cowpox, is never afterwards, at any period of its existence, assailable by Smallpox.
If revaccination were possible, smallpox after vaccination was possible; and if so much were conceded, on what ground was vaccination to be defended? Whatever the facts, the members of the Board resolved to stand loyally by the primitive Jennerian doctrine, and in their Report for 1851 thus testified—
It may be expedient to remind the public of the established fact which the Board upon former occasions anxiously insisted upon, that the restriction of the protective power of Vaccination to any age, or to any term of years, is an hypothesis contradicted by experience, and wholly unsupported by analogy.
Notwithstanding the prohibition of Variolous Inoculation, the Board had repeatedly to deplore its continuance especially in Ireland. Thus we read—
1850.—The Board again entreat the attention of the Government to the fact that Inoculation for the Smallpox still continues; and that the disease is communicated by vagrants to those unprotected by Vaccination in town and country. The contagion is carried throughout the land by wandering Irish, and no care, however great, can be successful in eradicating Smallpox, whilst the neglect of Vaccination and the practice of Variolous Inoculation are permitted in Ireland.
It was Jenner’s practice to attribute to wilful blindness and innate depravity any scepticism as to the efficacy of vaccination; and throughout the Reports of the Establishment this habit of imputation was maintained. Vaccination was treated as a sort of divine revelation, plenary and manifest, which could only be disputed or resisted from deliberate perversity, or, more charitably, from abject dulness or ignorance; and it would be easy to construct a catena of piquant deliverances under this semi-theological persuasion. Such observations as the following were of the order of matter-of-course—
1850.—We regret to learn that in our own country the spread of Vaccination is still materially impeded by influences emanating from ignorance and prejudice in the lower orders, and from prejudices in many who cannot plead the excuse of ignorance.
1851.—It is lamentable to observe not only the indifference, but the active hostility displayed by the community to Vaccination. Deeply-rooted prejudices and absurd superstitions are ever opposing its adoption.
The Reports of the Establishment year after year displayed in full measure the familiar complacency of official routine—where pay is constant and wheels propelled from office desks revolve smoothly in space—so many Londoners vaccinated, so many charges of virus distributed, and confidence in the sacred prophylactic unabated. A revolution was, however, impending. The attitude of the public mind toward disease had become transformed. Faith in sanitation as a preventive of fevers had been created, and a popular demand for sanitary improvement had set in. Under cover of this new enthusiasm some of the shrewder advocates of vaccination conjectured that it would be possible to effect its endowment and establishment on a scale hitherto unattempted in England. It was true that vaccination had no relation to sanitation; but the reforming and philanthropic mob were madly in favour of whatever bore the promise of health, and were not likely to show themselves hypercritical or obstructive.
The first movement toward a new advance is discernible in the Report of the Establishment for 1850 wherein we read—
The Board have had to solicit the attention of Her Majesty’s Government on several occasions to the deplorable fact that a very large proportion of the children of the poorer classes in the Metropolis, and in England and Wales generally, but above all in Ireland, remain year by year without the benefit of Vaccination. Their testimony on this important part of the sanitary condition of the population has been derived from the reports of numerous competent medical witnesses in all parts of the United Kingdom, and from the frequent recurrence of rapid and fatal invasions of Smallpox, to which their attention has been repeatedly called by urgent applications for Vaccine Lymph. It is satisfactory to find that the representations which the Board have made are most unequivocally confirmed by the report of Mr. Grainger, from which it appears that the number of persons under one year who were vaccinated during the year ended 29th September, 1848, in 627 Unions of parishes in England and Wales (exclusive of those vaccinated at the cost of their parents) amounted to no more than 33 per cent., compared with the total number of births registered in the same period.
These figures are worth noting. Dating from 1840, an effort was made to overtake the vaccination of the people by the agency of the poor law; and yet so late as 1848, not more than one-third of the children born were accounted for as Jennerised. Adding to this third the offspring of the upper and middle classes, we may safely conclude that up to 1850 not half the inhabitants of England and Wales were vaccinated; and the unvaccinated half included the lower classes most subject to smallpox—victims of that “distress with which contagious diseases are so invariably associated,” to cite the words of the Report for 1847. The point is especially worth noting because the decline of smallpox, which set in last century, is continually ascribed to vaccination. A true cause however must be commensurate with the effect; and yet here we see the asserted cause of the fall in smallpox did not apply in 1848 to half the English people; in which half, moreover, lay nine-tenths of the field in which smallpox was possible. The Report for 1850 continues—
The Board lament that they have no means of adopting or enforcing such measures as are obviously necessary for the prevention of Smallpox. They have no power of instituting domiciliary visits, or house to house visitation; and indeed hitherto such have been deemed too much of an encroachment on the liberty of the subject. They have no power to punish officially the practice of illegal Inoculation, or the exposure of infected persons; and they have only had the means granted to them of prosecuting such offenders in two cases, in order to establish the fact of the illegality of Variolous Inoculation. They can only recommend and aid, but they cannot enforce Vaccination.
The progress of Vaccination is more rapid in Foreign Countries where municipal measures or legislative enactments are adopted to promote its dissemination; and they beg to express their conviction that if England is to be free from Smallpox, the interposition of the Legislature alone, by wise and comprehensive measures, can disarm the Pestilence of its terrors, and realise the fond hopes and prayers of the Friends of Humanity for its extinction.
In these observations is revealed the movement of a new spirit—of a revived resolution to obtain for vaccination the force of law. Similar projects had from time to time been advanced by enthusiasts, and swept aside by statesmen. Canning, for instance, had declared that he could not imagine any circumstances whatever that would induce him to consent to the compulsory infliction of vaccination; and, at a later date, Sir Robert Peel expressed himself to like effect, saying, “To make vaccination compulsory, as in some despotic countries, would be so opposite to the mental habits of the British people, and the freedom of opinion wherein they rightly glory, that I never could be a party to such compulsion.”[280] But Peel died in 1850, and a strong public opinion in favour of sanitary reform had come into existence without much scruple as to methods. Diseases, hitherto regarded as supernatural inflictions, were traced to conditions of life, remediable or avertible; so that the submission and terror which sickness formerly inspired gave place to widely different sentiments—a temper of intolerance with illness, and a determination to extirpate its infectious forms with those who in ignorance or wilfulness should persist in their generation and diffusion.
FOOTNOTES:
[278] 3 & 4 Vict., cap. 59.
[279] 4 & 5 Vict., cap. 32.
[280] Report of Royal Jennerian and London Vaccine Institution, 1853.
[CHAPTER XXXVII.]
VACCINATION ENFORCED—1853.
Vaccination, it will be objected, had no connection with sanitary reform. True: it had none; but the dull public when possessed with a new enthusiasm is not apt to discriminate; and those who had an interest in pushing vaccination found their operations facilitated by the rising faith in the preventibility of disease; their promise of saving the country from smallpox seeming of a piece with much else that had become credible.
Yet, strange to say, the credit of vaccination had never fallen lower than prior to its enforcement. The proof is written at large in the reports of the National Vaccine Establishment from 1831 to 1850, which it is difficult to peruse without perceiving them to be the testimonies of half-hearted officials to a generation grown sceptical and indifferent. The medical literature of the time reflects the same uncertainty and doubt. Vaccination was admitted to be no sure defence against smallpox: it might, it probably did, mitigate the disease when it occurred; and, in the absence of anything better, its practice was advisable; but on such terms, what scope was there for its advocacy! In the writings of Dr. George Gregory, this scepticism is so pronounced, that he scarcely hesitates to recommend a reversion to inoculation with smallpox. A like scepticism as to the virtue of vaccination with a like disposition to return to variolous inoculation, is exhibited by Dr. Copland in his Dictionary of Practical Medicine, 1844-58—a work of high repute, and the standard of medical opinion for the time. In short, vaccination was subject to general distrust; every claim made for it had been belied; and except for its endowment by the State, and the determination of sundry adventurers to have that endowment enlarged, the practice would gradually have fallen into disuse.
The same absence of confidence in vaccination was conspicuous in the school of sanitary reformers. It was of the essence of their revelation that smallpox was as preventible as other fevers, and by the same methods. I might, indeed, challenge any one to produce aught from the utterances of the early apostles of sanitation in deliberate or explicit praise of vaccination. The prescription might not be formally condemned; it might even be cursorily approved; but it was foreign to the tenor of their doctrine, and its recommendation must have died in their throats. Dr. Southwood Smith delivered two lectures in Edinburgh in 1855 on the Prevention of Epidemics, but of smallpox as preventible by vaccination he said not a word. On the contrary, this was his testimony, his all inclusive testimony—
Overcrowding we can prevent; the accumulation of filth in towns and houses we can prevent; the supply of light, air, and water, together with the several other appliances included in the all-comprehensive word Cleanliness, we can secure. To the extent to which it is in our power to do this, it is in our power to prevent epidemics.
The human family have now lived in communities more than six thousand years, yet they have not learnt to make their habitations clean. At last we are beginning to learn the lesson. When we shall have mastered it, we shall have conquered epidemics.
Among the upper and middle classes distrust in vaccination was general. How, indeed, could it be otherwise? All were vaccinated, yet whenever smallpox was epidemic, recipients of the rite enjoyed no immunity. In one of Miss Mitford’s letters we find an experience and a judgment which were far from uncommon. Writing, 1st February, 1850, she observed—
About two months ago, my man, a very steady and respectable servant, was seized with Smallpox after Vaccination. He was very, very ill, delirious nearly a fortnight, and not a nurse could be had for love or money. I have lost all faith in Vaccination, either as preventing or mitigating Smallpox. I know of thirty severe cases this winter, five of them fatal, in my own immediate neighbourhood, and in Reading it has been a pestilence.[281]
Vaccination among the poor was (as it is) detested. Coaxed or forced into its reception without consideration or preparation, like sheep or cattle, they realised its mischiefs and misery in full measure; and naturally, whenever pressure was relaxed, avoided its acquaintance.
How then did vaccination come to be imposed upon a community thus affected? The answer is the usual one, illustrated continually in English politics: an organised interest, possessed with a definite intention, can always prevail over the public—careless, uninstructed, and without positive conviction. Under such circumstances, it is a mere question of management what may be achieved in Parliament at variance with the common welfare. Those there get, who know how to take.
All trades and professions fulfil the law of their being in striving after advantage and extension. The clergy and the clerically-minded laity are persuaded that to multiply churches and provide stipends, is to prepare for the millennium, and nothing save hopelessness prevents demands upon the national exchequer for the purpose. The sacrifices the army and navy would exact on their own behalf for security from foreign aggression are only limited by the public incredulity. The commercial classes are free-traders in principle; but if a protective bounty could be had for any manufacture, it would be instantly grasped at by those concerned, and most ingenious reasons invented to justify that particular departure from the rule of justice. This tendency of interests to aggrandise themselves, per fas et nefas, at the public expense, is recognised by all statesmen, and is only kept in check by perpetual vigilance.
What is true of all, is true of the medical profession, crowded with competitors eager for employment. Vaccination as a branch of business, capable of development and endowment at the public cost, was certain of vigorous promotion whenever there was opportunity; but not until 1853 did the way open for the compulsory infliction of the Jennerian rite. The undertaking was hazardous. The opposition to which Canning and Peel had given expression, had to be circumspectly encountered. It was a job that might easily be wrecked; and therefore it was considered inexpedient that the medical corporations should appear too openly in the transaction. Instead, a committee was formed in 1850 under the title of “The Epidemiological Society for the Investigation of Epidemic Diseases,” with a number of suitable decoys, and ostensible occupation; but chiefly designed as an instrument wherewith to operate on Parliament for the better establishment and more liberal endowment of vaccination.
It was resolved to proceed tentatively—to secure if possible the affirmation of compulsion, allowing the shock of innovation to subside before going on to provide the effective means of espionage and persecution. As it turned out, the caution exercised was superfluous. Much more might have been demanded and conceded of the ignorance and indifference of the legislature. Lord Lyttelton was selected to introduce what was called the Vaccination Extension Bill, and in moving the second reading in the House of Lords on 12th April, he ingenuously disowned any qualification for the task, saying—
I have no scientific knowledge of the subject myself, and for my information I am indebted to some able and learned persons belonging to the Epidemiological Society—
Adding in proof of the manner in which he had been crammed by the said “able and learned persons”—
It is unnecessary for me to speak of the certainty of Vaccination as a preventive of Smallpox, that being a point on which the whole medical profession have arrived at complete unanimity!
The statistics with which Lord Lyttelton supported the necessity for compulsion are interesting as indicating the extent and irregularity of vaccination among the English people. He said—
We are told that the number of births registered in England and Wales in the year ending 29th September, 1852, was 601,839, and the number vaccinated under the Act of 1840 was 397,128; so that, in round numbers, 400,000 were vaccinated by the machinery in force, leaving only 200,000, or one-third of the whole number, to be treated by private vaccination. There are several fallacies in that statement. The general result is by no means the consequence of anything like a uniform system throughout the country. I have before me a detailed statement of the extent of Vaccination in various parts of England in 1851, which shows there is great want of uniformity in certain districts. In towns where people have a shorter distance to go to get their children vaccinated, the result is more favourable than in the rural districts. For example, in Birmingham, on the total number of births in 1851, the vaccinations were 91 per cent.; in Leicester they were only 41 per cent.; and in Loughborough only 18 per cent. The contrast between the manufacturing and the rural districts is favourable on the side of the former. In Bideford, the vaccinations were only 11 per cent. upon the births; in West Ashford in Kent, they were only 22 per cent.; and in Winchcomb only 6 per cent. While the general average is lower in the agricultural than in the manufacturing districts, some contrary instances are found. Thus in Derby the vaccinations are only 42 per cent.; while at Watford, which is a rural district, the vaccinations were 126 per cent. upon the births in 1851—which included, of course, the vaccination of children born in previous years. But in London, and in no less a parish than that of St. James, Westminster, it is reported that in 1851 on 973 births only 44 vaccinations took place; while in Wellingborough Union, where there were 800 births in 1851, no vaccination at all is reported!
Strange to say, Lord Lyttelton made no attempt to complete his argument. He ought to have shown that in the places where vaccination was least practised there was most smallpox, and where most practised there was least smallpox. Had he made the attempt, his eyes might have been opened to the untrustworthy character of “the able and learned person” by whom he had been mendaciously primed.
Lord Shaftesbury, in supporting the measure, adduced similar instances of neglected vaccination as follows—
| Births 1851. | Vaccinations. | |
| Paddington | 1458 | 386 |
| Hampstead | 286 | 93 |
| Huntingdon | 805 | 68 |
| St. Neots | 671 | 17 |
| Carnarvon | 929 | 125 |
| Bangor and Beaumaris | 1025 | 420 |
| Newton Abbott | 1563 | 150 |
He, too, forgot to show that these places were “decimated” (that’s the word) with smallpox, whilst other places where vaccination was generally practised enjoyed exemption. On the contrary, with curious inconsequence, he went on to recommend a sure prescription of his own, namely, improved dwellings for the poor. These were his words—
It is perfectly true that Smallpox is chiefly confined to the lowest classes of the population; and I believe that with improved lodging-houses, the disease might be all but exterminated.
Not a doubt of it; but if improved lodging-houses would “all but exterminate smallpox,” why resort to such a superfluity as vaccination?
There was no adverse discussion—indeed, no discussion whatever. Lord Ellenborough observed of the Epidemiological Society, under whose direction they were legislating, that he “would not adventure upon the extraordinary name by which the members are designated.” The bill was read for the third time, nem. diss., on 18th April, and was introduced to the House of Commons on 5th May, where its course was as uninterrupted as in the Lords. Sir John Pakington, in moving the second reading on 20th July, pleaded like Lord Lyttelton his own ignorance, and the evidence and authority of the Society with “the extraordinary name,” thus stating the case—
An Act was passed in 1840, by which Boards of Guardians were authorised to defray the expenses of Vaccination in their respective unions. The Poor Law Board have done all in their power to carry out the provisions of the Act; but still the grave fact remains, that the system is voluntary: that in many places the people are prejudiced; that a large proportion of the population is not vaccinated; and that mortality from Smallpox exists to a very great extent. In the year ending March, 1843 out of 527,325 born in England and Wales, only 183,000 or 34 per cent. were vaccinated. In the succeeding years the vaccinated stood to the unvaccinated in the following ratio:—
1844-45, 100 to 156 | 1845-46, 100 to 134
In 1846-47 the births were 552,000 of which only 267,000 were vaccinated, or about 50 per cent. of the whole. In consequence, however, of stimulus applied by the Poor Law Board, two-thirds of the births in 1847-48 were accounted for as vaccinated; but still in many parts there prevails excessive neglect. For example, so late as 1851 in 32 unions in and around Birmingham, the births were 17,700 while the vaccinations were only 6,174—two-thirds being unvaccinated.
Here, too, we note the omission of proof, that where vaccination was neglected smallpox was prevalent, and where practised smallpox was absent. Lord Palmerston supported the second reading without hesitation. Sir George Strickland was the only dissentient, saying—
Sir John Pakington has himself supplied the strongest reason why the bill should not pass. He has shown that Vaccination as at present conducted is working well; but because some mothers object to the practice, we are to be saddled with a compulsory law. We are too prone to resort to force to overcome resistance, which would yield to reason with the exercise of patience. What need is there that we should imitate the legislation of Saxony, or Austria, or Prussia in such a matter? In this country we cannot have one law for the poor and another for the rich, and yet here we are asked to apply a measure to the former which we could not think of for the latter. How can we expect to abate prejudice against Vaccination by compulsion? If we acted more on the old English principle of leaving people to secure their welfare by their own good sense, we should in the end achieve our purpose much more successfully.
The bill was read, for the third time in the House of Commons without debate on the 13th, and received the royal assent on 20th August, 1853. In short, it passed through Parliament without opposition. What, it will be asked, were its provisions?
By the Act (16 and 17 Vict. cap. 100) it was required—
1. That every child, whose health permits, shall be vaccinated within three, or in case of orphanage within four months of birth, by the public vaccinator of the district, or by some other medical practitioner.
2. That notice of this requirement, and information as to the local arrangements for public vaccination, shall, whenever a birth is registered, be given by the registrar of births to the parents or guardians of the child.
3. That every medical practitioner who, whether in public or private practice, successfully vaccinates a child shall send to the local registrar of births a certificate that he has done so; and the registrar shall keep a minute of all the notices given, and an account of all the certificates thus received.
4. That parents or guardians who, without sufficient reason, after having duly received the registrar’s notice of the requirement of Vaccination, either omit to have a child duly vaccinated, or, this being done, omit to have it inspected as to the results of Vaccination, shall be liable to a penalty of £1; and all penalties shall be recoverable under Jervis’s Act, and shall be paid toward the local poor-rate.
Thus from 1853 every English parent became liable to a fine of twenty shillings and costs who refused or neglected to have his child vaccinated within three months of birth. It may seem surprising that an Act so arbitrary, enforcing an indefinite medical prescription (for Vaccination was not defined, and Vaccination is a rite of several varieties) should have been passed so lightly; but we have to recollect the circumstances. The House of Commons in those days was the house of the upper and middle classes, and was as little affected as the House of Lords itself by the proposed legislation. It was an Act for application to the vulgar—to the prejudiced, whose prejudices were to be encountered, not with arguments, but with fines; an illustration of the levity with which the unconcerned can dispose of the opinions and feelings of those to whom they owe no allegiance. Since that time the working-classes have plainly discovered that they only obtain consideration in Parliament in so far as they can make their power felt in the constitution of Parliament. No rights are secure that cannot be enforced, nor any justice certain that cannot be vindicated. Those who hold their ground by any other tenure than their own intelligence and vigour are liable to continual imposition and depredation.
The good old rule, the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can—
is the abiding social law, however veiled or elevated in application.
Again we have to recollect, that in 1853 there was no developed or scientific resistance to vaccination. As to the nature and value of the practice there was wide diversity of opinion, notwithstanding Lord Lyttelton’s affirmation of the complete unanimity of the medical profession; but although such scepticism was general, the rite constituted an established poll-tax among the respectable classes, which sort of thing is never readily surrendered. Hence it seemed less unreasonable to enforce the like observance on “the ignorant and prejudiced” at the cost of the poor-rate. When Canning refused to consent to compulsion in 1808, cowpox had a competitor in smallpox inoculation; and Peel in his later protest expressed the preference of an expiring generation for living English liberty over cut-and-dry subservience. Despotic philanthropy was coming into vogue, and it was no longer thought impracticable or inexpedient to do good to people in spite of themselves. There was therefore little to be said against the Act of 1853 beyond what Sir George Strickland expressed. The right of the prejudiced and ignorant to the enjoyment of their prejudice and ignorance had become obsolete and indefensible.
The report of the Epidemiological Society was taken as the warrant for the Act of 1853 alike by the Lords and Commons. Turning to that report,[282] it is difficult in a few words to convey an adequate idea of its untruthful character. Whoever, it is said, wills the end wills the means; and certain medical men having resolved to make vaccination compulsory whatever was requisite had to be accomplished; and Dr. Seaton undertook the operation, the Epidemiological Society, of which he was “the ruling spirit”,[283] playing the part of guarantee. For the persuasion of the Lords and Commons, an advocacy of vaccination without hesitation or qualification was deemed advisable, and the line was thus followed up—
Smallpox is a disease to which every person is liable who is not protected by a previous attack or by Vaccination. In its unmodified form it is fatal to about one in four or one in five of all whom it invades; and, when it does not destroy life, it in many cases disfigures and deteriorates the general health. Every case of it is a centre of contagion, and every unvaccinated or imperfectly vaccinated population is a nidus for the disease to settle in and propagate itself. It is on the two latter propositions, which do not admit of being controverted, that we conceive any enactment for rendering Vaccination compulsory must be based. If it admit of doubt how far it is justifiable in this free country to compel a person to take care of his own life and that of his offspring, it can scarcely be disputed that no one has a right to put in jeopardy the lives of his fellow-subjects.
All will recognise the authoritative air of the foregoing, so impressive where nothing better is known; but the indisputable proposition, “that no one has a right to put in jeopardy the lives of his fellow-subjects,” was curiously inconsistent with faith in the asserted prophylactic; for if the vaccinated were secure from smallpox, how could the unvaccinated place their lives in jeopardy? The style assumed was thus maintained—
We are ourselves satisfied, and it is the concurrent and unanimous testimony of nearly 2,000 medical men with whom we have been in correspondence, that Vaccination is a perfectly safe and efficient prophylactic against this disease.
This proposition we hold to be proved—
1. By the general immunity with which it is found that those who have been vaccinated can mingle with Smallpox patients, a fact so familiar that we do not feel that we need adduce any illustration of it.
2. By the gradual decrease which has taken place in the mortality from Smallpox, as compared with the mortality from all causes, since Vaccination has been introduced and been generally received.
As to the immunity of the vaccinated, it was disproved in every smallpox epidemic, and in every smallpox hospital, and by the precautions and terrors of those accounted secure. To sustain the proposition that smallpox had decreased in consequence of the introduction of vaccination, a variety of statistical tables were adduced, English and Continental; but had the Lords or Commons subjected them to scrutiny they would have discovered that the details were either irrelevant or adverse to the conclusion asserted. Many of the statistics, especially of last century, were not certainties, but conjectures and estimates, vitiated, too, with the bias of their compilers. When it is said that smallpox decreased in consequence of the introduction of vaccination, the answer is that smallpox was decreasing prior to its introduction in almost every country of Europe; and that the decrease continued irrespective of its influence, save in so far as it might have discouraged the culture of smallpox by inoculation. To illustrate this contention it may suffice to take the table of London Smallpox set forth by Dr. Seaton, in which the average of deaths from Smallpox in every 1000 deaths from all causes was contrasted in decennial periods for fifty years, prior and subsequent to the introduction of vaccination.
| Prior to Vaccination. | Subsequent to Vaccination. | |||
| Ten Years ending— | Deaths from Smallpox. | Ten Years ending— | Deaths from Smallpox | |
| 1760 | 100 | 1810 | 64 | |
| 1770 | 108 | 1820 | 42 | |
| 1780 | 98 | 1830 | 32 | |
| 1790 | 87 | 1840 | 23 | |
| 1800 | 88 | 1850 | 16 | |
The figures are far from trustworthy, but taking them as they stand, and admitting the decline, where was the proof that it was due to vaccination? The introduction of that practice was one thing: its application quite another. There was no reason to believe that more Londoners were vaccinated in 1820 than in 1810, or in 1840 than in 1830; indeed, the available evidence went to the contrary, vaccination having fallen in repute after the furore of 1801-5, and the demonstration of its impotence and its injuriousness. Probably not ten per cent. of the births in London up to 1840 were accounted for as vaccinated; and notwithstanding the provision of vaccination at the cost of the poor-rate by the Act of 1840, not fifty per cent. in 1850. Yet to a cause so utterly inadequate, the steady decline in London Smallpox was ascribed! The same fallacy pervaded the statistics of other countries and cities, yet so strong was the prepossession in favour of the conclusion determined upon, that it was apparently neither seen nor suspected, obvious though it was.
Nor was it surprising that with a disposition so fixed and obtuse, no enlarged or philosophic views should have been entertained. “Smallpox,” said Dr. Seaton, “had decreased compared with mortality from other causes.” True; but what if mortality from other causes had compensated for the decrease of smallpox? and if such compensation had taken place, as, for example, in Glasgow, in what consisted the advantage? Again, no reference was made to illness and death resulting from vaccination, as if the rite were harmless as baptism. Allowing that the practice did in some occult fashion tend to the abatement of smallpox, it was still open to question whether the infliction of an acute specific disease on all sorts and conditions of infancy was not likely to be far more injurious to life than the smallpox it was supposed to avert. Such considerations, however, were foreign to Dr. Seaton and his Epidemiological Society with whom vaccination stood for little else than an extension of medical business at the public cost.
It is not to be forgotten that the Act of 1853 brought to fruition what was long hankered after by the trade spirit of the medical profession. The Act of 1840 endowed vaccination out of the poor-rate; but to make the rite compulsory and to ensure good pay for its performance was the consummation desired. The terms and conditions that ensued on the Act of 1840 are thus described by Dr. Seaton—
The fee paid in England and Wales varies from 1s. to 2s. 6d., never falling below or rising above those sums. In 1842 and 1843, the Commissioners estimated the average fee at 1s. 9d. From our inquiries, it appears that in the large manufacturing towns the fee varies from 1s. to 1s. 6d.; the larger sums of 2s. and 2s. 6d. being paid for the most part in country towns. In London, the more ordinary fee is 1s. 6d.; in several parishes 2s. 6d. is paid; and in one, 1s. In some few unions a bad principle obtains of paying a larger sum for a certain number of cases, as 50, and a smaller sum for all above. The average payment per case for the whole of England and Wales from 1841 to 1851 inclusive, was 1s. 5½d.
In Ireland, the payment appears to be very low. The more general sum is 1s., often 6d.; in three or four instances, 3d. and 4d. The vicious principle just noticed, of paying a higher fee for a limited number of cases, seems to be almost universal. Thus, where 1s. is the fee, this is paid for the first 200 cases, and 6d. for all above. In one case, Nenagh, 1s. is paid up to 200, and 1d. for all above. In other cases, 3d. and 4d. are paid for all above a certain number. Whilst this pitiful remuneration exists, it is not surprising to find that in many districts the medical practitioners decline the appointment, leaving the people unvaccinated.
According to the information we have received, it is found, as might be anticipated, that on the whole Vaccination is more efficiently carried out in the districts where the higher fee of 2s. 6d. is paid; or where, as in large towns, the number and proximity of children compensate the vaccinator in some degree for lower payment.
The better pay, the better vaccination! The object of the Epidemiological Society, as the stalking-horse of the medical trades-unions, lay in those fees. Vaccination was a pretext for a universal poll-tax, set at as high a figure as practicable, to be succeeded when possible by compulsory revaccination, with a correspondent tariff annexed. Recalling the early days of vaccination when the operation was described as simplicity itself, and when women, parsons, and busybodies inoculated and propagated “the benign fluid” under Jenner’s authority, it was remarkable to have the rite thus formalised and converted into the peculium of a priesthood. Nor can it be objected that when vaccination was thus practised, it was ineffective against smallpox; for whenever its virtue is brought into dispute, we are referred to those primitive times and that primitive practice for the most successful and unquestionable exhibitions of its power.
Caveat emptor is a well-recognised caution, which to avoid was the purpose of the Epidemiological Society. A mercantile transaction was carried out under the cloak of impartial science. No reader of Seaton’s report could suppose otherwise than that vaccination was universally regarded as an infallible preventive of smallpox, and that if by any means the English people could be subjected to its observance, they would obtain immunity from the disease. Evidence to the contrary was kept out of sight; and yet evidence to the contrary lay within the knowledge of every medical man; and proof might be adduced to weariness from contemporary medical literature to show that in this respect the Epidemiological report was contrived to blind and mislead Parliament. As a witness, none will impugn Sir Henry Holland, and writing in 1839 he observed—
Not only in Great Britain, but throughout every part of the globe, we find that Smallpox has been gradually increasing in frequency as an epidemic; affecting a larger proportion of the vaccinated; and inflicting greater mortality in its results.
The early enthusiasm for the great discovery of Jenner swept doubts away; and they returned only tardily, and under the compulsion of facts.... Any explanation from the ignorant or imperfect performance of Vaccination was found insufficient to meet the number and variety of the proofs. And, though more palpable at one time than another, according to the greater or less prevalence of epidemic causes, yet every succeeding year has multiplied them, and every statement from other countries attested their truth.
It is no longer expedient, in any sense, to argue for the present practice of Vaccination as a certain or permanent preventive of Smallpox. The truth must be told, as it is, that the earlier anticipations on this point have not been realised.... Whether Smallpox may ever be wholly eradicated is a very doubtful question, and the probability is on the negative side.[284]
In statements like these, Dr. Holland did no more than express the contemporary conviction of the medical profession. Vaccination was not surrendered: whilst it was allowed that it could not be trusted to prevent smallpox, it was held that it made the disease milder, and that whilst its prophylaxy wore out, it was renewable by revaccination. Obvious it was that vaccination thus qualified could never obtain legislative sanction; but such sanction being imperatively demanded, the Epidemiological Society provided what was thought requisite for Parliamentary conviction.
It is said that Vaccination was a medical question; but all questions are transformed when they ascend to politics. The origin, character, and action of varieties of animal virus are mysteries, and may remain mysteries with general indifference; but when it is claimed that the inoculation of such virus prevents smallpox, and that whoever refuses to submit his child to the said inoculation shall be fined 20s., then the matter is brought within the personal jurisdiction of every citizen, and he becomes entitled to information, to the exercise of his judgment, and the expression of his opinion. As a mystery, vaccination belongs to experts; but as a Parliamentary preventive of smallpox it is within the discrimination of all who can observe and appreciate the evidence of numbers. For a legislator like Lord Lyttelton to confess his ignorance, and that he moved under the dictation of certain “able and learned persons,” was to abandon his proper function, and surrender himself to imposture.
FOOTNOTES:
[281] Memoirs. By C. Boner. Vol. i. p. 176.
[282] Letter from Dr. Edward Seaton to Viscount Palmerston with Report on Smallpox and Vaccination in England and Wales and other Countries, and on Compulsory Vaccination, with Tables and Appendixes presented to the Epidemiological Society. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 3rd May, 1853.
[283] British Medical Journal, 3rd July, 1880.
[284] Medical Notes and Reflections. By Henry Holland, M.D., F.R.S. London: 1839. Pp. 401, 415, 416.
[CHAPTER XXXVIII.]
UNIVERSAL COMPULSION DEMANDED—1855.
Under the terror of the 20s. fine, proclaimed everywhere by vaccinators voracious for fees, a prodigious extension of practice was effected in 1854. The vaccinations under one year of age were more than doubled; and nearly 300,000 children above one year old, to whom the law did not apply, were driven into the net, and “cut for the pox” at the public expense. Thus the public vaccinations of 1854 exceeded the births of that year by 75,000. Subsequently the rate fell off and fluctuated as appears from the following table for England and Wales—
| Years. | Births. | Public Vaccinations. | Years. | Births. | Public Vaccinations. | |
| 1853 | 601,223 | 376,218 | 1857 | 649,963 | 423,421 | |
| 1854 | 623,699 | 698,935 | 1858 | 654,914 | 468,008 | |
| 1855 | 623,181 | 464,099 | 1859 | 669,834 | 455,349 | |
| 1856 | 640,840 | 435,012 | 1860 | 689,060 | 494,942 |
Yet this extension of practice did not satisfy the medical adventurers of the Epidemiological Society. They pointed out that universal vaccination was the desideratum, and these results fell short of universality—
The Act of 1853 was intended to apply not to 65 per cent. of the births, but to every child born. A certain deduction, it is true, must be made for those privately vaccinated; and whilst there are no data for exactly estimating the proportion of these (which probably varies considerably in different parts of the Kingdom); yet taking the country throughout, there is reason to believe that not more than from 10 to 15 per cent. of the children born are so vaccinated; for it is found that in unions where particular care is bestowed upon public vaccination, the number publicly operated on is from 85 to 90 per cent. of the births. If we estimate 80 per cent. only, as the number requiring to be provided for by public vaccination, the results of last year [1854] fall short of those which should be attained by nearly 100,000.
This estimate is worth attention as sustaining a conclusion I have repeatedly tried to enforce. Prior to 1840, vaccination was a matter almost exclusively of private concern, extending to no more than 10 or 15 per cent. of the population—or, let us allow, 20 per cent.—and those chiefly the well fed, well clad, and well housed. Yet the diminution of smallpox, dating from a period in last century when variolous inoculation was in full practice and cowpox was unknown, is persistently ascribed to the introduction of vaccination which up to 1840 did not apply to more than one-fifth of the people; the four-fifths exempt from the prophylaxy being notoriously the chief factors of the disease!
Parliament having so readily consented to the Compulsory Act of 1853, it gave cause for acute chagrin that more had not been asked, when more might so easily have been had; and the operators behind the Epidemiological Society set to work to try whether the lost opportunity might not be retrieved. In a Memorial addressed to the President of the Board of Health in the name of the Society, in 1855,[285] we find a project developed which lacked nothing of audacity and comprehensiveness. First, the virtue of vaccination was asserted in unqualified terms—
Smallpox is the most preventive of diseases, differing from all other epidemic diseases in this remarkable respect, that while these latter can only be prevented by discovering and remedying the various conditions (as of crowding, want of drainage, filth, and the like) which give rise to or assist in the dissemination of the specific poison of each disease, the former may be guarded against and prevented by a direct prophylactic measure. To Smallpox, in short, there is an antidote. The same cannot be affirmed, in the present state of knowledge, of any other epidemic disease.
That antidote is Vaccination. In exact proportion as this has been efficiently practised, have the extent and severity of Smallpox been diminished over the surface of the world. To the neglect of it, or to its inefficient performance, is due the large existing mortality from the disease in this country.
Evidently the advice, Pecca fortiter, had been laid to heart by the framer of the preceding declaration. Certainly the scheme for which it stood as preamble required violent justification. It was no less than the institution of a Vaccination Office with despotic powers as a department of State. The appointment of public vaccinators subordinate to the Board of Guardians, subject to contract, and paid out of the poor-rate, was held to be a degrading form of service: it prejudiced vaccination as a form of alms, and reduced medical men to the rank of parochial officers. Worst of all, the pay was bad—
The provisions for the remuneration of public vaccinators have not been such as to secure their hearty and zealous co-operation. The most injurious consequences have undoubtedly resulted from this, both in limiting the numbers vaccinated, and in discouraging the vaccinators from giving that pains and attention to watch the progress of the Vaccine Disease which are imperatively necessary.
They must, therefore, be emancipated. An independent organisation, with a medical chief, was essential alike to the mystery and dignity of the craft, and the universal and efficient exercise of its functions. To save the country from smallpox, two conditions were requisite—
First, that it be made a matter of legal obligation on all persons resident within England and Wales, whether born within that portion of the Kingdom or not, to give evidence of being vaccinated.
Second, that to achieve this end, there be provided administrative science, zeal, and activity.
The union of these conditions is indispensable; either without the other will fail.
It was pointed out that the Act of 1853 only applied to children born in England and Wales after a certain date—
It does not extend to the whole existing population, nor to immigrants. It is well known that Smallpox is largely imported into this country, and kept up from Ireland. These Irish not only form a nidus for the disease in towns where they collect in large numbers, but they disseminate it throughout the country at harvest time, and in the season of hopping.
To fight and overcome smallpox, to meet and arrest epidemics, the law must be administered by qualified, zealous, and “adequately remunerated” officers; but “the keystone to any effective system” must be a commander-in-chief—
No compulsory enactment, however comprehensive and stringent; no alteration in the mode of appointing public vaccinators, however desirable; no additional remuneration and encouragement to them, however necessary, will be sufficient to secure the grand object to be had in view, the Universal diffusion of Vaccination and the Extinction of Smallpox, unless there be some competent and energetic Medical Officer to harmonise the whole system and keep it in constant activity; to examine continually its working, that what is defective may be immediately supplied; and, in cases in which it is required, to enforce the law, whether against those who refuse to submit themselves to Vaccination, or against those who, by travelling about, diffuse Smallpox throughout the Kingdom.
It was further said, “The changes thus proposed have long been looked forward to by the president and council of the Epidemiological Society as essential to a proper system of public vaccination”—of which, indeed, there was no doubt; for to effect the said changes was the chief end of the Society and of its ruling spirit, Dr. Edward C. Seaton. Though it may seem incredible, it will not surprise any who have studied the habit of the thorough-bred quack, that the designated commander-in-chief, “the keystone of the system,” the miraculous combination of scientific and administrative ability, was none other than the projector, Dr. Seaton himself! He it was who in fancy saw himself the elected head of the New Vaccination Office, with place and pay at his disposal, and power to examine and vaccinate every resident upon English soil.
The Memorial concluded with the opinion that in view of “the continued high rate of mortality from smallpox,” some measure should be concerted “for carrying out the alterations suggested during the present (1855) session of Parliament.”
It goes without saying that the project developed in the Memorial was an impracticability; and that it should have been “long looked forward to by the president and council of the Epidemiological Society” proves what manner of dreamers they were. The mortality from smallpox in England and Wales constituted, they said, 2 per cent. of the national mortality; but not even the reduction of the 2 per cent. could have reconciled the people to the New Vaccination Office with its ruling spirit, its expenditure, and its inquisitors. Bad as smallpox may be, there is worse than smallpox; and much worse would have been Dr. Seaton with his pernicious quackery and his intrusive myrmidons. The recrudescence of similar projects from time to time attests the existence of visionaries who not only misunderstand the temper and traditions of their countrymen, but the constitution of human nature itself.
The year 1855 was one of war and excitement, but a bill drawn on the lines of the Memorial was introduced to the House of Commons providing that from the 1st of January, 1856, the vaccination of the people should be committed to a medical superintendent with a medical staff, drawing their salaries from the Treasury, who would take over the existing local administration from the Poor Law authorities, and organise and develop it afresh. Further, it was provided—
That every adult person resident in England and Wales on 1st January, 1856, who had not already been successfully vaccinated, nor had Smallpox, be vaccinated by a duly qualified practitioner, or by a public vaccinator, within three months of that date, and submit to an inspection by the medical man, or public vaccinator, eight days after vaccination, under a penalty of £1.
That adults not born in England and Wales, and coming to reside therein, be vaccinated (if not already vaccinated) within three months of their arrival, under a penalty of £1.
That children be taken by their parents to be vaccinated within three months after 1st January, 1856, and be inspected eight days after vaccination, under a penalty of £1.
That children brought to England and Wales from other parts be vaccinated in like manner within three months of their arrival.
That children and adults be revaccinated until the operation is declared successful. If after repeated vaccinations, a patient prove insusceptible, a certificate to that effect shall protect him from the penalty otherwise rigidly inflicted.
That Public Vaccinators be entitled to a fee of 2s. 6d. for every child or adult successfully vaccinated within two miles of the Vaccinator’s residence, and 3s. 6d. if beyond that limit. That Medical Practitioners, not public vaccinators, be entitled to 1s. for every person entered by them on the register as vaccinated.
That a certificate of successful vaccination be granted for the trifling fee of 6d.
That the Superintendent be empowered to institute rigid inquiry and to prosecute for penalties wherever he suspects the regulations of the Act have been neglected or violated.
Here, indeed, was a dose of despotism for Englishmen! Nothing being done in 1855, there was time for reconsideration. It was felt that the withdrawal of vaccination from local administration was too revolutionary; and another bill was introduced in 1856, under the direction of Mr. W. F. Cowper, President of the Board of Health (dropping the New Vaccination Office), with provisions for the inspection and vaccination of children in public schools, and of emigrants; for revaccination in the event of epidemics; and for coroners’ inquests on unvaccinated children dying of smallpox. There was no popular demand for such legislation. It was promoted by a group of medical place-hunters operating under the mask of the Epidemiological Society. The solitary petition in its favour was presented, 26th May, 1856, by Mr. James Furness Marson, a comrade of Dr. Seaton in the direction of the Society. Marson was resident surgeon of the Smallpox Hospital at Highgate, and as evidence of his unscrupulous advocacy, we may take the following assertions—
Your Petitioner has, in the course of twenty years, vaccinated upwards of 40,000 persons, and has never seen any evil results traceable to Vaccination, with the exception of a single instance in which measles occurred at the same time, and four or five examples of rather severely sore arms arising from lymph recently taken from the cow. He has never seen other diseases communicated from the Vaccine Disease, nor does he believe in the popular reports that they are ever so communicated.
The mortality from Smallpox in the Unvaccinated, of cases taken generally, is 35 per cent.; and among the Vaccinated attacked by Smallpox it is 7 per cent.
Among children under fourteen years of age who have been vaccinated, Smallpox hardly ever proves fatal.
As an example of what can be done by efficient Vaccination, your Petitioner begs to state that not one of the servants or nurses of the Smallpox Hospital has had Smallpox for the last twenty years. They have all been either vaccinated or revaccinated on coming to live at the Hospital.
The Petitioner omitted to mention how many of the said servants and nurses had entered the Hospital as patients, and were pleased to remain as officials. Prevarication throughout was the note of Marson’s petition: he might argue that what he stated was true—true under conditions and reserves unstated.
It is often observed that the crafty never operate so successfully as when they have the earnest and ingenuous for instruments; and in Mr. Cowper, President of the Board of Health, the wire-pullers of the Epidemiological Society had just such a tool. He believed what he was told, and delivered it with his own sincerity. In moving the second reading of the Bill on 31st March, he represented its object as “nothing more than the consolidation and amendment of preceding Acts;” and went on to say—
It is admitted by every medical man whose opinion is worth a moment’s consideration, that Vaccination is a specific against Smallpox; of course I mean where the operation is properly performed. In fact, it is a point decided in the medical world that Vaccination, when properly performed, is a guarantee against Smallpox, except in extremely rare cases; and no evidence has been produced to justify the idea that it is attended with injurious consequences. Statistics show that in proportion as Vaccination is extended, the mortality from Smallpox is diminished.
And so on; the lesson being recited with all the docility of a good child. Mr. Henley struck a different note—
There is considerable dissatisfaction throughout the country with the mode in which Vaccination is performed. In my own neighbourhood, for example, the poor people complain that all sorts of eruptions appear on their children after the Vaccination they are compelled to undergo; and though they may be quite wrong, you cannot persuade them to the contrary. Then, too, I cannot approve of the transfer of Vaccination from the Guardians to a Central Medical Board. That change must be removed from the bill.
The second reading having passed unopposed on 31st March, and nothing more being heard of the bill, Mr. T. Duncombe, who knew the ropes of the parliamentary ship, grew suspicious, and on 7th July asked Mr. Cowper if he could fix a time when the bill would be brought on. Suspicion was amply justified by Mr. Cowper’s answer. He said—
The bill is not one in which Members take any great interest. It is one of that class of bills which are usually taken at a late period of the evening; and I hope the Hon. Member will not object to its being taken at the same time as other bills of similar character.
To which Mr. Duncombe replied—
If Hon. Members do not care for the bill, they do great injustice to the people, because it is a compulsory bill. Two hundred petitions have been presented against it, and only one in its favour. A more arrant job than this bill I never knew, and I hope an opportunity may be given me to oppose it.
Mr. Cowper’s simplicity was apparent in his answer. He said—
I do not mean that the bill is of no importance, for it is intended to check the ravages of a disease which kills thousands every year. What I intended was, that the opposition which my Hon. Friend offers is not shared by other Members. My Hon. Friend says the bill will make Vaccination compulsory; but Vaccination is compulsory already. The purpose of the bill is to consolidate and improve existing legislation. It would be much fairer if my Hon. Friend brought in a bill to repeal compulsion. I will not bring in the bill after 12 o’clock at night.
The pledge not to bring on the bill after midnight settled its fate. Its promoters, aware that its provisions would not hear discussion, had reckoned on its unopposed passage at an hour when members were few, weary, and indifferent. Mr. Duncombe’s vigilance defeated the scheme, which Mr. Cowper incontinently revealed. The bill was brought into Committee on 10th July, and the order for its reading discharged amid general satisfaction. Mr. Henley observed—
I am very glad this bill is withdrawn. The endeavour to make Vaccination compulsory has been most mischievous. Vaccination was quietly making its way. People were adopting it more and more; but from the moment it was made compulsory, they began to think every evil which happened to their children afterwards ensued from it. I have no objection to refer the question to a Select Committee as suggested, but whatever their report, nothing will satisfy me that it is advisable to make Vaccination compulsory.
Mr. Duncombe agreed that the course proposed was judicious—
The question is delicate and difficult, and investigation should precede legislation. In 1853, at a later period of the session than that at which we have arrived, the Compulsory Vaccination Act was smuggled through the House. Fortunately it became inoperative through its own defects, which it is now proposed to remove, and to make the law more stringent; but while I believe that great good has resulted from Vaccination, I do not think we should try to encourage it by penal enactment.
Mr. Cowper, in protesting against surrender, observed—
Some argue as if people should never be forced to do what they do not like; but the force of this objection is greatly weakened when we recollect that in compelling Vaccination we are not obliging parents to do anything disadvantageous to themselves, but merely to take precautions against a loathsome and terrible disease.
The most intolerable tyrannies vindicate themselves by the advantages they enforce on their perverse subjects. The claim made for vaccination, that it protects the vaccinated from smallpox, deprived the vaccinated of any right to complain of risk of injury from the unvaccinated. Moreover, that those who were persuaded that vaccination neither prevented nor mitigated smallpox should be required to undergo an operation, that was to them a cruel and dangerous imposture, was surely a wrong of the most excruciating character. It was well that neither the bill of 1855 or 1856 was allowed to pass; but if either had passed, it might have brought the question of compulsion to an earlier issue.
FOOTNOTE:
[285] Memorial presented to the President of the Board of Health, by the President and Council of the Epidemiological Society, on a proper State Provision for the Prevention of Smallpox and the Extension of Vaccination. Ordered to be printed by the House of Commons, 1st March, 1855.
[CHAPTER XXXIX.]
JOHN GIBBS’S LETTER—1855.
As we have said, there was little living confidence in vaccination. Jenner’s undertaking, “that the person inoculated with cowpox is rendered perfectly secure from the infection of smallpox,” had been everywhere conspicuously belied. But latterly a new faith had come into existence as to the preventibility of disease and the possibility of its suppression; and, thus persuaded, the public were less disposed to be sceptical toward new or revived prophylactic impostures. Favoured by this disposition of the public mind, a clique of vaccinators, operating under cover of the Epidemiological Society, were able to obtain concessions from Parliament which, prior to the sanitary evangel, were unattainable. It was only when too audacious, they proposed to set up a Vaccination Office, endowed from the Exchequer, with inquisitorial and punitive functions, that they suffered check.
To resist doctrine it is necessary to possess doctrine. People might distrust or dislike vaccination, but they were at a great disadvantage against aggressors until prepared to justify their distrust and dislike in definite and scientific form, setting evidence against assertion, and veracious against factitious statistics. Unfortunately the mischief of coercive legislation was consummated ere opposition was organised. The first to frame a comprehensive indictment against vaccination was John Gibbs, an Irish gentleman. It took the form of a letter addressed to Sir Benjamin Hall, dated from Maze Hill Cottage, St. Leonards-on-Sea, 30th June, 1855. On the motion of Joseph Brotherton, M.P. for Salford, the letter was ordered to be printed by the House of Commons, 31st March, 1856.[286]
Mr. Gibbs opened his letter with drawing attention to the fact that whilst the Compulsory Act of 1853 was the first direct attack upon personal liberty in medical matters, there was “no subject upon which so many otherwise well-informed persons betrayed such ignorance and credulity as upon vaccination.” Indeed, upon nothing were the legislators who enacted compulsion so frank as in their confession of ignorance and submission to medical instruction. What was there to justify legislation on terms thus abject against their fellow-countrymen?—
Why is Vaccination held in abhorrence by so many? Have those who reject it no weighty reasons to justify their rejection? They do not believe that it affords an efficient and assured protection against the invasion of Smallpox; they have a natural disgust to the transfer of a loathsome virus from a diseased brute, through they know not how many unhealthy human mediums, to the veins of their children; they have a dread, a conviction, that other filthy diseases, tending to embitter and shorten life, are frequently transmitted through the vaccine virus; they cannot bring themselves to believe that the true way to health can be to corrupt the blood and lower the vital energies by the infusion of a poison and its consequent train of morbid influences; and further, they have a conscientious conviction that voluntarily to propagate disease is to set at naught the Divine Providence and violate the Divine Will.
Are such scruples and objections entitled to no respect? Should they be permitted to have no force? Are they capable of no justification? Should the sole answer to them be a Coercion Act? Such is not the best way to disarm hostility, and to ensure conviction. Who would put faith in the professions of a philanthropist who should threaten the objects of his beneficence with fine or imprisonment if they did not accept his proffered boon? Or who could receive with cordiality and respect the doctor of physic who should thunder at the door, armed with scab and lancet, threatening to assault the inmates if they did not accept his services? If Vaccination be indeed a blessing which must needs be showered upon the land, would it not be more becoming in a wise Government and a free people to trust to the dissemination of information rather than attempt to make unconverted converts by force?
Had smallpox been preventible by vaccination, such contention would have been useless. The virtue of the rite, manifest in its efficacy, would have secured its observance. The bitterness of compulsion lay in the attempt to enforce imposture, and to suppress the convictions of those whose perceptions were sharper, and whose loyalty to right was more determined than in the mass of the nation. Mr. Gibbs had no difficulty in adducing evidence in proof that vaccination did not prevent smallpox. The reports of the Registrar-General and the hospitals furnished testimony in such profusion, that his difficulty lay in the selection of examples likely to be most convincing. From the Lancet, of 21st May, 1853, he took the following confession—
In the public mind extensively, and to a more limited extent in the medical profession itself, doubts are known to exist as to the efficacy and eligibility of Vaccination. The failures of the operation have been numerous and discouraging.
Nor did the failure to prevent smallpox exhaust the condemnation of vaccination. Ineffective, it was far from harmless. Itself a disease, it was a conductor and excitant of other diseases, and, inoculated, occasionally bore with it other company. Erysipelas, as Jenner taught, was the note of successful vaccination; but erysipelas, not being a limitable affection, was frequently a mortal one; and deaths from erysipelas as a sequence of vaccination were of constant occurrence. Then there were skin eruptions, carbuncular and glandular swellings, tuberculosis, scrofula, syphilis, etc., either provoked or inseminated with the vaccine disease. Such results were so distinctly recognised that, in the Lancet, of the 11th November, 1854, it was stated—
So widely extended is the dread that along with the prophylaxy something else may be inoculated, that few medical practitioners would care to vaccinate their own children from a source of the purity of which they are not well assured.
But the care vaccinators exercised over their own offspring was impracticable for the multitude. Again, citing the Lancet, 23rd October, 1854, it was said—
The poor are told that they must carry their children to be vaccinated by medical men who may be strangers to them. They apprehend—and the apprehension is not altogether unfounded, or unshared by the educated classes, that the vaccine matter employed may carry with it the seeds of other diseases not less loathsome than the one it is intended to prevent.
Useless against smallpox, and injurious in itself, it remained to test the influence of vaccination on the health of the community—
What is the per centage of deaths from all epidemics among the Vaccinated as compared with the Unvaccinated? What is the per centage respectively of cases of disease of the respiratory organs, of skin diseases, of scrofula, and of convulsions? What is the average duration of life among the Vaccinated and among the Unvaccinated? Of a thousand children vaccinated within a given time after birth, and of a thousand unvaccinated, the whole two thousand being placed as nearly as possible in like circumstances, what per centage in each thousand attain the age of puberty?
These are statistics with which the advocates of Vaccination have never grappled. Is it not, then, rather premature to decide that Vaccination is an unmixed good, a boon which we ought not only gratefully to accept, but which we should even combine to force upon the acceptance of others?
If it should appear that before a given age the rate of mortality from all causes be the same among a thousand vaccinated and a thousand unvaccinated children, of what avail is Vaccination? Of what import is it, as a public question, in what shape death claims his allotted number of victims, whether by Smallpox, Scarlet Fever, or Hooping Cough? If, however, the rate of mortality should prove to be greater among the Vaccinated than among the Unvaccinated, how shall we avoid the conclusion that Vaccination is a curse and not a blessing?
The interdependence of the forms of zymotic disease, so luminously displayed by Dr. Watt in the statistics of Glasgow, was apparently a conception in excess of the capacity of the average medical mind. It was the custom of vaccinators to treat smallpox as a solitary existence, any diminution of which was ascribed to the observance of their rite, and any increase to its neglect, although the observance of the rite was neither less in the waxing, nor more in the waning of the disease. With many illustrations from medical literature, Mr. Gibbs enforced the lesson that diseases were not irregular and detached disasters, but varied manifestations of a common disorder: that when one form prevailed, other forms abated or disappeared; that health, and the defect of health, were referable to habits and conditions of life; and that the consequent rate of mortality was unaffected whether smallpox happened to be one of its factors—indeed, in numerous instances, a reduced rate of mortality signalised the prevalence of smallpox. In short, to suppose that the creation and culture of an ailment like vaccination could by any means tend to the invigoration of life was to reverse the canon—that health always and everywhere was the best defence of health.
Among the supporters of his thesis, none had greater weight than Dr. George Gregory. Adducing “the experience which twenty years of official connection with the Smallpox and Vaccination Hospital had given him,” he asserted—
The great principle that there are no diseases strictly isolated from others. They are links in a chain—
“All are but parts of one stupendous whole.”
They must be viewed in conjunction, if we would hope to form just, enlarged, and legitimate views of the character and pathological affinities of each.
Long surmised, but never proved, until the statistical inquiries of recent times showed its correctness, Dr. Gregory continues—
We may, for want of a better name, call this curious doctrine the Law of Vicarious Mortality; by which is understood that whenever one epidemic diminishes, another increases, so that the sum total of epidemic mortality remains, on an average of years, nearly the same.
Epidemic Mortality in England and Wales during 1838, 1839, and 1840.
| Year 1838. | Year 1839. | Year 1840. | |
| Smallpox | 16,268 | 9,131 | 10,434 |
| Measles | 6,514 | 10,937 | 9,326 |
| Scarlet Fever | 5,802 | 10,325 | 19,816 |
| Total Mortality by the Exanthemata, | 28,584 | 30,393 | 39,576 |
| Hooping Cough | 9,107 | 8,165 | 6,132 |
| Total Epidemic Mortality | 37,691 | 38,558 | 45,708 |
| Total Mortality throughout England and Wales | 342,529 | 338,979 | 359,561 |
We learn from this table, that every year is distinguished by some master epidemic. In 1838, Smallpox was the ruling epidemic throughout England. In 1839, Measles and Scarlet Fever struggled for the mastery. In 1840, Scarlet Fever was so general and so fatal, that the mortality by it exceeded by one-fifth the ravages of Smallpox during the epidemic season of 1838, and more than doubled the mortality by that disease in 1839....
Everything teaches us that when one avenue to death is closed another opens—
“Noctes atque dies patet atri janua Ditis.”
Vaccination, great as its merits are [What are they?—J. G.], and no one more fully appreciates them than I do, does not, and cannot do, all that its too sanguine admirers promised. The blessings of Vaccination are met and balanced by the Law of Vicarious Mortality. How and why is this? The explanation is easy. The weak plants of a nursery must be weeded out. If weakly children do not fall victims to Smallpox, they live to fall into the jaws of tyrants scarcely less inexorable. Scarlet Fever and Measles are both advancing in respect of mortality; and the increase of deaths by Hooping Cough since this century set in [that is, since the introduction of Vaccination.—J. G.] is quite extraordinary.[287]
The concession of so much was the concession of all. If smallpox was merely displaced to be replaced, and the tale of death maintained by cognate diseases, what was there to claim for vaccination, even if it were allowed to have an influence adverse to smallpox? Where were the lives saved? and where the glory of the immortal Jenner?
The advocates of compulsory vaccination were accustomed to cite countries like Austria, where the practice was enforced, for English imitation. Let us then compare, said Mr. Gibbs, the death-rate of the chief centres of English population with the death-rate of the chief divisions of Austria, and note which had the advantage in the years 1850-51—
| Death-rate per 1000. | Death-rate per 1000. | |||
| England and Wales | 22·0 | Lower Austria | 35·7 | |
| London | 23·3 | Upper Austria | 27·7 | |
| Liverpool | 29·0 | Styria | 30·3 | |
| Manchester | 29·0 | Bohemia | 38·6 | |
| Birmingham | 23·3 | Moravia | 30·9 | |
| Leeds | 24·6 | Galicia | 30·8 | |
| Dublin | 26·8 | Lombardy | 33·9 | |
| Cork | 23·3 | Venetia | 33·3 |
These figures required no commentary. If vaccination had stopped smallpox in Austria, it evidently had not reduced mortality even to the level of the most insanitary English towns.
Assuming, said Mr. Gibbs, that vaccination is entitled to all the credit claimed for it, let us endeavour to estimate the gain, if it should be enforced. The yearly average of deaths from all causes, in England and Wales, is 370,000, of which about 7,000 are from smallpox—
This 7,000, then, is the limit of gain which enforced Vaccination could confer; but from the 7,000 should be deducted about one-third for deaths from Smallpox among the Vaccinated; and from the remainder should be deducted an equivalent for the deaths caused immediately and remotely by Vaccination; and another equivalent for the deaths resulting from the Law of Vicarious Mortality. This done, it would require no little ingenuity to discover a balance in favour of Vaccination.
Having thus argued the matter out, was not Mr. Gibbs justified in asking—
What would be thought of the tinker who would knock a hole in the bottom of his saucepan lest one should be burned there in the ordinary way?
Yet it is just what the vaccinator does; and when he finds—as he might have foreseen, had he been governed by common sense—that his saucepan does not wear a bit the better, but rather the worse, he gravely endeavours to excuse the failure, by asserting that unfortunately he made the hole too big, or too little, too much on this side, or too much on that, or by offering some other equally wise excuse.
Lastly, there were the political and moral considerations involved in compulsory vaccination—the first attempt in England to confer on a medical prescription the force of law—
Surely, a wise Government may perceive that there are greater evils than the occasional outbreak of an epidemic. The systematic violation of human rights and natural affections, the uprooting from the human breast of feelings of self-reliance, a state religion in physic, coercion which may well be regarded as odious persecution, the belief of the poor that what they hold dearest is sacrificed to the selfish prejudices of the rich—any one of these is far worse than a pestilence.
Cannot they who believe in Vaccination protect themselves? Nobody seeks to hinder them; nobody presumes to dispute their right to adopt any medical practice, however questionable it may be. Why cannot they act with like forbearance to others? Surely, if freedom be more than a name, it implies the right of the freeman to reject not only that which other men may choose to regard as evil, but even that which they may combine to urge upon him as good....
How absurd that an attempt should be made to visit with punishment the want of belief in a scientific, or rather unscientific, dogma! How absurd to pretend to the possession of a prophylactic of such unquestionable potency that its acceptance requires the threat of force! In their anxiety to coerce others, compulsory vaccinators demonstrate their own defect of faith in the prescription which they assert affords complete security from Smallpox.
As observed, the service of Mr. Gibbs is entitled to special commemoration, because it was the first attempt to put the arguments against vaccination into systematic shape. He demonstrated the quackery of the practice, and the fallacies wherewith it was defended; and denounced the tyranny of the legislation that would compel those who recognised the imposture to submit to it. The service thus rendered by Mr. Gibbs constituted a ground of vantage for further operations: those who had to contend against the delusion had their hands strengthened, and their power of assault magnified, by what he was favoured to accomplish.
John Gibbs was born at Enniscorthy, County Wexford, on 25th May, 1811. Owing to the unsettled life of his father as Captain of the Royal Cork Volunteers, his education was desultory—at various schools, and under various masters. Sagacious, bright, earnest, and independent, he early manifested a passion for such things as made for human welfare, and improvement. Abstinence from alcohol, in connection with Father Mathew’s mission, had in him an enthusiastic advocate. A book by Captain Claridge on the water cure excited his interest, and led to the formation of the Enniscorthy Hydropathic Society. Anxious to master the mysteries of this new treatment of disease, he set out for Silesia in 1843, and placed himself under the instruction of Priessnitz, remaining with him as a chosen disciple until 1847, when he left with a certificate of competency.
(John Gibbs, with his signature)
Whilst acquiring his art with Priessnitz, he communicated his experiences to his Enniscorthy friends, who published them in the Wexford newspapers, a selection from which was reproduced as Letters from Grœfenberg, in 1847. A passage in one of these letters, dated 27th November, 1844, indicates the manner in which his attention was drawn to smallpox—
Another case of Smallpox has just been treated by Priessnitz. The patient is the daughter of a peasant in the neighbourhood, and is about twenty years old. She was confined for eight days, and was most profusely covered with the eruption. An Italian physician said that he never saw the symptoms come out better. She had at first the usual treatment—wet sheets, wet rubbings, and tepid baths; and, after the eruption appeared, three wet sheets and three tepid baths daily. She will not have the slightest mark. Under the water cure Smallpox appears to be deprived of half its terrors; as far as my observation extends, it neither robs man of life, nor women of beauty.
On his return, he assisted Dr. Lovell in opening a hydropathic establishment at Barking, Essex; and, in 1848, he undertook the medical superintendence of the Grande Chartreuse in Piedmont. There he met Miss Anna Skelton, to whom he was married, at Nice, in 1849. Ultimately he made his home at St. Leonards, Sussex. The passage of the Compulsory Vaccination Act, in 1853, led him to publish a pamphlet, Our Medical Liberties, 1854, which excited the attention and won the approval of many thoughtful people. At the suggestion of Mr. Thomas Baker, he constructed a letter from the substance of the pamphlet, and addressed it to the President of the Board of Health, which, as we have seen, was issued as a parliamentary paper. The more vehement controversy which sprang up in recent years when the Vaccination Act was tightened, found Mr. Gibbs in health too feeble for active exertion. After his wife’s death, he retired to Jersey to be near his sister, Mrs. General Lane, in whose house he died in the winter of 1875.
FOOTNOTES:
[286] Compulsory Vaccination.—Copy of a Letter, dated 30th June, 1855, addressed to the President of the Board of Health by John Gibbs, Esquire, entitled, Compulsory Vaccination briefly considered in its Scientific, Religious, and Political Aspects. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 31st March, 1856.—Folio, pp. 31.
[287] Eruptive Fevers, pp. 5-8. London, 1843.
[CHAPTER XL.]
SIMON’S DEFENCE AND HAMERNIK’S JUDGMENT.
An attack on Vaccination like that delivered by John Gibbs had to be met, and Mr. John Simon, Medical Officer to the Board of Health, was selected for the purpose. The answer appeared in 1857 in a quarto blue-book entitled Papers relating to the History and Practice of Vaccination,[288] 83 pages consisting of a defence of Vaccination, and 188 pages of illustrative and corroborative documents. Oddly enough the treatise of Mr. Gibb is never once mentioned, whilst the order of defence is obviously marshalled in front of his positions. The reason for this reserve was double: first, it was considered unadvisable to magnify or advertise so dangerous an antagonist; and second, it is considered unprofessional to discuss a medical question with one who is not in medical orders.
In reviewing Mr. Simon’s defence we are constantly reminded of Mill’s observation, that a doctrine is never truly judged until it is judged in its best form; and of Coleridge’s caution, that an adversary’s bad arguments are no evidence of the goodness of our own. It lay in the nature of things that many absurd and trumpery objections should be advanced against vaccination, but to cite and sneer at them was neither to appreciate nor to refute the objections that were valid. Had Simon been less scornful and less loftily disposed, condescending to deal with his antagonist verbatim, he might have proved no more successful, but he would have had at least the praise of judicial intention.
After the custom of the eulogists of vaccination, Mr. Simon opened with a chapter on “Smallpox before the Discovery of Vaccination,” consisting of terrible tales of the ravages of the disease among Mexicans, Indians, Greenlanders, Icelanders, Siberians, Hottentots, etc., as if disbelievers in vaccination were under any obligation to dispute them. It is not denied that smallpox may be a deadly epidemic: the contention is that vaccination would not abate its deadliness. At the same time, when terrible tales are told of the devastations of smallpox, it is but fair to press for proofs of their authenticity. Travellers and historians occasionally prefer the excitement of wonder to adherence to matter-of-fact. When, for instance, Mr. Simon gravely relates that “in Mexico 3½ millions were suddenly smitten down, leaving none to bury them,” it is permissible to inquire who was responsible for the Mexican census in the days of Cortez, and who counted the unburied dead? Further, it is idle to attach importance to isolated statements about smallpox, as if smallpox were an independent destroyer of mankind. It is a member of a group of destroyers, and its activity is usually coincident with a correspondent dormancy among its associates. Until the complete vital statistics of a community are in evidence, it is vain to assert whom smallpox present has slain, or absent has saved. It is the prevalence of death, and not the mode of death, that is the critical question.
Again, when the familiar list of great folk who died of smallpox in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries is run over, the remark occurs, that considering the habits and habitations of the said great folk, their fate was in nowise surprising. Those who believe that smallpox is generated in unwholesome conditions of life are not to be confounded by facts that illustrate their contention. And the like is to be said of the equally familiar tale of London smallpox. It was to be expected that citizens housed and fed as Londoners were housed and fed should have been plagued with smallpox and its congeners. What is denied is that vaccination could have saved them from smallpox, or reduced their death-rate, their conditions of life remaining the same.
The extravagant exhibition of the horrors of smallpox is the customary preliminary to the presentation of Jenner as the saviour from them; and the part of showman in this respect was fulfilled with more than ordinary abandon by Simon, who thus depicted the situation and the rescue—
Medicine baffled and helpless! For millions of our race in after times the continued raging of that pitiless plague! A drearier picture could scarcely have saddened mankind.
That this despair was not lasting is due to the genius of an English surgeon; and the close of the 18th Century, which had much to darken it, will be remembered till the end of human history for the greatest physical good ever yet given by science to the world.
Then followed the Jennerian legend, related in highly fabulous form with sundry extensions from Simon’s private fancy. It is sufficient to reassert that Jenner did not introduce cowpox. On the contrary, he rejected cowpox for horsegrease cowpox; and such was his prescription because he knew from the evidence of his neighbourhood that cowpox afforded no protection from smallpox. It is true that when Pearson discredited horsegrease cowpox, and recommended cowpox, Jenner dropped his prescription, and put himself forward as the discoverer of cowpox; but it is also true that in subsequent years he resumed his original position, and indeed dispensed with the cow altogether, and, like Sacco of Milan and De Carro of Vienna, used and diffused horsegrease or horsepox neat, describing the equine virus as “the true and genuine life-preserving fluid.” Of all this, however, Simon was either ignorant, or preferred to say nothing. He, too, dropped cowpox as a disease of the cow. Referring to a conjecture by Jenner that cowpox was “smallpox in a milder form,” he maintained that the conjecture had been verified by Gassner in 1801; by Thiele in 1836; by Ceely in 1839; and commercially by Badcock of Brighton in 1840. Again and again Badcock derived fresh stocks of vaccine virus from cows artificially infected with smallpox; having vaccinated with such virus more than 14,000 persons, and having furnished supplies of it to more than 400 medical practitioners—
It has been made matter of almost familiar experiment that the infection of Smallpox may, by inoculation, be communicated from Man to Cow; that its result is an eruption of vesicles presenting the physical characters of Cowpox; that the lymph from these vesicles, if implanted in the skin of the human subject, produces the ordinary local phenomena of Vaccination; that the person so vaccinated diffuses no atmospheric infection; that the lymph generated by him may be transferred, with reproductive powers, to other unprotected persons; and that, on the conclusion of this artificial disorder, neither renewed Vaccination, nor inoculation with Smallpox, nor the closest contact and cohabitation with smallpox patients, will occasion him to betray any remnant of susceptibility to infection. (P. xiv.)
Thus were the discredited claims of Jenner revived and reasserted for a new variety of virus—for smallpox inoculated on the cow! Even revaccination was pronounced impossible, and logically; for revaccination implies susceptibility to infection. It was idle, however, to shelter this new development under Jenner’s authority. When Jenner said that cowpox was smallpox in milder form, he meant in process the reverse of Simon’s interpretation. He meant that smallpox came to man from the horse through the cow; and not that the cow contracted smallpox from man. Showing his nephew a horse with greasy heels, he said, “There is the source of smallpox.”[289] When the stock of cowpox for vaccination ran low, Jenner feared it might be difficult to enlarge the supply. Why? Because farmers exercised such precaution, since they learnt that cowpox was derived from horsegrease, that the disease among cows had become well nigh extinct. Possibly Jenner was mistaken: possibly cowpox originated in smallpox: but what Simon described as “settled” in 1857 exists to this day in vehement dispute. Simon’s prescription was practically a fresh discovery—a new departure in vaccination. It recalls the practice of the variolators who took virus for timid patients from healthy subjects inoculated with mild smallpox; the supposition being that the virulence of the mild pox was meliorated in them, they playing the part that Ceely and Badcock assigned to the cow. Thus when Dimsdale variolated the Empress Catharine, it was with smallpox mitigated in the person of a strong young man. Had Dimsdale substituted a cow for a man, he would not only have anticipated Jenner, but the later revelation and practice of Ceely and Badcock—“the greatest physical good ever given by science to the world.”
Simon next went on to describe “Smallpox since the Use of Vaccination,” concerning which these observations may suffice—
1st—Smallpox was abating over Europe prior to the introduction of vaccination, notwithstanding the stimulation of the disease by variolation.
2nd—The discredit cast upon variolation by vaccination threw smallpox out of culture, and to that extent abated smallpox.
3rd—It was absurd to ascribe the decline of smallpox to vaccination in countries where only a part of the people were vaccinated; and usually, as in England, a part least liable to smallpox.
These considerations, sufficiently developed in preceding chapters, nullify the conclusion, supported by elaborate statistical tables, that vaccination was the cause of the decline in smallpox. The asserted cause was incommensurate with the effect.
Another remark remains, namely, that all vaccination was taken by Simon for effective vaccination, except where smallpox followed, and then suspicion was thrown on the virus or the time and mode of its administration. But under his own definition of virus, namely, smallpox inoculated on the cow, the greater part, if not the whole, of the vaccinations accomplished were with virus altogether diverse—with cowpox that owed nothing to smallpox, with equine cowpox, with horsepox, and much else known only to omniscience. Yet it was to these heterogeneous inoculations, modified inscrutably in transit from patient to patient, that the subsidence of smallpox was attributed! In a word, whatever was anywhere or by anybody called vaccination, served, according to Simon, to exterminate smallpox. Where shall we find an epithet for such crass assurance, with neither science or common-sense to lend it the gloss of probability!
The succeeding chapter, “Alleged Drawbacks from the Advantages of Vaccination, and alleged Dangers of its Practice,” was as abusive as unfair. It is admitted that much nonsense has been written against vaccination, and, if the pot may call the kettle black, much more nonsense has been circulated in its favour. Vaccination was recommended for the improvement of health and the complexion, for the cure of skin diseases, for the Plague, for whooping-cough, for rot in sheep, and for distemper in dogs—Jenner himself vaccinating the King’s staghounds. But to what purpose such recrimination? The prime charge against vaccination is, that it is a disease which neither averts or mitigates smallpox; and the second is, that it frequently excites and sometimes conveys other diseases.
Simon waxed eloquent on the absurdity of referring the origin of certain scrofulous affections to vaccination, whilst describing such affections as notorious sequences of smallpox; but where was the absurdity if vaccination was (as he held) a mild form of smallpox?—the mild disease serving equally as a ferment or excitant of evil humours. In his furious contempt he forgot his science and logic, and implicitly conceded all for which rational adversaries of vaccination contended.
In the same reckless vein he asked, “Is properly performed vaccination an absolutely inoffensive proceeding?” and answered—
Not at all, nor does it pretend to be so. The very meaning of the thing is, that it shall artificially and designedly produce a transient and trifling indisposition; that for some days the infant shall be uncomfortable with a sore arm and a slight irritation of the adjacent axillary glands, and a perceptible amount of general feverishness. (P. lx.)
Here we agree, and here disagree—agree as to the disease, disagree as to the determination of its limits. First, the virus is in quality indefinite; and second, the recipient of the virus is a complex of qualities indefinite; so that, as Dr. Mead observed, when smallpox was used for inoculation, “it is more material into what kind of body it be infused, than out of what it is taken.” As pathologists freely allow, it is impossible to predicate the transformations of organic poisons in the animal frame. A vigorous infant may throw off the virus, designated vaccine, and suffer no apparent harm, but the same virus may operate very differently in contact with debility and disease; so that, in the words of James, we have to say, “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” The conditions of vaccination are essentially those of hazard; the issues are those of a game of chance; the result at the best being a risk for naught.
Simon, too, was positive as to the impossibility of the invaccination of syphilis—a fact no longer in question, save as to the degree of frequency. And here, also, in his recklessness he forgot consistency, saying—
When a child is born with the heritage of syphilis (a very frequent incident, if its parents have been suffering from that infection) the characteristic symptoms do not appear till some weeks after birth; and then the scandal discloses itself. (P. lxvi.)
Just so; and before disclosure the child is vaccinated, and serving as vaccinifer, the latent syphilis is inoculated and diffused.
Vaccination, according to Simon, was easy—“The mere manual trick is learnt from a minute’s teaching and an hour’s practice.” Difficulty begins in the selection of proper subjects for the rite, for which none are qualified, save the healthy; and for the recognition of health a trained eye is wanted—
If sickly children are vaccinated, children breeding other disorders, children having skin disease, children teething and the like, the results must be at least unsatisfactory, and possibly dangerous. (P. lxii.)
If such children are exempted from vaccination, how can vaccination ever approach universality? And when universal vaccination is effected, as it is frequently effected, how can it fail to be attended with “results, at least unsatisfactory, and possibly dangerous”?
More difficult than the selection of subjects is the selection of virus for the rite; and the manifold dangers and the requisite precautions were thus specified—
Especially as regards the quality of vaccine lymph, the careless or uneducated vaccinator is using a dangerous weapon. It is only during part of the course of a vaccine vesicle that its lymph is suitable for further vaccinations: for after a given moment, at which the contents of the vesicle possess their maximum of simple contagiousness, they tend more and more toward the quality of common inflammatory products; and matter now taken from the vesicle is no longer the simple agent of a specific infection, but has less efficiency for its real purpose, and is specially able to produce other undesired results.
A danger of somewhat similar kind is that of taking lymph from vesicles which already have been accidentally ruptured, or where from any other cause, local or constitutional, their specific fluid is likely to have been modified by common irritative processes.
The danger of taking matter from irritated vesicles, and from vesicles at too advanced a period of their course, is one which circumstances render frequent; and there is reason to believe that, in at least a very large proportion of those cases where abnormal effects have resulted from so-called vaccination, it has been the employment of this ambiguous irritative matter which has occasioned the mischief and scandal.
Still more critical changes occur in lymph when removed from the body, unless appropriate means be taken to preserve it; for, under the influence of air and moisture, it tends, like other dead organic matter, to putrid decomposition; and inoculation with it, when thus changing, can hardly be more useful or less dangerous than a casual scratch inflicted in the dissecting room. (P. lxii.)
No one who considers this limitation of vaccination to the healthy, and these prescriptions as to the collection and exhibition of “lymph,” can fail to see that the charges of injury and death brought against the common practice were allowed and accounted for—were, indeed, the unavoidable associates of that practice. Vaccination, as described by Simon, was an ideal operation—impracticable on any ordinary terms. His contention and his approbation were reserved for “properly-performed vaccination” on a healthy child, with innocuous virus, the proof of each condition being discovered in the result. If unsatisfactory or injurious, or deadly, then the vaccination could not have been “properly performed”—either the child was unhealthy, or the virus was at fault.
Nor can we wonder that the people, having experience of the uselessness and misery of the virulent practice should, undismayed by the terror of smallpox, decline its observance; nor that those who made gain thereby should, distrusting their power to prevail by reason, invoke legislation to enforce the imposture, calling in the policeman to support the doctor, as of old the soldier supported the priest.
Still further to sustain his case, Simon addressed the following Circular of Questions to upwards of 500 medical men—
I.—Have you any doubt that successful Vaccination confers on persons subject to its influence a very large exemption from attacks of Smallpox, and almost absolute security against death by that disease?
II.—Have you any reason to believe or suspect that vaccinated persons, in being rendered less susceptible of Smallpox, become more susceptible of any other infective disease, or of phthisis; or that their health is in any other way disadvantageously affected?
III.—Have you any reason to believe or suspect that lymph, from a true Jennerian vesicle, has ever been a vehicle of syphilitic, scrofulous, or other constitutional infection to the vaccinated person; or that unintentional inoculation with some other disease, instead of the proposed Vaccination, has occurred in the hands of a duly educated medical practitioner?
IV.—Do you (assuming due provisions to exist for a skilful performance of the operation) recommend that, except for special reasons in individual cases, Vaccination should be universally performed at early periods of life?
Whilst these questions were framed to draw the answers required, yet, however modified, the tenor of the returns would have been much the same. We might confidently predict uniform replies, if a circular were addressed to 500 clergymen soliciting their judgment as to the disendowment of the Church, to 500 Nonconformist divines as to the benefit of hearing sermons, to 500 military men as to the expediency of an imminent war, to 500 naval officers as to an enlargement of the navy, or to 500 publicans as to the justice of local option. Nor is there sense in attributing value to testimony to be had on demand by the yard. It is brought forth as of course, and to expect otherwise is to expect what is contrary to nature.
It will be said, “Do you really mean that medical men defend vaccination because it pays?” In no other sense, I reply, than as clergymen or publicans defend their vested interests. Medical men among themselves make no secret of their pecuniary interest in vaccination, as any one may see who reads their journals; and Simon’s advocacy culminated in a demand for more liberal pay, as the only guarantee for “properly-performed vaccination.”
We may view the matter in another light. Suppose a circular had been addressed to 500 medical men fifty years ago, as to the utility of bleeding, or blistering, or salivation, would not the tenor of the answers have been equally uniform with Simon’s in favour of vaccination? Where are these practices now? But suppose any one of them had obtained legislative sanction and endowment, can we doubt that it would have survived to this day, certified as salutary and harmless by the gross of the medical profession? Let us clear our minds of cant. The assumption that men’s convictions (I except the moral aristocracy) are not controlled by their selfish interests (often enough the reverse of their true ones) is cant.
Among those interrogated was Dr. Joseph Hamernik of Prague, whose developed answers form a paper which, by reason of the independence, acumen and philosophy displayed, constitutes the distinction of Simon’s collection of documents.
First, Hamernik inquired whether cowpox and smallpox had any relation to each other, deciding that they were diverse and independent diseases. Vaccinated persons may be attacked with smallpox during the development of the cowpox vesicle, or a few days after the drying-up of the same. When inoculation is made with a mixture of cowpox and smallpox, there ensue a vaccine vesicle on the site of the puncture and a variolous eruption over the body. In fact, it is not uncommon to find cowpox and smallpox flourishing simultaneously on the same individual. Under some conditions, the one disease appears to stifle the other. Thus a powerful epidemic of smallpox will prevent the development of cowpox, illustrating the Hippocratic aphorism, Duobus doloribus simul obortis—vehementior obscurat alterum, exactly as happens when other diseases simultaneously invade the human organism. Again, in well-marked epidemics, cowpox does not protect from smallpox, even after repeated vaccinations. Under stress of such experience, the confidence in such vaccination was much shaken in England during the epidemics of 1825 and 1838. Vaccination was likewise found useless in the epidemics of Paris in 1825 and Marseilles in 1828. “Nor can revaccination achieve what vaccination cannot,” said Dr. Brown of Musselburgh. The revaccinated die of smallpox like other people, as is proved by the official returns of the armies of Wurtemburg and Prussia—
Revaccinations among civilians in Bohemia are extremely rare, and hence I am unable to cite many cases. I only saw two persons who had been revaccinated die at the Prague Hospital—a Russian officer in the guards, and a physician from Bremen.
There is no validity in the statement that epidemics of Smallpox are arrested and made milder by rapid Vaccination and Revaccination; unless medical men could test the accuracy of their verdict, as lawyers do, by a new trial. Until they can do so, we must admit that there are cases and epidemics of Smallpox light and severe. It was so before Vaccination was heard of, and is likely so to continue longer than Vaccination will endure.
Second, turning to the examination of the characters of smallpox before and after vaccination, he observed—
If Vaccination really possessed the properties ascribed to it, a change must long ere this have taken place in the character of Smallpox, both of the sporadic and epidemic kind. Smallpox has been minutely described by pathologists before Vaccination was introduced, and in such a manner that one would think they had seen the disease in the wards of our hospitals. Indeed the best pathologists of our time, who have paid special attention to Smallpox, agree that they could add nothing to the descriptions of Rhazes (who died at Bagdad A.D. 930), of Sydenham, 1675, of Richard Mead, 1754, and of John Huxham, 1764. Mead admits a light and severe Smallpox, and Huxham observed such slight epidemics that no fever appeared in the whole course of the disease. At present, pathologists would hardly class such cases with Variola Vera; they would, perhaps, call them Variola Modificata; or let them figure in their tables as Varioloid and proofs of the good results of Vaccination.
It may be that in former centuries Smallpox assumed more frequently the malignant or hæmorrhagic type; but this circumstance can in nowise be explained by the intervention of Vaccination. Even as many individuals of the animal and vegetable kingdoms have disappeared, so also have great changes taken place in the number and severity of diseases. When scurvy, putrid fevers, dysentery, etc., were commoner, Smallpox was likely to be more malignant: so much was due to the prevalent poverty and scarcity throughout Europe. Pauperism, want and hunger, are always characterised by a proportionate frequency, gravity and diffusion of various diseases.
Then, too, much of the mortality of smallpox in former times was attributable to maltreatment; and Hamernik illustrated what was possible under good treatment, by adducing his own experience when the smallpox wards in Prague were under his care. “The recoveries were, very speedy, and the deaths less than five per cent.”
Third, he held that the doctrine of Jenner was opposed to recognised pathological principles. Observation has taught us that two severe diseases cannot affect an individual at the same time. Thus typhus cannot go on with scarlet fever or smallpox, nor tuberculous with cancerous disease. The rule, however, only holds good with diseases that affect the whole organism. It does not apply to trifling or local affections, to which latter category cowpox belongs. The best marked diseases pursue their course contemporaneously with cowpox; and the scars of the punctures through which it has been inoculated have no more influence in averting smallpox than any similar scars resulting from analogous cutaneous lesion—
I consider it as a general pathological law that morbid actions which have entirely run their course can have absolutely no influence whatever upon the subsequent pathological reactions of the individual. Hence it is possible to suffer repeatedly from smallpox, scarlet fever, typhus, pneumonia, tubercular disease, etc. Nay, Smallpox has been observed five different times upon the same patient. Keeping these incontestable facts in view, it becomes a matter of indifference what was Jenner’s doctrine relative to Cowpox, whether identical with Smallpox, or whether antagonistic to Smallpox or anything else. Nor can Variolation be advocated, if we pay attention to the same pathological law. A variolous attack, when once passed away, has no more influence, as regards future events, than any other disease. The reason why many escape Smallpox altogether, why some have it twice, why the inoculation of the disease has sometimes no effect, or why some can inhale its effluvia with impunity, is entirely concealed from us. As Cowpox is a disease foreign to man, it is particularly for graziers that further investigations can be interesting.
In answer to the Second Question, whether vaccinated persons, being less susceptible to smallpox, become more susceptible of any other infective disease, or of phthisis, Hamernik answered that the interrogation implied what, for reasons given, he disputed, namely, that the vaccinated were less liable to smallpox—
The assumption is perfectly gratuitous. Epidemics of Smallpox occur at widely varying periods, with different degrees of intensity, prevalence, and duration. The Vaccinated and the Unvaccinated suffer in every epidemic; and the influence of Vaccination cannot be determined from the character and progress of the disease in individual cases.
I am aware that the beneficial influence of Vaccination is inferred from the registers of public vaccinators; but I freely confess I consider these books as perfectly valueless; and I may add that the most intelligent of the gentlemen who keep them fully concur in my opinion. In this country we know full well how vaccinators are situated; and that little confidence can be placed in them is generally acknowledged.
To the Third Question, whether syphilitic, scrofulous, and other constitutional affections are communicable in vaccination, Hamernik answered with regret in the affirmative. It was true that the contrary opinion was written at large. Taupin testified that he had taken virus from children suffering from typhus, scarlet fever, measles, smallpox, itch, inflammation of the brain, the lungs and the intestines; from chorea, epilepsy, scrofula, tuberculosis, and ring-worm, and no harm had resulted to the vaccinated; and Launauzy agrees with Taupin, that it is mere prejudice and groundless to suppose that cowpox taken, from unhealthy children can inflict any hurt—
On this head, it will be sufficient for me to remark that to arrive at a knowledge of the amount of mischief such doctrine has brought upon mankind, it would be necessary to learn how much the promulgators gained by their unlimited favour for Vaccination.
Professor Waller, of Prague, has proved that syphilis may be inoculated by means of a patient’s blood; and as blood is often drawn with the virus of vaccination, no doubt can exist as to the possibility of doing in this manner a vast amount of mischief. Monteggio taught at Milan in 1814, that when a syphilitic child is vaccinated, the result is a vesicle containing both kinds of virus; and Carioli expressed the same opinion in 1821. Marcolini relates that, on 16th June, 1814, ten children were vaccinated from a syphilitic infant, who died at the end of a few months, and five of the ten children syphilised from her.
In answer to the Fourth Question, whether vaccination should be universally performed at early periods of life? Hamernik replied, that he obviously could not recommend a practice which put health, and even life itself, in jeopardy for no certain advantage. Any efficient examination of virus was impracticable. Vaccinators may set to work with zeal and care, but their energy soon cools, and they settle into perfunctory routine. Government should assume a passive attitude toward vaccination; or if people will be vaccinated, something might be done to minimise the danger. If the practice is assigned to salaried functionaries, they are sure to create evidence to justify and perpetuate their official existence. Left to common option—
Vaccinations would every year become fewer, until at last we should read with astonishment in old newspapers how much attention was once paid to the practice.
Whilst the majority of Simon’s correspondents conjured up arguments for vaccination, their facts, apart from their rhetoric, conveyed much that was instructive. For instance, a register was produced of the deaths in Christ’s Hospital, London, for the century, 1751-1850. The boys in that charity boarding-school numbered about 550; and in twenty-five years, 1751-75, there died of smallpox 22, and in twenty-five years, 1776-1800, there died 9. In the fifty succeeding years, 1801-50, there died 1, and he in 1820. Thereon we are asked to recognise the efficacy of vaccination! But what reduced the mortality from 22 in 1751-75 to 9 in 1776-1800? And if 550 boys in the centre of London, in the flux of constant coming and going, escaped with so few fatalities from smallpox, what comes of the asserted omnipresence and havoc of the disease in London before the introduction of vaccination? Across the street from Christ’s Hospital stands Newgate, which, during the same years, was haunted with jail fever; which fever was gradually suppressed, and by what charm? Certainly by no rite analogous to vaccination. Why, then, should we be required to admit an agency in the reduction of smallpox which played no part in the reduction of a cognate disease? In times when smallpox was frequent in Christ’s Hospital, about as little regard was paid to stench and ventilation as in the prison over the way. In later years a more wholesome atmosphere prevailed, and concurrently the diet of the scholars was altered and improved—changes in themselves as sufficient to account for the disappearance of smallpox from the school as for typhus from the jail.
The like indifference to variations of circumstance vitiated throughout the generalisations of Simon and his correspondents. Assuming that the conditions of life and the characters of disease remained unaltered, smallpox was treated as uninfluenced by aught but vaccination. It needs no words to condemn such procedure as radically unsound; and men, otherwise sane, only persist in it as they persist in similar hallucinations. Even the matter of vaccination they left undefined, or differently defined. Whatever was called vaccination was taken for vaccination, and the reduction of smallpox ascribed to it. In Jenner’s hands it was first horsegrease cowpox, then cowpox, and lastly horsepox. According to Simon true vaccination was effected with smallpox inoculated on the cow. Which, we demand, was the virus that wrought the numerous miracles we are summoned to believe? Is it indeed true that there is nothing certain about vaccination save the vaccinator’s fee? Is it that, as in other thaumaturgical performances, virtue resides in the performer, described by Simon as “the duly educated medical practitioner?” Is it argued that vaccination is a species of incantation, and that it matters little what is the vehicle of the rite, its efficacy being dependent on the credentials of the administrator? Or that what is believed to be good against smallpox is good against smallpox, the charm consisting in the faith wherewith it is received?
The belief in vaccination and its proofs is much akin to the belief in witchcraft and its proofs. To argue about witchcraft, and to answer its proofs, was to become a sort of partner in the delusion. Deliverance lay in the unqualified denial of the imposture; and from that firm ground difficulty was solved and the inexplicable disappeared. As soon as the position of absolute disbelief is taken up, the plausibilities in favour of vaccination resolve themselves into the element of phantasy, so powerful and yet so evanescent. The arts of its advocates then become manifest with all the dodges, conscious and unconscious, whereby the light of truth is shut out, and the gloom requisite for visions provided. The story of vaccination is the story of many other impostures which have bewildered and afflicted mankind, and the study of one is the revelation of others.
FOOTNOTES:
[288] Papers relating to the History and Practice of Vaccination. Addressed to the President of the General Board of Health, and presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty. London, 1857. Pp. lxxxiii. and 188.
[289] Baron’s Life of Jenner, vol. i., p. 135.
[CHAPTER XLI.]
COMPULSION INTENSIFIED—1861 AND 1867.
The Vaccination Act of 1853 imposed a forfeit not exceeding 20s. on any parent or guardian who failed to have a child vaccinated within three months of birth; but experience revealed a grave defect in the law. There was no provision for the prosecution of defaulters; and those who had no faith in vaccination, or accounted it a nuisance, enjoyed immunity without serious annoyance. To meet this defect a bill was introduced to Parliament in 1861, providing that “the guardians or overseers of any parish may appoint some person to institute and conduct proceedings for enforcing obedience.” The bill was passed through the House of Commons under the care of Mr. Robert Lowe, meeting with little resistance, and with less in the Lords. In vindicating the measure, 10th July, 1861, Mr. Lowe observed—
Parliament in 1853 passed an Act for Compulsory Vaccination, but owing to a defect in the provision of expenses for prosecution, it has fallen into desuetude. When the present Government was formed in 1859, a clause was introduced to the Public Health Act correcting the defect; but under pressure of the Member for Finsbury [Mr. Thomas Duncombe] I surrendered it. It has been to me a bitter reflection that I did so; for I am convinced that the sacrifice of that clause has occasioned the loss of thousands of lives in this country.
The question is sometimes asked, Why is it that association with horses is so prejudicial to morality? This interrogation might be accompanied with another, namely, Why is it that the advocacy of vaccination is so frequently associated with romance and rant? That public vaccination had fallen into desuetude was untrue. There were fluctuations from year to year, but the rate was maintained without practical abatement. That in 1861 it could be said that thousands of lives had been lost because prosecuting officers were not provided in 1859, was romance and rant without mitigation. In England and Wales there died of smallpox—
| In 1858 | 6460 | In 1862 | 1628 | |
| 1859 | 3848 | 1863 | 5964 | |
| 1860 | 2749 | 1864 | 7684 | |
| 1861 | 1320 | 1865 | 6411 |
Where then were the thousands of lives lost from the formation of the Government in 1859 to 1861? and where were the lives saved after the enactment of the vital clause? But who that knew Mr. Robert Lowe could believe that he was convinced that the surrender of the clause occasioned the loss of thousands of lives, and that the loss was to him a bitter reflection? Would not the vulgar version of the invocation, O mihi beate Martine! have been appropriate to the situation?
Further, continued Mr. Lowe—
From 1837 to 1840 the deaths from Smallpox amounted to 12,000 a-year. From 1840 to 1863, during which period Vaccination was provided by the Poor Law Boards, the annual average of deaths was only 5,200. Thus by the diffusion of Vaccination, the mortality of Smallpox was reduced by more than one-half. Then in 1853 the Compulsory Law came into operation, and its first effect was remarkable. The number of vaccinations enormously increased and the deaths diminished. In 1854 they sank to 2,808, and in 1855 to 2,525. Afterwards they gradually increased up to the present time [When in fact they never were lower!], the Act having, as I already explained, fallen into desuetude. Thus is the efficiency of Vaccination established!
Into such stuff may a clever man descend! The statement was rotten with untruth. It was gross misrepresentation to set forth the average mortality of 12,000 for the years 1837-40 as permanent mortality which the Act of 1840 reduced to 5,200. The years 1837-40 embraced a severe epidemic, following years of quiescence during which vaccinators had been singing pæans over their imaginary victory. Holding as we do that smallpox comes and goes with indifference to vaccination (unless in so far as it keeps the disease alive) the figures cited by Mr. Lowe as completely illustrate our contention as they nullified his. By no contrivance can the fluctuations of smallpox be associated with more or less vaccination.
Probably Mr. Lowe was inspired by his medical staff, but, if so, he made the inspiration his own, evolving as from personal certainty, such fancy-work as this—
Out of 1000 who take Smallpox without being vaccinated 350 die; while out of 1000 badly vaccinated only 150 die; but out of 1000 well vaccinated only 5 die.
To which the conclusive answer would have been, that a mortality of 7 in 20 of the unvaccinated was about double that of smallpox in the time when all were unvaccinated; and that disregarding the factitious classification, the mortality over all cases continued as it was in the pre-vaccination era. What smallpox was, smallpox has remained—discrete, confluent, malignant; each type being qualified as slight, dangerous, and deadly; the relation of vaccination to the type being wholly irrelevant.
Further, he proclaimed without reserve, that smallpox was transmuted to cowpox in the cow—
There was a theory started that the efficacy of Vaccination was wearing out; but the valuable discovery of Mr. Ceely has set any apprehension on that score at rest for ever. Mr. Ceely has proved that Smallpox, when taken from the human body and introduced to that of the cow, produces Cowpox. It is thus evident that we have the means of obtaining Cowpox of the requisite strength to any extent. The beautiful discovery has also been made that the security of Vaccination may be almost indefinitely increased by multiplying the number of punctures.
Thus was mystery dispelled! Cowpox was smallpox diversified in the cow, and the lost security of Jenner’s single puncture was recovered in tattoo!
Appealing to the sentiment of medical men in favour of vaccination as exhibited in the replies to Simon’s queries in 1857—a fallacy for conviction which Mr. Lowe would have been quick to detect if advanced for any clerical, scholastic, or other trading interest, he observed—
The terrible malady falls heavily upon young children: in Vaccination is their defence. Consider, then, what a painful responsibility will rest upon us, if, in the face of almost unanimous medical testimony, we leave them to perish, and communicate a dreadful contagion throughout the country. These children have no discretion of their own; and it is a profanation of liberty and self-government to say that any man has a right to set up his own sordid and brutal prejudices against such medical opinion, and expose his child to disease and death.
Words, ferocious words; but how do they bear examination? Why should disbelief in vaccination be stigmatised as sordid and brutal prejudice? Why should parliamentary affection for children surpass parental affection? The argument, if valid, would equally apply to any matter in which the conviction of a minority was at variance with that of a majority; and if in such circumstances the minority is bound to submission, where is the substance answering to civil and religious liberty? If the clear scientific persuasion of the smallest minority concerning such a matter as vaccination is to be subjected to vulgar medical dictation by the brute force of the majority, what form of tyranny may not be justified?
The Bill [continued Mr. Lowe] which I wish to pass into law is very simple. All that it enacts is that Poor Law Boards may appoint persons to prosecute those whom the medical officers report ought to be prosecuted.
And the bill was passed without division. Mr. Duncombe and Mr. Coningham protested, but neither had mastered the question so as to offer effective opposition. Mr. Coningham observed that figures might be made to prove anything; and as concerned the unanimous opinion of medical men, they had to bear in mind the saying, “There is nothing like leather.” If smallpox had fallen off, there were extensive sanitary improvements to account for the fall; and, for his part, he placed his trust much more in better conditions of life for the people than in a prescription like vaccination.
The Act obtained did not fulfil the expectations of its promoters. Mr. Lowe’s bitter regret for thousands of lives lost in consequence of his concession to Mr. Duncombe proved to be wasted emotion. Guardians did not exercise their powers as inquisitors and persecutors with adequate energy. Sir Morton Peto, in the House of Commons, on 14th March, 1864, asked—
Whether the registration of Vaccination is not a total failure, alike for statistical purposes and for the prosecution of offenders under the Compulsory Act; and whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the law this session.
To which Mr. Lowe made answer—
It is quite true that the system of registration under the Act is very bad, but it would cost a great deal of money to improve it. Moreover, even when improved, it would not make the measures for compulsion effectual to any extent. The great difficulty of working compulsion is not so much due to defective legislation as to the reluctance to prosecute poor people for disobedience to the law, the neglect of which is countenanced by too many who ought to know better. I am sorry, therefore, I cannot hold out any hope of improving the system.
The medical officers of the Poor Law Board were, however, intent upon coercive legislation; and Mr. H. A. Bruce, more pliant than Mr. Lowe, introduced a bill of their contriving in 1866, which he assured the House of Commons “involved no new principle, and merely consolidated provisions dispersed over six Acts of Parliament, with a few amendments.” On going into committee on the bill, 11th April, 1866, he delivered an elaborate defence of vaccination, prepared for him by the astute promoters of the measure, starting in this fashion—
At the close of last century Dr. Jenner achieved his immortal discovery by which, perhaps, more misery has been prevented through the alleviation of pain and the preservation of life than by any other discovery that has ever been made.
Spoken from whatever elevation, nothing divides talk like this from that of a quack at a country fair. Having struck the note, Mr. Bruce ran through the familiar gamut of assertion wherewith the rite of vaccination is supposed to be justified. The following is a sample of the advocacy imposed upon him—
A statement has been widely circulated that Syphilis has been communicated by Vaccination. Millions of children have been vaccinated in the last sixty years, but not a single case has occurred in which it has been proved that Syphilis has been communicated. A case is alleged to have occurred in France in which a child had been vaccinated from another which inherited Syphilis, but the surgeon in that case, in taking lymph from a child covered with syphilitic blotches, acted in monstrous disregard of common prudence and medical knowledge. No such case, so far as the most careful medical research can discover, has happened in this country.
Whilst this statement would now incur general discredit, yet even in 1866 the official prompters of Mr. Bruce presumed over much on public credulity. It was not probable that what vaccinators did not wish they would discover; or, if discovered, proclaim. Nevertheless, the denunciation of the “alleged” French instance was entirely inconsistent with the contention that syphilis could not be communicated from a syphilitic vaccinifer, blotched or unblotched. So much it was imperative to maintain, for it was obvious that the complete vaccination of any population must involve infants with latent syphilis whose virus might transfer the disease to the untainted. This peril, opponents of vaccination, from Cobbett onwards, had recognised; and as its recognition was prejudicial to vaccination, its possibility was stoutly outsworn until manifold and indisputable evidence compelled its admission, and shifted the question to the extent of its frequency.
Mr. Henley, following Mr. Bruce, spoke some homely sense—
We all know that when we want anything of the kind done, the medical man entertains us with a fine cock-and-bull story about waiting until he can get lymph from a healthy child. This caution implies risk; and though it is said that not a single case of injury has occurred in sixty years, yet nobody will persuade me that medical men take all these pains (where they are well paid and watched) if there are not grounds for the exercise of care. Undoubtedly it was an abomination to take vaccine from a diseased child, but how is a public vaccinator to know that any child is diseased? If he inquires too particularly, he will run the risk of a slapped face from the mother for his trouble.
Mr. Henley also drew attention to the claims made for vaccination, coupled with the admission that the greater part of it was good for little—
One remarkable statement has been made—that there has been an examination of 500,000 children belonging to the humbler classes chiefly affected by Compulsory Vaccination. Of the number so examined only one in eight was found to have been perfectly vaccinated, which fact involves the further fact that seven out of the eight were imperfectly vaccinated, or not vaccinated at all. If only one in eight has been perfectly vaccinated, great doubt will come upon many people’s minds as to the matter with which the others have been inoculated.
Much in the bill was crude and impracticable, and Mr. Ayrton expressed the sense of many in the House when he observed—
The bill before us is badly drawn, and bears too much the marks of its official origin. Great powers have been taken for the vaccinating department, but nothing is provided for the protection of the public. It seems to me that if Vaccination is to be enforced by penalties, public vaccinators should be subject to penalties for inefficient and injudicious work. I have been entrusted with a great many petitions against the bill, and I have been much impressed with the admission that the existing system of Vaccination has entirely failed in effecting its object. The bill will have to be referred to a Committee, and as many believe that Vaccination does as much harm as good, I trust the members will not be fettered in their inquiries.
It is needless to say the asserted failure of vaccination was an artifice to induce Parliament to pass the bill. The public vaccinations for 1863, 1864, and 1865, were as numerous as ever, and accompanied with a marked increase of smallpox. No doubt vaccination was a failure, but in a different sense from that in which the word was used to acquire increase of power and pay for the application of the rite. The bill was referred to a select committee, who reported; but the Conservatives having displaced the Liberals, it was withdrawn. Mr. Corry, in announcing the fact to the House of Commons, 23rd July, 1866, said—
I have ascertained that the measure is likely to meet with great opposition on both sides of the House; and it is, therefore, very doubtful whether it could be carried at this late period of the session. Moreover, some of its provisions require further and careful consideration.
The bill was framed and promoted by the Poor Law Board, independently of Liberals and Conservatives, the problem of the medical officials being, “How far is it possible to obtain the assent of Parliament to what we consider desirable.” There were limits to parliamentary complaisance, however wide, and, informed by the experience of 1866, a revised bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Lord Robert Montagu in 1867, who, like his predecessors, reproduced the instructions of his advisers with sufficient flavour to pass them off as his own. A portion of his business was to obtain recognition for the payment of extra fees for successful vaccination—
When an Inspector reports that certain Vaccinations are of the 1st class, the Public Vaccinator will receive 1s. over and above the sum paid by the Guardians for each Vaccination he has performed. If the Vaccinations are reported of the 2nd class, he will receive 8d. For 3rd class Vaccinations nothing in excess of the Guardians’ contract fee will be paid.
This graduation of vaccination excited no comment though why aught save first-class should have been accounted tolerable, or paid for, was far from obvious. The possible amount chargeable for these awards was thus estimated—
The ratio of children born to the population is about 3½ per cent., which gives 700,000 a year for the population of 20 millions. Reckoning that four-fifths of these children, or 560,000, are vaccinated gratuitously during the year, the expenditure will be £28,000 if all the Vaccinations are 1st class, and £18,500 if 2nd class. Shall we, then, think it too much if, for a sum between £18,500 and £28,000 we ensure that there shall never occur a case of smallpox, and that we save 7,000 lives a year?
Such was the argument put into the mouth of Lord Robert Montagu for the persuasion of Parliament! Only pay an extra price for first and second class vaccination, and not a case of smallpox shall occur in England, and 7,000 lives a year shall be saved! When we inquire where the 7,000 lives a year were lost, we discover how boldly the credulity of Parliament was imposed upon. There died of smallpox in England and Wales—
| In 1861 | 1,320 | In 1864 | 7,684 |
| 1862 | 1,628 | 1865 | 6,411 |
| 1863 | 5,964 | 1866 | 2,977 |
Where, then, were the 7,000 lives to save? In 1864 the mortality exceeded 7,000; but to select an extreme year and represent it as ordinary would have incurred a sharp epithet if practised in finance instead of smallpox.
A similar fable of salvation from smallpox was related by Lord Robert Montagu concerning Scotland. He said—
It is wiser to save people’s lives than to consult their prejudices. The example of Scotland shows the value of a thorough-going Vaccination Act. The measure for that country has reduced the smallpox death-rate from 2,000 to 120 per annum.
The Act to extend and make Vaccination compulsory in Scotland was passed in 1863—an Act little else than superfluous, for the people were vaccinated without it. There died of smallpox in Scotland—
| In 1859 | 682 | In 1863 | 1,648 |
| 1860 | 1,495 | 1864 | 1,741 |
| 1861 | 766 | 1865 | 383 |
| 1862 | 426 | 1866 | 200 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 3,369 | 3,972 |
The average of these eight years was 907 deaths annually; and one inquires with some amaze, Where were the 2,000 which compulsory vaccination reduced to 120? It is difficult to repress some indignation over such measureless misrepresentation; nor to point out that we are not dealing with theologians, who are often assumed to hold a license for prevarication, but with medical officials with M.P.’s for spokesmen. The following years, of which Lord Robert Montagu, speaking in 1867, was necessarily ignorant, gave these deaths from smallpox in Scotland—
| In 1867 | 100 | In 1870 | 114 |
| 1868 | 15 | 1871 | 1,442 |
| 1869 | 64 | 1872 | 2,488 |
Smallpox was proclaimed “stamped-out” of Scotland in 1870, but the epidemic of 1871-72 proved how vain was the boast. Smallpox, in common with typhus, may be exterminated, but by no such irrelevance as vaccination.
One object of the bill was the reconstruction of vaccination districts, so as to secure sufficient numbers for arm-to-arm practice.
It is necessary [said Lord R. Montagu] to successful Vaccination that the two classes of patients, those who have been vaccinated eight days before should meet those who are to be vaccinated, so that the doctor may take vaccine from the arms of one set and transfer it to those of the other.
Mr. Henley, in opposition, maintained that careful vaccination on such terms was impracticable, saying—
It seems a large proportion of the Vaccination provided by the public is imperfect; but the bill before us is wholly inadequate to secure Vaccination that is trustworthy. If a vaccinator never sees a child until it is brought to him, and knows nothing of its parentage, how can he judge whether it is fit to be vaccinated, or fit to serve for the vaccination of others? No torture will induce a mother to confess before company that anything ails her baby. Every one who knows anything of women is aware that they will conceal in public what they may reveal in the privacy of home. The shame of making known her own infirmities, or those of her family, will keep a woman silent in a crowd, and if she does reply to awkward questions, it will be to mislead. Medical men will consequently be perplexed and outwitted; and, therefore, on the terms prescribed a safe and efficient system of Vaccination cannot be secured.
Further, said Mr. Henley, the bill was defective because no attempt was made to conciliate the prejudices or consult the convenience of the people who were compelled to have their children vaccinated.
The bill is one of pure coercion, making no allowance for those who are brought under its scope. It must not be forgotten that the poor mother is not able to do much within the month after her confinement. The period of three months specified within which Vaccination must be effected will press very severely upon the lower orders. We are told that no district of less than 5,000 inhabitants will work successfully, and that 10,000 is a better number. If country districts are to comprise 5,000, how many miles will poor folk have to travel to reach a vaccination station? Consider the inconvenience it will be to a woman to drag her child two or three miles for vaccination, and be obliged to go a second time for inspection! The medical authorities insist that four punctures at least ought to be made on the unfortunate children. Not only are those four wounds to be inflicted, but the children are to be brought in all weathers to have their wounds opened and matter extracted for the benefit of others, thus prolonging their sufferings and the cares of their mothers. If we are to act upon the principle of doing as we should be done by, I would ask how you would like to be compelled to carry your children to a vaccination station and have them mixed up with all and sundry, and inoculated at a hazard with you know not what? For myself I see no difficulty in having the children of the poor vaccinated at their own homes. It would be far better to pay more and work discriminately than let the people think there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. If you simply try to drive you will find the people apt to kick, and still more ready to evade the restrictions you put upon them.
Mr. Kendall confirmed Mr. Henley, saying—
As Chairman of a large Union, I have seen great inconvenience from the crowding of children at vaccination stations. They are taken to those stations whether wet or dry, and cold and shivering are kept huddled together in a manner most likely to breed illness and diffuse infection.
Mr. Lowe sneered at Mr. Henley’s concern for the poor, reminding him that the wounds he deplored would save them from a loathsome disease. Mr. Henley did not dispute the salvation, as he might have done, but pleaded for its more considerate performance. Spite, too, of his assumption, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. Compulsory vaccination as applied to the majority would never be tolerated by the upper and middle class minority; nor would a plutocratic Parliament have entertained so profane a project. Nor (it must be said) would working men show themselves much more enduring in their own persons. The victims of the law are their wives and children; and it is surprising how much indignity and cruelty they will endure in these helpless dependents. Mr. Henley was more chivalrous for them than they are for themselves.
An argument for fresh legislation was the failure of the Act of 1853. Mr. Brady said—
As a medical man I can testify that medical men are almost unanimous in favour of Compulsory Vaccination; but in order to give the public the full benefit of the system it must be fairly paid for. We shall be penny wise and pound foolish unless the persons employed to carry out this measure are liberally remunerated. When the bill of 1853 was before the House, I said the remuneration was inadequate, and that the Act would be a failure, and that prediction has proved true.
That the Act of 1853 was a failure, in the sense of not securing the vaccination of the people, was untrue—though necessarily true as concerned the prevention of smallpox. The assertion of failure in 1867 was an artifice to overcome the apathy of Parliament. It was assumed that there was a population to be vaccinated, and vaccinated in a new and superior fashion, if only better pay were provided. More money was wanted to work the Vaccination Mill. In the words of Lord Robert Montagu—
On the birth of a child being registered, the Registrar is bound to give notice to the parent, and to supply him with proper forms, whether for public or private Vaccination. He will enter in a book the name of the child, with the means of identification. After Vaccination, the Public Vaccinator will send the certificate of successful Vaccination to the Registrar, who will enter it in his book. Thus the Registrar will know which children have been registered in his district and which have not; which children are liable to Smallpox and which are not liable. [O Credulitas!] Then it is made the interest of all concerned to work the system and enforce its checks. It is the interest of every Local Registrar to hunt up every birth, because for every entry he has 1s. It is his interest to obtain the certificate of successful Vaccination, for entering which he has 3d. It is the interest of the Public Vaccinator to operate on as many children as possible, because for each successful operation he has at least 1s. 6d., and for first class work an extra 1s. It is the interest of the parent to have his child vaccinated, for he is otherwise subject to legal proceedings and a penalty of 20s.
Colonel Barttelot objected, saying—
There are about 750,000 births annually in this country, and the parents of the majority surely deserve some consideration. 250,000 of them can neither read or write, yet they are liable to a fine of 20s. if they do not comply with the printed forms of this Act. It would be much better to send doctors to the homes of the children than collect mothers and infants in crowds at vaccination stations.
Mr. Bruce replied that it was proposed to do nothing new—
Compulsory Vaccination on the same terms has been the law of the land since 1853. The present bill lays down no new principle. It merely collects the scattered provisions of the law, and supplies machinery found necessary after much experience.
The observation was, no doubt, ingenuous on the part of the speaker; but, misled himself, he assisted to mislead the House. The bill, Section 31, ran as follows—
If any Registrar, or any Officer appointed by the Guardians to enforce the provisions of this Act, shall give information in writing to a Justice of the Peace, that he has reason to believe that any child under the age of 14 years, being within the Union or Parish for which the informant acts, has not been successfully vaccinated, and that he has given notice to the parent or person having the custody of such child to procure its being vaccinated, and that this notice has been disregarded, the Justice may summon such parent or person to appear with the child before him at a certain time and place, and upon the appearance, if the Justice shall find, after such examination as he shall deem necessary, that the child has not been vaccinated, nor has already had the Smallpox, he may, if he see fit, make an order under his hand and seal directing such child to be vaccinated within a certain time; and if, at the expiration of such time, the child shall not have been so vaccinated, or shall not be shown to be then unfit to be vaccinated, or to be insusceptible of Vaccination, the person upon whom such an order shall have been made shall be proceeded against summarily, and, unless he can show some reasonable ground for his omission to carry the order into effect, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 20s.
Yet, said Mr. Bruce, it was proposed to do nothing new! Here was a development of compulsion subjecting a parent to prosecution during fourteen years of the life of his child, and it was nothing new! What resulted from this aggravation of the law, devised with craft and enacted with indifference, remains to be seen.
The bill was opposed by Sir J. Clarke Jervoise, Mr. Thomas Chambers, and Mr. Barrow. Mr. Chambers prophesied—
I am persuaded that when the bill is passed an agitation will commence which will never cease until the Act is repealed.
The carelessness and indifference of the House were, however, insuperable. It was legislation for “the lower orders,” and concerned “respectable folk” not at all. The bill was read a third time without opposition, slipped through the Lords unopposed, and received the Royal assent, 12th August, 1867, as 30 and 31 Victoriæ, Cap. 84—An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Vaccination.
As another example of the advocacy with which this bill was commended to the House of Commons, I take the following from the close of the speech of Lord Robert Montagu, when introducing it to committee, 14th June, 1867. He said—
Smallpox differs from other epidemics in this, that it is one of the worst, but is absolutely preventible. In other diseases all that can be done by the removal of predisposing conditions is to mitigate their virulence; but Smallpox may be altogether prevented. If, then, one who raises his hand against another and kills him is guilty of murder, of what shall he be guilty who, by voice or vote in this House, endeavours to prevent the passing of a measure which will make it absolutely certain that Smallpox shall no longer kill 7,000 a-year in this country!
This absurd adjuration was too much for Mr. Henley, who observed—
The somewhat formidable close of the noble Lord’s speech made it difficult to know whether I ought not to walk out of the House and leave the responsibility of the measure to others. He said those who objected to the bill would be guilty of the deaths of those who died of Smallpox.
Lord Robert Montagu—I said that Smallpox was so far preventible that those who stopped the adoption of Vaccination would be guilty of the deaths of 7,000 children a-year.
Mr. Henley—I understood the noble Lord to say that they would incur that guilt if they objected to the machinery of the bill.
Lord Robert Montagu—No; not to its machinery.
Mr. Henley—Then I do not know precisely what the noble Lord does mean.
In short, the bill was neither honestly advocated or seriously considered. On the one hand, members of Parliament were prejudiced, ignorant and credulous, and careless as to legislation that did not affect their families or those of their influential constituents. On the other hand there was a knot of medical officials eager for power and the aggrandisement of their profession, who did not disdain to practise upon the prejudice, the ignorance, and the credulity of Parliament. The result was an insufferable outrage upon the rights of every nonconformist—an outrage which, if perpetrated on the theological instead of the scientific conscience, would have roused Englishmen to fever heat.
[CHAPTER XLII.]
THE GATHERING MOVEMENT—1867-70.
Section 31 of the Act of 1867 implied the doom of Vaccination. It was bad enough to fine a parent for refusing to vaccinate his child; it was, however, a circumscribed annoyance; but to make of refusal a continuous offence until a child attained the age of fourteen was to set up a cause of quarrel that had to be fought out. Slavery in the United States is abolished, but slavery might have endured to this day had the Southerners been more forbearing; but, in the arrogance of their power, they imposed on the Union the Fugitive Slave Law, compelling the people of the North to surrender runaway negroes. This triumph of the slaveholders determined the fate of slavery. In like manner the arrogance of the vaccinators overcame their prudence. Resolved to subdue resistance to their rite, they drove resistance to extremity, and set up an irreducible insurrection. As a medical prescription accepted at discretion, vaccination might have survived unquestioned and paid for; but its transition into an aggressive statute removed it from the safe realm of professional mystery into the jurisdiction of common sense, common observation, and every man’s business.
Sec. 31, Act ’67, was quickly turned to account by the medical officials who had devised and imposed it upon the indifference of Parliament. They had, of course, to operate through local poor-law authorities—a painful necessity; but guardians were occasionally as fanatical as themselves, and exasperated, too, that their petty authority should be set at naught, and especially by parents in humble life. Consequently, here and there over the country continued prosecutions for refusing to vaccinate were initiated, stirring up strife, begetting sympathy with the prosecuted, and gradually converting vaccination into a living political question. Whatever may be thought of Sec. 31, Act ’67, all will allow that it drew a line and established irritation and conflict. Opposition to vaccination had hitherto to contend with nothing so deadly as apathy, but from that drawback it was now delivered. On the other hand, in many parishes, Sec. 31, Act ’67 was allowed to make no difference. Those who disliked vaccination were warned, or prosecuted once, and then let alone; but this leniency served to accentuate the severity practised elsewhere, and to render the law still more odious by reason of the flagrant inequality of its administration.
The scientific opposition to vaccination, initiated by Mr. John Gibbs in 1855, had for some years few accessions, and it required faith in truth in full measure to persist in its advocacy. The Jennerian tradition was so rooted in the public mind that to question it savoured of paradox or profanity. There were occasional manifestations of scepticism when smallpox attacked the vaccinated, but doubt was crushed down as impious and dangerous to established confidence. Mr. Herbert Spencer, for example, in Social Statics, published in 1851, observed—
The measures enjoined by the Vaccination Act of 1840 were to have exterminated Smallpox; yet the reports of the Registrar-General show that deaths from Smallpox have been increasing.
To such matter-of-fact criticism, any answer must have taken form in the style of the bewildered divine, who exclaimed, “Dear brethren, what theology can we enjoy if such objections be entertained!”
Dr. Charles T. Pearce was one of the first to unite with Mr. Gibbs in his labours. As editor of a medical journal, he happened to receive an article from Mr. Gibbs which set him thinking, and as the result of his inquiries, he came out an enthusiastic anti-vaccinator. He made the question of vaccination completely his own, and lectured on the subject throughout the country, eager and ready for combat. In Northampton, in 1860, he held his first public debate, and under his influence the town became a centre of resistance to the compulsory law, so that Mr. Charles Gilpin, M.P. for the borough, addressing his constituents in 1870, thus expressed himself—
I have always thought that when we try to enforce one of the ever-changing opinions of medical men, we touch upon the liberty of the subject and the rights of human nature. I find that a number of parents are fined because they are convinced that Vaccination is useless and injurious. I ask, What is the character of those parents? Are they idle? Are they dissolute? Are they drunken? Are they careless of the welfare of their children? The answer is emphatically, No! They are thoughtful, they are industrious, they are sober. They are men who look into the reasons of things, and who decline to be driven into any course of conduct which they do not rationally approve. When I was in business in the City of London I had my goods seized almost every year for Church rates. I objected to the law, and with a free heart and a firm voice, I said I will endure the penalty. I would not obey a law which I knew to be wrong. Therefore it is that I sympathise with those who are persuaded that Vaccination is wrong; and for their encouragement and consolation let me say, that as compulsory Church rates were abolished because of the stedfast testimony borne against them by Nonconformists, so will compulsion as applied to Vaccination, if resistance is consistently and seriously maintained. As the Society of Friends has demonstrated, no law can survive under the persistent protest of conscience.
Tenacity was the distinction of Dr. Pearce. Undismayed by whatever odds, he maintained his position with deliberation and patience, and by neither historical, statistical, or physiological data was it possible to circumvent him. When he entered into the controversy in 1856, fool and fanatic was the summary designation of whoever ventured to dispute the salvation wrought by vaccination; but, living until 1883, he witnessed such epithets received with amusement as denoting the ill-humour and impotence of those who employed them.
An energetic advocate of the good cause appeared in Dr. W. J. Collins, who, after twenty years of service in London as public vaccinator, felt compelled to renounce the practice as useless and injurious. He stated his conviction frankly and forcibly before the St. Pancras Sanitary Committee in 1863,[290] and in an essay, vigorous with mother-wit, published in 1867,[291] he communicated much useful and unpleasant information to the credulous and deceived public. To contend with a judgment thus instructed and qualified was useless; and those who were affected by the exposure took care to avoid it. Nor considering the danger to the craft from discussion, was the policy injudicious. Truth has many adversaries, but none so hard to overcome as the non-resistant silence of timorous self-interest.
A leader and organiser of the opposition was wanted, and he appeared in Richard Butler Gibbs, cousin of John Gibbs, who, as we have seen, framed the first systematic indictment of vaccination in 1855. Mr. Gibbs, of Irish parentage, was born in London in 1822, and in the course of a commercial career became agent at Pease’s West Collieries for Joseph Pease of Darlington, the first Quaker M.P. It was in 1863, when a member of the Bishop Auckland board of guardians, that he first moved publicly against vaccination, and then less against the practice itself than against its prescription by the authority at that time vested in the Privy Council. He cautioned his colleagues that they were likely to become (as they since have) the tools of a central medical clique. Subsequently finding himself comparatively free from business, he devoted himself to the cause with which his name has been identified. Gathering together the scattered elements of resistance, he formed in 1866 the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League, and travelled over the country, lecturing and holding public meetings. The enactment of repeated penalties for non-vaccination, strenuously resisted by Mr. Gibbs, established “a raw,” and conferred on the League a grievance and purpose everywhere recognised as indisputable by the people. Sec. 31, Act ’67 was in a popular sense the making of the agitation against vaccination; and it has been maintained (in a sense fortunately) until even the withdrawal of the aggravation cannot save vaccination itself from ultimate rejection. What at the moment we like least, often in the end serves us best.
Mr. Henry Pitman of Manchester entered actively into the movement. He had observed the ill effects of vaccination upon one of his own children, and in connection with Mr. R. B. Gibbs organised public meetings in Manchester and other places. In 1869 he tried how far a penny journal would succeed, and started The Anti-Vaccinator which ran for eighteen weeks. As editor of The Co-operator, which he conducted for ten years, he gave prominence to vaccination news, and in 1870 adjoined Anti-Vaccinator to the title, which was continued until The Co-operative News was established in 1871, when he maintained the publication as The Anti-Vaccinator until the close of the year. In 1876 Mr. Pitman bore testimony to his convictions by going to the Knutsford House of Correction rather than pay the fine and costs imposed upon him for refusing to have his daughter, Violet, vaccinated, and in Prison Thoughts conveyed to others the lesson of his experience. Mr. Pitman has been remarkably successful in impressing public men with his opinions. Courteous and persistent, he has won consideration where rougher speech might not have prevailed.
Professor F. W. Newman was led to a knowledge of the dangers of vaccination by Mr. Henry Pitman; and those who have been observant of his career in later years know with what courage and consistency he has asserted his convictions. Having asked the Professor how he became concerned in the opposition to vaccination, he favoured me thus—
“The outline of my mental history in this direction is as follows. Circumstances had led me to respect Mr. Henry Pitman as a competent and truthful witness of fact. On a certain occasion he spoke publicly on the miserable state to which he had seen a poor lad, Ira Connell of Southport, reduced by vaccination. Ira’s parents, and his brothers and sisters, were all hale: his mother attested that previous to vaccination so was Ira. But after vaccination, Ira had never recovered its dreadful effects, three of his four limbs being crippled.
“Some years later, I myself saw Ira Connell at Southport. I think his age was then 25, but am not sure. He had only one leg sound, and hardly one arm. I will not undertake to describe his state exactly, but it was very pitiable. I am happy to add that in nine or ten years more he has gradually recovered, so as at least not to be visibly crippled.
“Previously I had refused to read anti-vaccination tracts, having too much already to read. I had never known or heard in my own circles of mischief from vaccination, and when some German ladies spoke of its ‘horrors’ I thought them absurd and fanatical; but now that Henry Pitman publicly attested a fact, this woke me up to the duty of further inquiry.
“I at once remembered that in my early youth or boyhood I had been staggered by reading in a medical journal that experience made it impossible to sustain Jenner’s doctrine that vaccination was a certain preventive of smallpox; but the writer nevertheless urged that it was valuable for making smallpox milder if it did follow. This struck me as an ugly shifting of the basis, and far from plausible. One school-and-college fellow of mine, after vaccination, had smallpox that marked him; but nothing further led me to pursue the argument.
“I now at once saw that compulsory vaccination was an infamy, since Parliament could not secure any one from Ira Connell’s fate: and I was indignant on learning that doctors pooh-poohed such miseries, as endured ‘for the general good,’ a theory which justifies any amount of tyranny under the influence of superstition; and I presently remembered that in Roman pestilences sacrifices were believed efficacious, and the arguments of the priests and senators were quite as good as those of our physicians.
“I find that in 1869 I had a sharp debate with a clever young student of Medicine, who poured out the doctrines of the Faculty, which he had been getting up. My respect for the whole Faculty has rapidly got less and less; it had long been declining. I need not obtrude on you the depth to which it has now sunk, excepting always a noble few, who are what Heretics were to the Mediæval Church.
“Next I saw that no Parliament or King has, or can have, any right (on medical theory) to stick a poisoned lancet into a healthy person; and that to fancy that Human Health can be improved by altering the natural blood of Health is an imbecile contemptible fancy. Moreover, that unless Vaccination is believed to remove the causes of smallpox, those causes would entail disease in other ways, and perhaps worse, by suppressing the natural eruption, which eruption alone is called ‘Smallpox.’ My mind was thus decided.
“I did not learn till some years later (what alone concerns Parliament) that the more active is smallpox, the less is the Total Mortality of any year; and conversely, the less active the smallpox, the greater is the Total Mortality. This is the only form of statistics worth attending to. All the rest is dust thrown in our eyes.
“Statistics not founded on a scientific principle are the commonest nidus of fallacy; but if any statistics are to be listened to, those of Total Mortality are the least open to suspicion. The primâ facie evidence is, that instead of Vaccination saving yearly 80,000 lives (Sir Lyon Playfair’s monstrous assertion) Vaccination does only harm; but that Smallpox saves every year many lives (some hundreds or thousands) by a natural eruption, under the morbid circumstances desirable.”
The Countess de Noailles contributed most efficient assistance toward opening the public mind and letting in light. In a communication her ladyship says—
“You ask me how it was that my name came to be connected with the present anti-vaccination movement.
“It was in this way. On my return to England in 1865, Mrs. Cowper-Temple, now Lady Mount Temple, asked me to visit the office of the Ladies’ Sanitary Association, which I had joined her in starting four years before. I had wished the Association to be called the Ladies’ Association for the Protection of the Health of the Children of the Poor; but that was thought too long a name, and was changed; and I mention it only to explain what my idea was in helping to form the Society. Well, on visiting the office of the Association, I saw among the sanitary tracts one with the title, When were you vaccinated? On reading the words, it struck me suddenly that vaccination was all wrong, but as I knew nothing whatever about it, and had heard naught but praise of the practice, I told the excellent secretary of the Association my misgivings on the subject, and she set to work to find out all that was known or thought on the question. Miss Griffiths soon learnt that three relatives—John, Richard, and George Gibbs—had for twenty years been writing and working against vaccination, besides Dr. Collins and others. Seeing that I was not alone in my conviction, I resolved to elicit more opinion on the subject by giving a prize for the best essay on the same, setting forth the supposed benefits, dangers, etc. Miss Griffiths went heart and soul into the question, and with the help of Dr. Druitt, I think, she had judges named and the prize of £100 offered. The judges were Mr. Marson, Dr. Richardson, and Dr. Francis Webb—all in favour of vaccination. The great length of the essay by Dr. Ballard gave it a claim for the prize, and the tremendous because unavoidable admissions as to the dreadful dangers of vaccination contained in this Prize Essay, have caused the doctors to try to suppress it—so at least I have heard.
“Miss Griffiths sent me in November, 1866, the Lancet, containing a horrible account of the poisoning of thirty-six children in Morbihan, Brittany, by public vaccination.
“My forebodings being thus so terribly confirmed, I tried to interest all the doctors who advised the Ladies’ Sanitary Association in the new difficulties in the way of this dreadful practice; but the only one who lent an ear to the sad tale was Dr. Garth Wilkinson, who began mildly, but afterwards waxed valiant in fight. May he and the little band which his genius has helped to bring into the field ‘soon put to flight the armies of the aliens.’
“In 1867 a letter from the Rev. W. Hume-Rothery against compulsory vaccination struck me, and he set to work at the question in the co-operative newspapers; and latterly in the Reporter, in which he has been ably helped by Mrs. Hume-Rothery, the daughter of the late Mr. Joseph Hume, M.P. The strength given to the bad law by Lord Robert Montagu’s Act in 1867 roused its enemies at the same time; and, feeling that my task was done, I left the contest to abler hands.
“I thus found that the Association I had inaugurated in order ‘to protect the health of poor children,’ was being made into an instrument to bind them through their mothers’ ignorance to the most wholesale plan for their degeneration, if not destruction, ever invented by the mind of man. It was in vain that I tried to get the ladies of the Sanitary Association to think over the matter. I was always met by the remark that it was a medical question and one which doctors alone could decide; and all I could obtain of them was to allow me to buy up the offending tract and to remain neutral in the question. When I left the Association a few years after, the tract was circulated again.
“The compulsory law seems to me well described in these words of Carlyle:—‘To decree injustice by a law—inspired prophets have long since seen, what every clear soul may still see, that of all Anarchies and Devil-worships there is none like this; that this is the “throne of iniquity” set up in the name of the Highest, the human apotheosis of Anarchy itself.’”
Dr. Ballard’s essay was of itself a notable achievement. Written in defence of vaccination, the difficulties, dangers and futility of the practice were so largely revealed, that any thoughtful reader was compelled to inquire, Where shall we find compensation for all this trouble, these risks, these sufferings? Dr. Ballard’s essay soon ran out of print, and the author was judiciously enlisted in the medical service of the Local Government Board.
In Dr. Garth Wilkinson the movement obtained the assistance not only of an able physician, but of one whom Emerson has described as “a philosophic critic, with a coequal vigour of understanding and imagination comparable only to Lord Bacon’s;” and “with a rhetoric like the armoury of the invincible knights of old.” Having asked Dr. Wilkinson how he came over to the side we identify with sound science and sound sense, he answered—
“The early History of my Opposition to Vaccination is, briefly, this—I had not considered Vaccination a question; but practised it when required. About 1865 the Countess de Noailles assailed my conscience on the subject, and her earnestness forced me to study it. She was backed by the late Mrs. Gibbs, then Miss Griffiths. Through Miss Griffiths I sent the following message to Madame de Noailles—‘Tell her Ladyship that the question is comparatively unimportant. Vaccination is an infinitesimal affair; its reform will come in with greater reforms.’ I also wrote to Madame that the only short way of getting rid of the Medical vested interest was by paying half a million or a million of money down to the Profession, and buying the slaves, the people, out, as the West Indian Blacks were bought out.
“After-studies extending over eighteen years have convinced me that I was wrong in my estimate of the smallness of the Vaccination question compared with other Evils. As forced upon every British Cradle, I see it as a Monster instead of a Poisonous Midge; a Devourer of Nations. As a Destroyer of the Honesty and Humanity of Medicine, which is through it a deeply-degraded Profession. As a Tyrant which is the Parent of a brood of Tyrants, and through Pasteur and his like a Universal Pollution Master. As a Ghoul which sits upon Parliament, and enforces Contamination by Law, and prepares the way for endless violations of personal liberty and sound sense at the bidding of cruel experts. Not denying other forms of Social Wickedness, I now, after careful study, regard Vaccination as one of the greatest and deepest forms, abolishing the last hope and resort of races, the new-born soundness of the Human Body.”
The agitation against compulsory vaccination prospered under the leadership of Mr. Gibbs. He sought help on all sides, and harmonised its various elements to the common purpose of the League. In his various labours he derived efficient assistance from his brother, Mr. G. S. Gibbs of Darlington, who displayed remarkable ability in the interpretation of vital statistics and in the exposure of their misapplications. Mr. Gibbs established branches of the League wherever there were adversaries of the practice, and was especially successful in the north of England. The relentless application of Sec. 31, Act ’67, in certain parts of the country did much to rouse public attention and sympathy. Parents were repeatedly fined for persistent refusal to have children vaccinated, and in default of payment had their property seized, or were committed to prison, sometimes with hard labour. Occasionally sentences were accompanied with gross insolence from the bench. For example, Mr. Bowman having pleaded at Newcastle his conscientious conviction that vaccination might prove injurious to his child, whilst it could never save him from smallpox, was compared to a thief by the magistrate, who said, “I once knew a man who had conscientious scruples against working so long as he could live by stealing; and I do not think conscience of that sort is entitled to respect.” Law on such terms naturally invites execration, and many who might hold by vaccination are thereby turned against it.
By some it was thought questionable whether Sec. 31, Act ’67, did afford warrant for repeated prosecutions. Mr. John Candlish, M.P. for Sunderland, who sat on the Committee of 1866 which dealt with the Bill which became law in 1867, maintained “that it was not intended that penalties should be repeated, but that one penalty should be a discharge from any obligation to submit a child to vaccination.” It is needless to say, an Act of Parliament is not to be interpreted by the intentions of its framers, but by its words. Moreover, if intentions are brought into question, it would be fair to set intentions against intentions. Several who were concerned in promoting the Act of ’67 had intentions more arbitrary than were conveyed in Sec. 31.
The question, was raised by the Rev. H. J. Allen, Primitive Methodist. He had been repeatedly before the bench at St. Neots, and was committed to prison for fourteen days, but, having paid the fine, £5, was liberated. In less than a month, he was summoned again, and fined £1 for each of his children, including costs. An appeal was made to the Court of Queen’s Bench in 1870, and judgment confirmed the severer interpretation of Sec. 31, Act ’67. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn held that a parent having been fined under the Act for disobeying an order to have his child vaccinated, may be proceeded against from time to time as long as the child remains unvaccinated. He declined to discuss whether vaccination was good or bad; the Legislature had treated it as a matter of great importance, and had passed Acts to ensure attention to it; that being so, he could not doubt that the intention of the Legislature was not merely to impose a penalty upon a person, once and for all, for having omitted to do that which the public health and safety required; but to enforce obedience to the requisitions of the law. He thought, therefore, the order to vaccinate might be renewed, and the penalties might be repeated until the order was obeyed. Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Hannen concurred. The judgment in this case, known as Allen v. Worthy, has been repeatedly questioned and always reaffirmed.
Immediately after Mr. Candlish introduced a Bill to the House of Commons to amend the law, repeating his conviction that the construction put upon the Act of ’67 was never intended by Parliament, and that it was by mere verbal accident that penalties were made continuous. The Bill was introduced too late in the session (6th July, 1870) to be carried, but it led to discussion and a promise from Government that the question would be remitted to a Committee next year, 1871.
FOOTNOTES:
[290] Twenty Years’ Experience of a Public Vaccinator. Read before the Sanitary Committee of St. Pancras, 9th June, 1863. Third edition. London, 1866.
[291] Have you been Vaccinated? and What Protection is Vaccination against Smallpox? By William J. Collins, M.D. Fourth edition. London, 1868.
[CHAPTER XLIII.]
HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE, 1871.
On 13th February, 1871, Mr. W. E. Forster moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Vaccination Act of 1867, and to report whether such Act should be amended. Mr. Forster’s remarks on the occasion are noteworthy, as manifesting the prevalent prejudice. He said—
I make the motion in compliance with a promise made to the Member for Sunderland last session, who had brought in a Bill to relax the punishment for refusal to permit Vaccination. I do not imagine that Mr. Candlish, more than any other member of the House, has the slightest doubt of the utility and necessity of Vaccination, and that it is necessary not only to encourage the practice, but to make it compulsory. Opposition to Vaccination is not heard in the House of Commons; but it is found, I am sorry to say, among certain persons in the country, who have carried their resistance to an extent that has been injurious to health and destructive to life. [Evolution this from Forster’s fancy.] These people must have forgotten the state of the country before Vaccination was introduced.
Then followed the usual fabulous matter of rote—the awful mortality prior to vaccination, the reduction of that mortality by vaccination, the extraordinary immunity enjoyed by the vaccinated and revaccinated, and so forth—uttered and accepted as indisputable.
The Government do not entertain any doubt of the efficacy and advantages of Vaccination, nor of the necessity of enforcing it. They have to contend with opposition—the opposition of ignorance, and also, I am sorry to say, with the opposition arising from interested motives [What possibly could they be?] preying upon that ignorance; and lastly, with the great neglect arising from apathy.
Sir Charles Adderley opposed the appointment of the Committee. Accepting Mr. Forster’s statement as valid, he demanded—
What is there to inquire about? Inquiry that is superfluous may be mischievous. Nothing can be more dangerous than to affect doubtfulness concerning legislation as to which there is not only no doubt, but a call for more rigorous administration.
Apparently the Government were of the same mind as Sir Charles, and the Committee was conceded in fulfilment of an inadvertent pledge. Mr. Forster assured the House—
The Government do not propose this Committee with the slightest doubt about the principle of Vaccination, or the necessity of Compulsory Vaccination; and I need not say we have no intention of relaxing the operation of the law during the deliberations of the Committee.
The Committee was nominated as follows on 16th February—
Dr. Brewer, Colchester.
Mr. Jacob Bright, Manchester.
Mr. John Candlish, Sunderland.
Mr. R. M. Carter, Leeds.
Mr. Stephen Cave, Shoreham.
Sir Smith Child, West Staffordshire.
Sir Dominic Corrigan, Dublin.
Mr. W. E. Forster, Bradford.
Mr. J. T. Hibbert, Oldham.
Mr. J. M. Holt, North-East Lancashire.
Lord Robert Montagu, Huntingdonshire.
Mr. P. H. Muntz, Birmingham.
Dr. Lyon Playfair, Edinburgh University.
Mr. W. H. Smith, Westminster.
Mr. P. A. Taylor, Leicester.
The first witness examined was Mr. Candlish, himself a member of the Committee and promoter of the inquiry. Whilst professing a limited faith in vaccination, and willing to exercise a degree of pressure sufficient to overcome mere apathy, Mr. Candlish was strongly opposed to the compulsion of parents who seriously objected to vaccination, and especially to their persecution by repeated penalties and imprisonment.
Dr. W. J. Collins, the next witness, opened the entire question of vaccination, and by a variety of experience showed that the vaccine disease neither superseded nor mitigated smallpox, whilst it was frequently a severe ailment and the means of exciting and conveying other diseases.
Dr. C. T. Pearce followed suit. The purpose of the Committee (limited to the consideration of the compulsory law) was apparently forgotten, and Dr. Pearce delivered a comprehensive discourse, in which the history, claims, failure, fallacies, and disasters of vaccination were freely displayed; and in the cross-examination which followed made good the positions he had assumed.
Sir Jervoise Clarke Jervoise, Bart., formerly M.P. for South Hants, disputed the common notions of infection as confused with contagion, and pointed out that it was absurd to draw comparisons between the vaccinated and unvaccinated unless their pecuniary status were at the same time defined: cases of smallpox in Belgravia were not to be likened to cases in Clerkenwell. Smallpox was not mitigated by vaccination: he had two relatives vaccinated by Jenner himself who subsequently had confluent smallpox so severely that “their own father did not know them.” Nor if smallpox had diminished was there any reason to ascribe it to vaccination: Jenner’s cowpox had ceased out of the land, and the cause of its cessation might equally apply to smallpox.
Dr. Garth Wilkinson gave evidence with the characteristic wisdom of the physician of genius who sees with his own eyes. He showed how, endowed and lucrative, the futility and mischief of vaccination were concealed or denied, and how, considered all sufficient against smallpox, the causes of the disease were overlooked, and the introduction of improved methods of treatment were unattempted or discouraged.
Mr. George S. Gibbs contested the right of the State to inflict vaccination, or to interfere between parent and child. Having a faculty for statistics, he had applied himself to the records of smallpox before and since the practice of vaccination, at home and abroad, and showed that smallpox was the same at present as in the past, neither more mortal nor less mortal, while there was reason to believe that vaccination was a breeder of smallpox as well as a source and excitant of other maladies.
Mr. Aaron Emery related in vigorous English how an infant of his had been vaccinated from a healthy-looking child on 31st May, 1869; how erysipelas followed; how it gradually got worse; how “the little fellow had no rest night nor day from 9th June to 4th July, when death put an end to his sufferings.” Then he told the difficulty he had to obtain a true certificate of death from the vaccinator; how he forced an inquest; how a verdict was returned, “Died from erysipelas caused by vaccination”; and how its terms were subsequently altered by Coroner Lankester and registered as altered at Somerset House. Up to the time of this fatality, Mr. Emery had been an unsuspicious believer in vaccination; but his sorrow led him to acquaintance with numerous cases like his own, screened from public recognition, any artifice being accounted laudable which seemed necessary to preserve vaccination from reproach.
Mr. F. Covington, secretary of the Northampton Anti-Vaccination League, described injuries from vaccination in his family and among his acquaintance; the distrust and dislike of the practice in Northampton with widespread resistance to the compulsory law.
Mrs. E. Kemp brought her baby, and told how it had been vaccinated without examination, although there was a sore on the side of its head. As the vaccination began to take, the child’s face and ears broke out, until through the mass of eruption “you could only see its little eyes.”
Mr. Thomas Baker, barrister, had been engaged in the Board of Health from 1849 to 1854, and officially connected with several sanitary inquiries. In his opinion what were called epidemics were fevers with a common origin, against which cleanliness was the efficient prophylactic, and to which his friend, Dr. Southwood Smith, held smallpox was equally amenable. As a shareholder in the Metropolitan Association for the Improvement of the Dwellings of the Industrial Classes, he knew that residents in wholesome houses, even in insanitary neighbourhoods, enjoyed remarkable exemption from epidemic maladies.
Mr. W. J. Addison testified that his perfectly healthy child had had syphilis invaccinated, and had died in consequence after horrible suffering. The facts of the case were beyond question. One hospital doctor had the temerity to ask the mother, “Whether is it not better for one in a thousand to die like this than have smallpox raging about our towns.” “Possibly,” replied the poor woman, “but it is strange that my child should be the thousandth.”
The Rev. Wm. Hume-Rothery said his attention was first drawn to vaccination by the operation on his own child, his wife observing instinctively, “This is an unnatural and wrong thing.” Investigation confirmed his wife’s judgment, and he became an open opponent of the practice, writing and lecturing against it. His acquaintance with the people in Lancashire had led him to the conviction that the majority disliked and distrusted vaccination: they were coerced to its observance, and evaded it when possible. He himself was opposed to vaccination because there was nothing in nature, human nature, or revelation to justify it. This assertion of principle over and above practice led to considerable discussion as to divine law, providence, and the nature of things, and the right of conscience to withstand corporate dictation.
Mr. R. B. Gibbs, secretary of the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League, referred to the origin of vaccination, as attested by Jenner, in the production of cowpox from the contagion of horsegrease, and subsequently to the use of horsepox, by which equination was substituted for vaccination; the diverse virus thus derived from Jenner continuing in official arm-to-arm currency to the present day. What vaccination was had never been determined; and consequently there had been no proper basis for legislation. Nor had legislation been preceded by impartial and adequate inquiry: it had been promoted by certain medical men, supported by the press, and especially by The Times, the editors of which jealously suppressed all communications which impugned the efficacy of the rite. Interrogated as to the amendment of the law, Mr. Gibbs said he had no amendment to propose: the State should withdraw all assistance from the practice, and leave its use or disuse to individual discretion.
At this point the evidence of the anti-vaccinists was cut short. They had much more to produce, but enough had been heard. The Committee had forgotten its purpose, which was not to discuss vaccination, but, accepting the rite as unquestionable, to consider whether the law which enforced it was capable of amendment. Still, the mischief being done, it was thought advisable to counteract it; and forthwith contrary testimony was laid on. Various officials who for years had made the promotion of vaccination their business were summoned to the rescue, along with certain fashionable physicians, whose assurance, it was calculated, would overcome any distrust that might be excited in the public mind.
The first of the officials was Mr. John Simon, a review of whose Papers on Vaccination forms [Chapter XL.] of the present volume. Evidence from Mr. Simon relative to vaccination was of much the same order as that of a Virginian of former days on slavery, or a thriving London publican on the liquor traffic. Mr. Simon answered to the demand upon him: he was thorough: there was nothing like leather—nothing! Smallpox was among the most contagious and most fatal of pestilences, and “for an overwhelming majority of persons, well vaccinated in infancy, vaccination was a security for life against even an attack of smallpox.” The unvaccinated died at the rate of 35½ per cent.; the vaccinated in general at 7 per cent.; and “the properly vaccinated” at from 1 to ½ per cent.—the fact being concealed that in times when all were unvaccinated, the smallpox death-rate ranged from 10 to 18 per cent., the same overhead death-rate of vaccinated and unvaccinated at this day. There had never been, he believed, a case of death from the direct effect of “properly performed vaccination”—the qualification, it will be observed, referring all cases of death to something other than the correct rite. He admitted there was not the least doubt that syphilis had been invaccinated on the Continent, but either from carelessness or culpable intention. Sanitation, he said, had little or no influence on smallpox: vaccination was the only protective—which variety of vaccination being judiciously left undefined. Smallpox did not displace other fevers during its prevalence, as alleged by Dr. Pearce. Holding that 97 per cent. of Londoners were vaccinated, he did not see that the epidemic then raging, the severest of the century, disproved the security asserted for vaccination.
As we read Simon’s evidence, we realise afresh the possibilities of audacity operating on credulity: there is nothing that men, otherwise sane, may not believe when their disposition is set toward belief. This Committee sat in London amid a population, almost universally vaccinated, suffering from smallpox as they never had suffered within living memory; and yet in presence of such a demonstration of the impotence of the vaccine ordinance, they listened to the soothsayer with abject acquiescence! Strange as are the records of witchcraft, there is nothing in them more marvellous than this 1871 Committee of select men from the House of Commons taking for true what under their own eyes was visible as untrue—deceived and consenting to be deceived.
As for those who disputed the efficacy of vaccination, and justified their disbelief by smallpox among the vaccinated, Simon’s contempt was unqualified—contempt being essential to the success of the part enacted. “Some of them were ignorant,” he said, “and others dishonest.” They were a “league of persons interested in interrupting the fulfilment of the law, and very actively engaged in disseminating falsehoods against vaccination”—falsehoods in its favour actively disseminated by Simon and his trade-union being disinterested and praiseworthy.
Dr. R. Hall Bakewell, vaccinator-general for Trinidad, was somehow produced by mistake, his evidence being in several respects the reverse of what was wanted. He thought vaccination good, but that “it should be done in a more careful manner.” It ought not to be compulsory, but left to the good sense of the people. Having been proved to cause death, “it was unjust to oblige a parent to submit his child to an operation attended with such risk, however rare.” Referring to his experience in Trinidad, he said—
3557.—I have seen Vaccination produce inflammation of the arm and general fever lasting for several days. Such illness was often alleged as an excuse by mothers for not bringing their children for inspection on the 8th day. At first I was inclined to regard the assertion as a mere excuse, but on visiting the homes I found the children were really ill, and that it was not safe to bring them for inspection.
3563.—There is a strong opinion prevalent in Trinidad, and in the West Indies generally, that Leprosy has been introduced to the system by Vaccination. I found that medical men when they had occasion to vaccinate their own children, or those of patients in whom they were specially interested, applied to me for English lymph in order to avoid the invaccination of Leprosy, notwithstanding there was an equal, and probably a greater, chance of the English lymph being contaminated with Syphilis. I had several cases of Leprosy in which Vaccination seemed the only means of accounting for the disease.
As a consequence of this prevalent opinion, vaccination was much disliked in Trinidad, and, although by law compulsory, was indifferently enforced, so that at least half the population escaped unvaccinated.
Interrogated concerning smallpox in Trinidad, Dr. Bakewell said there had been no epidemic for fourteen or fifteen years when one occurred “frightfully severe, as are all epidemics in Trinidad, owing to the entire neglect of sanitary precautions”; adding that “the mortality from smallpox may be greatly diminished by sanitary measures independently of vaccination.” The Doctor still further ruffled the prejudices of the Committee in asserting—
3783.—I do not believe that the general mortality of the country is at all diminished by the absence of Smallpox. In Trinidad, for instance, our mortality is none the less because we have neither Smallpox, nor Whooping Cough, nor Scarlet Fever, nor Measles—the four most prolific causes of death among young children. Nevertheless infant mortality in Port of Spain is double that of London. By merely cutting off one disease from the category of diseases, you do not lessen the mortality of a country—
Precisely what Dr. Watt proved of Glasgow in 1813, and Dr. Farr at a later date confirmed; and what the comparison of the statistics of mortality in epidemic and non-epidemic years everywhere illustrates.
With the examination of Mr. Danby Palmer Fry, head of the legal department of the Poor Law Board, the Committee reverted to its proper function. Questioned as to the state of the law and the difficulties connected with its administration, Mr. Fry showed that whilst vaccination was nominally compulsory, any resolute parent might disregard it. To make vaccination really compulsory, it would be necessary to legislate for its application by force, which legislation public opinion would not tolerate. For himself, he thought that parental conviction adverse to vaccination was entitled to respect, and he therefore suggested—
3845.—That it might, perhaps, be worthy of consideration whether a man might not be exempted from the penalty who takes an oath or makes an affirmation that he has a conscientious objection to the vaccination of his child. It seems to me that this would be similar in principle to the statutes which prohibited the Ecclesiastical Courts from issuing execution against the person of a Quaker, though they might do so against his goods, on the express ground that the people called Quakers were known to entertain conscientious objections to the payment of tithes and church rates.
Sir Dominic Corrigan, M.D., a member of the Committee, next gave evidence, and the defence of vaccination was resumed. So little did Sir Dominic apprehend the purpose of the Committee that he observed—
3992.—I think the great question before us is whether vaccine poison can contain within itself syphilitic poison or any other poison.
As to the invaccination of syphilis, he was clear: it was impossible. Vaccination induced no disease. Virus was nothing but pure lymph, even when taken from an impure subject. Vaccination was regarded with favour throughout Ireland. It was enforced, but it required no enforcement: there was no disposition to resist the law. He disliked penalties, and would rather operate by excluding the unvaccinated from schools, factories, and public employments, on the ground that “they might become a mine of disease and injure others,” namely, to the vaccinated fortified against smallpox!
Smallpox had been gradually declining in Ireland under the influence of vaccination, and the disease was then, 28th April, 1871, practically extinct. Foolhardy was the assertion. Even while Sir Dominic was testifying, smallpox had reappeared: 665 died of it in 1871 and 3,248 in 1872. From 1871 to 1875 there perished 5,521 of smallpox in a land from which it was claimed vaccination had banished the disease!
Mr. James Furness Marson followed Sir Dominic—a fanatical vaccinator and promoter of compulsion. For thirty-five years surgeon of the Highgate Smallpox Hospital, he had there elaborated the whimsical notion that the efficacy of vaccination was measured by the number and character of the cicatrices; holding that—
4149.—A large number of the people in this country are very badly vaccinated, having but one cicatrix hardly perceptible, and have Smallpox as bad as if they had never been vaccinated at all.
Confronted by Mr. Jacob Bright with the fact that Dr. Gregory, of wide experience and admitted authority, had expressed the contrary opinion in his work on Eruptive Fevers, saying—
4670.—Hence we may learn how small importance is to be attached to the cicatrix as an evidence of the perfection or imperfection of the vaccine process. Perfect security is compatible with a small and scarcely distinguishable cicatrix or without a large wafery cicatrix at all; at least none perceptible five years after the operation—
Marson made answer—
Dr. Gregory was an authority; but he was a very singular man indeed, and had never investigated the subject in the extensive way I have.
Marson was the victim of a notion, and that a poor one, to which whatever stood in opposition was sacrificed. Among his assertions and admissions, the following are characteristic and illustrative—
4151.—If all children were properly vaccinated, the mortality from Smallpox would be less than 1 per cent. There are difficulties: there is the opposition of mothers to having their children well vaccinated.
4125.—Persons who catch Smallpox after being vaccinated do not generally have it until 18 to 25 years afterwards.
4220.—Smallpox itself is a much greater protection from Smallpox than Vaccination.
4136.—Certainly Smallpox has no tendency to die out: it is precisely the same disease it was a thousand years ago, and will be a thousand years hence.
4148.—We have no control over Smallpox: there is no specific. We have no power whatever of controlling Smallpox, Scarlatina, Measles, and other febrile eruptive affections.
4694.—I look upon hospitals as necessary evils. They are not places I would recommend the sick to go to. Anybody who can afford to keep in his house should not go to an hospital.
4327-28.—Dr. Jenner was wrong when he said Cowpox was derived from Horsegrease: it was supposed so at one time, but that is set aside now.
4325 and 4697.—I have two sources of vaccine lymph; one from the inoculation of a cow with Smallpox, and the other from a cow in the neighbourhood of Brussels which had Cowpox in the natural way.
4646.—There was no epidemic of Smallpox in London from 1796 to 1825; and as the absence of Smallpox was contemporaneous with the introduction of Vaccination, it was imagined that Vaccination had a great deal to do with it; and it was a fair conclusion.
4705.—Smallpox was raging to a great extent in the east of London before the French war broke out—
Yet it is customary to ascribe the Smallpox epidemic of 1870-71 to the Franco-German war.
The unscrupulous ferocity which animated Marson and his associates toward those who impugned their practice is forcibly displayed in the following questions and answers; premising that Simon attested of Marson that “he was a singularly careful observer”—
4174.—I suppose you are aware there is a strong feeling and a great objection on the part of a number of people against Vaccination?
Yes, I know there is; but I nearly always find that it is the father who objects and not the mother; and it makes it very suspicious.
4175.—What do you mean?
The father would like the family as small as possible that he has to work for. I am afraid that is at the bottom of it.
4176.—Do you not think that is giving credit to the father for looking much further ahead than people in that class of life generally do?
I do not think they have very far to look when they have their daily bread to earn. When the wages come in on Saturday night, it pretty often comes to their mind how the money is disposed of—
A libel as atrocious as absurd, and significant.
Dr. Alexander Wood was brought from Edinburgh to give evidence as to Scotland of much the same tenor as that of Sir Dominic Corrigan concerning Ireland. Dr. Wood’s note was clear—“I do not think,” he said, “that a person has a right to keep an unvaccinated child any more than to keep a mad dog.” Smallpox had been prevalent in Scotland for some years, and had been made use of to pass a Compulsory Vaccination Act in 1863; but it was neither shown that prior to that Act the Scots were unvaccinated, nor that it was the unvaccinated who suffered from smallpox—apart from those conditions of life which make for smallpox. In the course of nature, smallpox abated in Scotland, and the Act had the credit of the abatement: the vaccination of the people being so complete that Dr. Wood testified—
4399.—There would not be an unvaccinated child in Scotland if we had some means of overtaking the migratory population—the railway navvies and tramps, the children born by the roadside and under hedges.
As in Ireland, there was little or no resistance to the law; and as in Ireland, it was asserted that smallpox had been stamped out; but as in Ireland, the assumption was nullified by experience. In the epidemic of 1871-73, there died of smallpox no fewer than 5034 in Vaccinated Scotland—a contradiction unforeseen by Dr. Wood and the Committee before whom he prophesied.
Sir William Jenner appeared as court physician. He had advised Her Majesty the Queen to encourage vaccination in the case of all the members of the Royal Family, and Her Majesty had complied with his advice, and the Prince of Wales too. He had had great experience as physician to the Children’s Hospital and elsewhere, and had never seen any serious illness or death result from vaccination. His testimony as to the harmlessness of the practice was unqualified, and he was “unable to conceive of any medical practitioner of standing disbelieving in it, or thinking it mischievous”; adding—
4521.—I should consider I was very much wanting in my duty, and, in fact, deserving of punishment, if I neglected to have my six children vaccinated.
He approved of the compulsory law, and wished that revaccination was likewise compulsory. As to the statistics of smallpox and vaccination, he disowned sufficient acquaintance; nevertheless he did not hesitate to assert that smallpox, as a form of zymotic disease displacing other forms, or replaced by others, was “a theory utterly without foundation.” Of course testimony of this order was produced for social rather than scientific ends.
The like was true of Dr. Gull, now Sir William. He also professed to have never seen any serious illness caused by vaccination; nor did he believe that vaccination from a diseased child would communicate disease. As a defence against smallpox, he held that vaccination was as protective as smallpox itself. It was the duty of the Legislature to enforce vaccination; adding—
4830.—That with our present knowledge, I should think it the most insane thing that any human creature could think of to give up Vaccination.
He had advised the Government to accept no one for service in India without revaccination. Asked by Mr. Candlish whether he would take a child by force from its parents and vaccinate it, he replied—
4854.—I certainly would; just as I would take an ignorant child and have it educated.
Less judicious than Sir William Jenner, Dr. Gull adventured on statistics. It having been pointed out that though smallpox was then epidemic in London, the death-rate was not raised thereby, he attributed the result to vaccination. “In former times smallpox produced an enormous increase in mortality”—
4780.—I think we read of 100,000 people dying of the disease in epidemics, and I am not sure that it was not double the number. I hardly like to trust myself as to numbers, but when I was a professor of medicine at Guy’s Hospital, I brought those numbers before my class, and I was astonished at the enormous number of deaths in a Smallpox epidemic. I remember that taking all the deaths which had occurred in the wars of Napoleon, they were not so many by any means as the number of lives which had been saved by Vaccination at that time. I do not remember, at the moment, the authority for that statement, but I remember that that was the kind of evidence that I had to bring before the class.
Verily the class at Guy’s had romance for science, and the Committee had similar entertainment. They were told that except for vaccination the epidemic then prevalent in London would result “in a perfect pestilence”; for mortality among unvaccinated populations “had been something terrific.” They had “the history of smallpox in China and India, where its effects had been perfectly depopulating.” “To neglect or discourage vaccination in their crowded English towns would be much the same as thrusting a fire-brand into a powder magazine.” Before the introduction of vaccination, “France lost year after year a quarter of a million of inhabitants (250,000) by smallpox”; and so forth and so forth; assertions without warrant outside the intention to excite fear in order to obtain confidence.
The next witness was Dr. Charles West, for twenty years physician to the Hospital for Children, London, where children under two years old were not received—at ages when the immediate effects of vaccination are obliterated or forgotten. Vaccination, in his opinion, prevented or mitigated smallpox. “It had, no doubt, the effect in many cases of developing a disposition to some forms of skin disease, especially eczema;” but on the whole it was not injurious. In the course of his immense experience he had only known of one child whose death was due to erysipelas caused by vaccination. He had no proof of the invaccination of syphilis.
There was nothing peculiar about Dr. West’s evidence. It was according to professional orthodoxy, from which it would have required more than ordinary courage to depart. Medical men by the gross could have been put up to deliver similar evidence; but what was it worth? The medical mind is fixed in two directions; first, that vaccination prevents smallpox, or mitigates it; and second, that it induces a harmless disease; a couple of conclusions that it seems possible to maintain in presence of a vast array of evidence to the contrary.
If any one chooses to assert that vaccination prevents smallpox or mitigates it, How can he be confuted? The prevented smallpox is hid in the unknown, likewise the severity that has been mitigated. Again, if vaccination be held harmless, any instance of its ill effects can be resolved into coincidence with a sneer at the vulgar fallacy of converting post hoc into propter hoc. Possessed with these notions, nothing is easier than to assert with Dr. Stevens, for example, “No man has seen more of vaccination than I have, but I have yet to see any bad effect from the practice.” None are so blind as those whose business it is not to see; or as Mr. Aubrey De Vere has it, “Prejudice, which sees what it pleases, cannot see what is plain.” It is, I contend, plainly impossible to inflict a disease like Vaccinia, in any of its varieties, without injury to the extent of the disease; without intensifying active or exciting latent disease; or without the risk of conveying other inoculable disease from the vaccinifer.
“The great question before the Committee,” said Sir Dominic Corrigan, “is whether vaccine poison can contain within itself syphilitic or any other poison”—the great terror being syphilitic poison. That question the next witness, Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, an expert in syphilis, determined. He had been called to examine thirteen persons, mostly young adults, engaged in a London shop, who had been revaccinated by order of their employer during the prevalent smallpox panic. The vaccinifer was “a fine, full-grown, healthy child,” yet it conveyed syphilis, beyond mistake, to 11 of the 13 vaccinated. Mr. Hutchinson allowed that the vaccinator was not to be blamed for the disaster, saying—
5032.—I very much doubt whether it could have been avoided by inspection. The child looked healthy, and it had passed at the Vaccine Station as healthy.
Having similar cases within his experience, and convinced “that syphilis can be communicated in the act of vaccination,” Mr. Hutchinson was asked by Mr. Candlish whether he was aware that the medical profession in general denied the possibility, he replied—
5060.—I am not aware that the authorities on the subject deny it; I believe that several of them hold it very clearly; I am aware that the general opinion of the profession is perhaps opposed to it, but not the opinion of those who have carefully investigated the question.
To reduce the effect of testimony so injurious to vaccination, it was attempted to make out that the danger was limited to virus tainted with blood; and although Mr. Hutchinson conceded that blood might be the medium of transmission, it was undecided.
5073.—It is not a subject on which I should like to infer anything; I should like to have experiments and facts.
Subsequent experience has shown that with blood or without blood, syphilis may be invaccinated. Still, Mr. Hutchinson, as an advocate of vaccination, and of its compulsory infliction, “considering it of the utmost necessity and importance,” conceded that the risk was infinitesimal; but (as was remarked at the time) unless the diffusion of syphilis were infinitesimal, there was no ground for the assumption of an infinitesimal risk. As Mr. Hutchinson admitted—
5089.—I believe there are cases of latent Syphilis which cannot be detected by any medical man, unless he examines into the history of the child as well as its appearance.
Mr. James Neighbour, vaccination officer of St. Luke’s, Middlesex, a district of 60,000 inhabitants, chiefly poor, described the operation of the Vaccination Acts. He met with little resistance to the law; the births were vaccinated up to the registration point, but he had no check on those who might neglect or evade registration, or leave or settle in St. Luke’s.
Dr. E. C. Seaton, as select representative of the official vaccine ring, was reserved for the consummation of the inquiry. To review his evidence, delivered with much elaboration, would be to repeat much of our story. Vaccination was afresh set forth as “a perfectly safe and efficient prophylactic against smallpox, which might be as reasonably disputed as the demonstrations of Euclid.” Nevertheless, the perfectly safe and efficient variety of vaccination was neither defined by the witness, nor demanded by the Committee—whether with horsegrease cowpox, cowpox, horsepox, or smallpox cowpox; an omission that illustrates the slovenly and credulous habit of those concerned—a 19th century miracle and mystery, being under discussion, and matter and mode being taken for granted under cover of a word!
Throughout Seaton’s evidence, smallpox was treated as an isolated disease, which might be dealt with specifically and exterminated without reference to other fevers, the common mortality being reduced to the extent of its reduction: no relation being recognised between fever and fever, epidemic and epidemic—
5344.—Epidemics of Smallpox, like epidemics of other diseases, come and go according to laws which we have not made out. They vary in their intensity, and vary in their power of diffusion. I have no explanation to offer why the present epidemic (1871) should be so much more intense than the epidemic of 1863, any more than I can tell why the epidemic of 1863 should have been more severe than the subsequent epidemic of 1866-67; or why one Cholera or Scarlet Fever epidemic should be so much more fatal than another Cholera or Scarlet Fever epidemic—
Yet when explanation was offered, namely, that the febrile disease of a community is a measure of its sanitary aberrations; that whilst the forms of fevers may vary, the activity of one form is balanced by the quiescence of others, the tale of death being equal—the explanation was waved aside; and why? Because it did not make for the glory of vaccination!
Curiously, and for a different reason, Malthus argued, as we now argue, that if vaccination could exterminate smallpox, not a life would be saved—supposing, let us add, no change effected in the conditions out of which smallpox and cognate maladies arise. Thus Malthus wrote—
I am far from doubting that millions of human beings have been destroyed by Smallpox; but were its devastations, as Dr. Haygarth supposes, many times greater than the Plague, I should still doubt whether the average population of the earth had been diminished by them by a single unit. Smallpox is certainly one of the channels, and a very broad one, which Nature has opened for the last thousand years to keep down population; but had this been closed others would have become wider, or new ones would have been formed. For my own part I feel not the slightest doubt, that, if the introduction of Cowpox should extirpate Smallpox, we shall find a very perceptible difference in the increased mortality of some other diseases.[292]
Like Simon and Marson, Seaton had his insult for the opponents of Smallpox. Simon charged them with ignorance and dishonesty; and Marson, with the desire to have their families reduced by smallpox. Seaton held that they enjoyed martyrdom and courted imprisonment, in order to get silver watches from their admirers on their release! Here imputation was self-revelation. Seaton had won place and pay by his promotion of State vaccination; and absurdly ascribed to his antagonists his own venality. Indeed, his evidence throughout was pervaded by the temper and tactics of the quack, with an end to promote per fas et nefas. Asked what would happen if compulsion were withdrawn from vaccination, he answered—
5510.—Simply an awful increase in the mortality from Smallpox, and a considerable increase therefore in the amount of mortality in the kingdom.
The typical answer of the quack when his dupe hesitates over his prescription is, “You’ll see then what will happen!” When vaccination was not compulsory prior to 1853, nothing “awful” happened; it had been compulsory for fourteen years in 1871, and yet in 1871 the kingdom was under experience of the severest smallpox epidemic of the century! Nevertheless, the anticipation of Malthus was fulfilled: there was no proof that the average mortality was increased by a single unit.
The evidence concluded, a draft report was drawn up by the medical officials, submitted to the Committee, and, after some trivial alterations, agreed to. The character of the report may be estimated from this its second article—
That Cowpox affords, if not an absolute, yet a very great protection against an attack of Smallpox; and an almost absolute protection against death from that disease—
And this in face of the fact that deaths from smallpox among the vaccinated and revaccinated were recorded by thousands!
Against the evidence in favour of vaccination, the prevalence of the present (1871) smallpox epidemic, especially in London, was alleged, and the awkward circumstance was thus tried to be evaded—
Your Committee, however, believe that, on the one hand, if Vaccination had not been general, this epidemic might have become a pestilence as destructive as Smallpox has often been where the population has been unprotected; and that, on the other hand, if this preventive had been universal, the epidemic could not have approached its present extent.
There is no arguing against what might have been. When Sangrado’s patients died, he averred that if only they had been bled more and taken more water, they would indisputably have recovered; and Sangrado had believers. So when vaccination does not save from smallpox, we are assured, “Ah, but it would, if only there had been more of it.” Descending from fancy to experience,—from what might have been to what has been, there is no record of a worse epidemic in England than that of 1871-72. The only one to compare with it was the epidemic of 1838-40, which occurred when not 50 per cent. of the English were vaccinated; but they fared no worse than in 1871-72, when the number of vaccinated was doubled.
The proper business of the Committee lay in legislation, and their report thereon took this form—
There appear to have been several cases of infliction of more than one fine or imprisonment in regard to the same child; and your Committee, though by no means admitting the right of the parent to expose his child or his neighbour’s to the risk of Smallpox, must express great doubt whether the object of the law is gained by thus continuing a long contest with the convictions of the parent.
The public opinion of the neighbourhood may sympathise with a parent thus prosecuted, and may in consequence be excited against the law; and after all, though the parent be fined or imprisoned, the child may remain unvaccinated. In such a case the law can only triumph by the forcible Vaccination of the child.
In enactments of this nature, when the State, in attempting to fulfil the duty, finds it necessary to disregard the wish of the parent, it is most important to secure the support of public opinion; and, as your Committee cannot recommend that a policeman should be empowered to take a baby from its mother to the Vaccine Station—a measure which could only be justified by an extreme necessity, they would recommend that, whenever in any case two penalties, or one full penalty (20s.), have been imposed upon a parent, the magistrate should not impose any further penalty in respect of the same child.
It has been suggested that the parent’s declaration of belief that Vaccination is injurious might be pleaded against any penalty, but your Committee believe that if the law were thus changed it would become a dead letter, prosecutions would soon cease, and the children of the many apathetic and neglectful parents would be left unvaccinated, as well as the children of the few opponents of Vaccination.
The recommendations of the Committee, chiefly administrative, were embodied in a Bill, passed by the House of Commons on 15th August. The tenth clause, limiting penalties, was the subject of a short debate, and was carried on a division by 57 to 12. When the Bill was brought before the House of Lords on 18th August, Lord Redesdale moved to omit clause 10, saying—
The clause exempts persons who have been fined the full penalty, or two penalties of any amount, from any further proceedings. The clause has been hailed with triumph by the opponents of Vaccination, who justly think it destroys the whole effect of the compulsory law. The poor will naturally argue that, if the rich are let off with a fine of 20s., the penalty ought in their case to be reduced; and such a resistance to the measure will spring up, that the whole purpose of the former Acts will be done away.
Viscount Halifax replied—
I hope the House will not strike out the clause, as it might entail the loss of the Bill. I admit there are objections to its principle; but it has been unanimously recommended by a Committee of the House of Commons. Determined opposition has been offered to Vaccination by a limited number of persons on grounds which I deem unreasonable; but, nevertheless, whilst this feeling exists, it is the opinion of Mr. Simon, the medical officer to the Privy Council, that it is unwise to insist upon anything which is not indispensable; and, further, that the penalty now proposed will answer all the practical purposes of the Act. It is desirable that public feeling should go with the Act, which will be the case, since the exceptions will be very few; whereas an adverse feeling may be excited to the prejudice of the Act, if even a few prosecutions are persisted in. The strongest advocates of Vaccination deprecate repeated fines and imprisonments, which leave the defendants’ children unvaccinated.
Lord Redesdale rejoined—
I presume the noble Viscount thinks it useless to fine a man more than once for drunkenness? The clause surrenders the whole principle of Compulsory Vaccination.
On the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents 7; Non-contents, 8; Majority, 1. Resolved in the negative.
On the 19th August the House of Commons considered the Lords’ amendment, when Mr. W. E. Forster observed—
The House of Lords has struck out of the Bill the 10th Clause, the important clause which mitigates penalties. That clause was passed in this House by a majority of 57 to 12, and expunged in the other House by a majority of 8 to 7, the total number of peers voting being just equal to the number of members of the Select Committee which, after long and careful consideration, came to a unanimous conclusion in favour of the clause. I should have no hesitation in asking the House to disagree to the amendment, if the period of the session would allow of such disagreement being made without loss of the Bill; but as that is not the case, and as such a course may involve the loss of the Bill, which effects several great improvements, I fear the House has no choice, and must accept the amendment. Although the clause is doubtless an important one, I may remark it is not necessary to other parts of the Bill, and, with Smallpox raging in the country as it is, I think it will not be safe to postpone the measure. I regret the omission of the clause, because in my opinion it strikes a heavy blow at the principle of Compulsory Vaccination, which their Lordships, as well as I, think necessary for the health of the country. I move that the House agree to the Lords’ amendment.
Mr. M‘Laren said—
Whilst I concur in the course proposed, I hope the Government may lose no time in bringing in a Bill to enact the clause that is dropped.
The motion was agreed to, and repeated penalties continue to this day.
FOOTNOTE:
[292] Essay on the Principle of Population. 2nd Ed. London, 1803.
[CHAPTER XLIV.]
THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM.
The temper and conduct of Parliament satisfied Mr. Gibbs and his associates that they must turn again to the people and achieve success through their instruction, enlightenment and fears. At this juncture, however, the labours of Mr. Gibbs terminated. He had married Miss Griffiths (for many years secretary of the Ladies’ Sanitary Association), and had gone with her on a tour through the United Kingdom, holding meetings and discussing the evidence and report of the House of Commons Committee. His last public appearance was at Cork; proceeding thence to Dublin, he died there after a short illness on 1st December, 1871.
The removal of Mr. Gibbs was a severe discouragement; but a good cause may always be trusted to evolve its own prophets. Mrs. Gibbs, as became a wise woman, felt that she could not better honour her husband than by consecrating herself to his work. She formed the Mother’s Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League; and until her own death, 10th November, 1878, devoted her training, experience and intelligence to awakening an interest in those divine laws of life of which a practice like vaccination is a deliberate negation.
In 1872 Mr. John Pickering, of Leeds, in conjunction with Mr. Henry Pitman, started the The Anti-Vaccinator fortnightly, and continued it for a year. To maintain such a journal is far from easy. As Napoleon III. observed to Cobden, “There are a good many free-traders in France, but you must remember that the people are not organised, whilst the trades which prey upon the people are organised and are always alert.” To overthrow the trade in vaccination, established, endowed and enforced, is to encounter the enmity and opposition of the organised profession at whose instigation and for whose advantage vaccination was established, endowed and enforced; and to effect the overthrow, it is necessary to raise up a countervailing force among a public apathetic, ignorant, and credulous as to medical mysteries. The overthrow might be thought hopeless were it not for the leverage afforded by the compulsory law. Every parent who has wisdom and love enough to refuse to have his child vaccinated, is enabled to bear his testimony in court, to have it certified by fine or imprisonment, and to have his triumph published for encouragement and repetition. There is no preaching like such practice, for which the evil law itself provides opportunity.
Mr. Pickering was fined over and over again, and in his Anti-Vaccinator he proved abundantly that he had reason and science without end for his steadfast resistance to the legalised superstition. In 1876 he was enabled to strike a blow for the truth not likely to be forgotten, especially in Yorkshire. The statistics of the Leeds Smallpox Hospital had been published after the fashion of similar concoctions—an insignificant mortality among the vaccinated being set against a prodigious mortality among the unvaccinated. The statistics were denounced as fictitious, and proof of the accusation being demanded, Mr. Pickering produced the proof.[293] The requisite inquiry was tedious and difficult; and because tedious and difficult it was presumed it would never be attempted, and that impunity was assured. The exposure demonstrated afresh how little dependence is to be placed on the collocation of figures by those whose pride and interest are committed to a foregone conclusion.
The severity of the compulsory law is subject to frequent abatement in its administration by poor law guardians. They appoint and pay vaccination officers, and it is for them to consider and, to sanction repeated prosecutions. Hence a majority, or an energetic minority of guardians adverse to vaccination may do much to frustrate its public administration. What is practicable in this way was shown by the Keighley guardians in 1876. They declined to prosecute; they disregarded the admonitions of the Local Government Board; and they refused to obey a mandamus issued from the Queen’s Bench. They were thereon arrested for contempt of court, and committed to York Castle, from which they were released after nominal submission. They were re-elected by the ratepayers, and did as before, but more discreetly.
There is a proverb about taking a horse to the water and trying to make him drink, which applies to legislation when equally disliked by those expected to enforce it and by those on whom it is to be enforced. Under such conditions the compulsory act is of no effect in Keighley: those who like may be vaccinated, and those who do not, need not. The majority are unvaccinated and nowhere is smallpox less feared. In several towns where public sentiment is similarly enlightened, something of the same freedom is enjoyed. In many parishes it is the rule to disallow repeated prosecutions: the vaccination officer fulfils his commission in prosecuting once, and then his hand is stayed. In some parishes those who are known to be opposed to vaccination are passed over on the tacit understanding that they keep quiet as to their indulgence; a course of procedure extremely injurious to the good cause, damping enthusiasm and suppressing that conflict and agitation by which it prospers. In other parishes no quarter is allowed: the law is worked with rigour. Prosecution follows prosecution until either fury exhausts itself, or the nonconformist is driven elsewhere.
Such persistent prosecution often becomes a public scandal. To a parent with adequate means, the fines and costs are trivial, and are amply repaid by the satisfaction of setting guardians and justices at defiance, and publishing far and wide his contempt for the vaccine superstition. On the other hand, a parent in humble circumstances is often put to cruel straits between his love and duty to his child and the comfort of conformity.
In the difficulty thus created by the law, the Local Government Board is frequently appealed to for advice; and in 1876 the Board, at that time under the presidency of Mr. Sclater-Booth, addressed a letter of counsel to the Evesham guardians, which, translated from official circumlocution, came to this—Prosecute until you are satisfied your antagonist cannot be overcome: then consider whether you had not better desist; for he may obtain sympathy, and the law and the rite alike suffer discredit in public estimation. In Cowper’s words, “Safe policy, but hateful.” This Evesham letter has become a standard document, and is regularly posted by the Board to guardians in perplexity as to the extent of vengeance they should execute. Such is the variety of valour taught from Whitehall—“Fight until you discover you are not likely to prevail; and take care to leave off before you make yourselves hateful or ridiculous.” Law was never, perhaps, reduced to baser terms.
Several attempts have been made to modify the law as recommended by the Vaccination Committee of 1871 and approved by the House of Commons. Mr. Pease (now Sir Joseph) introduced a bill with that purpose in 1872 and 1878, limiting the penalty in any case to 20s., but without success. In 1880 the Gladstone administration, fresh from the country, and flushed with good intentions, brought forward a similar bill, but dropped it in abject fright in consequence of the clamour of the medical trade unions, who fancied their vested interest in vaccination endangered. Nevertheless, those responsible for the law at the Local Government Board avow their disapprobation of repeated prosecutions, and regret that Parliament does not appear to be of a like mind, reckless of the fact that Parliament is rarely unwilling to consent to an administrative change when those in authority state the reasons for it, and insist on the necessity of giving them effect.
Mr. Forster, when moving for the Committee of 1871 in the House of Commons, spoke as if no member was prepared to dispute the efficacy of vaccination against smallpox; and, though the assumption was excessive, it was not far from correct. Even Mr. Candlish only objected to the injustice of compulsion. Since then considerable progress has been made. Mr. P. A. Taylor, who shared the position of Mr. Candlish, subsequently examined the history and evidences of vaccination for himself, with the inevitable result: he discovered that he had been imposed upon, and having made sure, straightway began to make known his discovery to others. Mr. C. H. Hopwood, equally enlightened, moved Parliament for various statistical returns which exhibited the influence of enforced vaccination, in authentic form and on a national scale, as a factor of death and a communicator and aggravator of other maladies. In conjunction, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hopwood have raised the standard of resistance to vaccination in the House of Commons; and what Mr. Forster in 1871 set forth as indisputable, is now openly and unanswerably disputed; for those who have come to the defence, like Sir Lyon Playfair and Sir Charles Dilke, have been convicted of unquestionable mis-statements which could only pass muster as addressed to uncritical credulity.
Parliament is the creature of public opinion, and to arouse and inform that opinion and to bring it to fruit in legislation, it is necessary to agitate and to organise. Consequent on the death of Mr. R. B. Gibbs in 1871, the League, of which he was leader, underwent a course of vicissitude until, in 1876, it was revived under the presidency of Mr. William Hume-Rothery, with the National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Reporter for its organ, edited by Mrs. Hume-Rothery. The energy and ability which Mr. and Mrs. Hume-Rothery have brought to their arduous enterprise have been unwearied and conspicuous—their self-consecration has been unreserved. Sometimes they have been charged with vehemence and intolerance, but when we consider the craft with which they are confronted on one side, and the credulity on the other, the misery and mortality resulting from the cruel practice, and the monstrous oppression exercised on those who resist the despicable superstition, it is not easy to be calm, or to adjust invective to a scruple. “Thou shouldst not speak so strongly, John,” said a Friend to her husband, when denouncing some iniquity. “Ah! Jane,” he replied, “thou knowest not what I keep back.”
It is frequently said that anti-vaccinators are fanatical, which may be more or less true; but if in quest of fanaticism, where shall we find it so ruthless, so untruthful, or so mercenary as among vaccinators? Take for example, Jenner, or Ring, or Seaton, or Marson, or Simon. The fury of anti-vaccinators stands excused by the strongest reason that can justify or ennoble fury. If a father has a child injured or killed by vaccination, and is threatened (as is often the case) with a second attack on his family life, with what temper may he be expected to regard the law? When Macduff’s children were slaughtered, it was only in Macbeth’s blood that he could ease his soul, and with Macduff goes the sympathy of every human heart. So it is with those bereaved by vaccination; only for them there is no personal Macbeth to receive his deserts, but a bodiless law.
It is not difficult to philosophise over other people’s wrongs, or advise forbearance where there is no sense of hurt; but fury and indignation constitute the natural reaction against outrage and injustice, and where feeble or absent denote defective moral sensibility. Nevertheless, fury and indignation are poorly spent if allowed to exhaust themselves in vituperation. Their proper use is to give vigour to action, and, invested in prudence, to achieve swift and sure redemption. Wise is the advice—
“Prune thou thy words, the thoughts control
That o’er thee swell and throng:
They will condense within thy soul,
And change to purpose strong.”
The National League holds an annual conference in some convenient centre, to which representatives from affiliated societies are appointed. Many of these societies co-operate for the defence of their members under prosecution; they organise public meetings and discussions; provide lectures; distribute tracts; bring to light vaccination disasters; frustrate the attempts of medical men to get up smallpox panics; and, in short, to do all in their power to turn confidence aside from a magical, misleading and mischievous prescription to trust in the common conditions of health, as verified by science and continual experience.
It is needless to say that these societies excite much annoyance and evoke much bad language from the practitioners whose craft they discredit and despoil. Thus, for example, the British Medical Association, in a petition addressed to Government in 1879, protesting against any relaxation of the compulsory law, and signed by several thousand members of the profession, gave voice to the trade grievance—
The outcry against Compulsory Vaccination is mainly due to certain interested persons [interested in what?] who, by the dissemination of inflammatory literature and distorted statements, stir up opposition to Vaccination on the part of ignorant and thoughtless people.
Here what is wished to be taken for true is set forth as fact. Whatever the opponents of vaccination may be, they are neither ignorant or thoughtless, nor do they influence the ignorant and thoughtless. On the contrary, it is their exact acquaintance with the history and theories, the inutility and dangers of the multiform rite, designated vaccination, which renders them such dangerous and disagreeable antagonists. Further be it said, compulsory acquaintance with vaccination has been for thousands an introduction to vigorous intellectual life. It has demonstrated the fallibility of authority, and how it is possible for what is accounted established beyond dispute to be false to the core. Certain it is that ere long vaccination will be ranked among the crassest of human follies, and what force that exposure will lend to scepticism in conflict with other forms of conventional opinion, may be left to the consideration of the judicious reader.
The London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination was formed in 1880 with objects thus defined—
1.—The Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination.
2.—The Diffusion of Knowledge concerning Vaccination.
3.—The Maintenance of an Office in London for the Publication of Literature relating to Vaccination, and as a Centre of Action and Information.
An office was opened in Victoria Street, Westminster, with Mr. William Young, as secretary, and The Vaccination Inquirer, established by Mr. William Tebb in 1879, was adopted as the organ of the Society. The executive committee, liberally assisted by the Countess de Noailles, Mr. P. A. Taylor, Mr. Tebb, and others, have been enabled to make many and visible marks on public opinion, which by all means possible they are ever intent to repeat. Mr. J. G. Talbot, M.P. for Oxford University, took early opportunity to stigmatise the London Society as a Murder League, and Dr. Barrow, president of the British Medical Association in 1881, as “a Disgrace to Humanity”—these and similar amenities being taken as badges of honour and tokens of success. The London Society has also actively co-operated in successive International Anti-Vaccination Congresses—at Paris in 1880, at Cologne in 1881, and at Berne in 1883.
Of late years the literature of anti-vaccination has been steadily increasing in volume, variety and power. A notable effort to bring the question within range of common apprehension was the publication in 1876 of Our Medicine Men, by Mr. H. Strickland Constable. Apart from vaccination, Our Medicine Men is a pleasant book, full of anecdote, good humour, shrewdness and excellent philosophy, not likely to be forgotten by those who make its acquaintance.[294]
A series of Vaccination Tracts,[295] fourteen in number, was commenced by Mr. Wm. Young in 1877 and completed by Dr. Garth Wilkinson in 1879. Fuseli, reproaching his contemporaries for their indifference to Flaxman, said, “You English, you see with your ears”; and Fuseli’s observation recurs as we think of the limited repute of Dr. Wilkinson; not that any more than Flaxman he is unknown, but because he is so inadequately known, probably because he is so frequently at variance with the fashionable science of the day, nor has paid court to its fashionable professors. Nevertheless, those who have sense and courage to recognise what is admirable without direction find in these Tracts not only vaccination made an end of, but thoughts new and deep, with felicities of diction and cadence that every connoisseur in words must appreciate and revert to with delight. However wide our acquaintance with English literature, a variety of singular affluence and originality remains until Dr. Garth Wilkinson has been discovered.
It is a mistake to suppose that all medical men believe in vaccination in one or any of its varieties. Those who use their eyes and are not bewitched by prescription or self-interest, recognise the failure and disasters of the practice, but may not care to set themselves at open variance with their profession. Many privately confess their vanishing or vanished faith in the rite, adding, perhaps, that its dangers are exaggerated, and that it does little harm with due precaution, whilst affording a comfortable sense of security to its recipients. Others go further, and wish the discredit of compulsion were removed from the practice, when they would leave it to their patients to decide for themselves to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, they disowning responsibility. A nobler few decline to hold any terms of compromise with the imposture, and among these Mr. Enoch Robinson is conspicuous. He has lectured and debated against vaccination, and by his temperate and competent advocacy has made converts of the most unwilling and prejudiced. Moved by a popular compilation in defence of vaccination, he published a reply to it in 1880, entitled, Can Disease protect Health?[296]—a polemic cogent and perspicuous, and ingenuous as its opposite was the reverse. As illustrative of the character of the medical press, it may be mentioned that advertisements of Mr. Robinson’s pamphlet were declined by The Lancet and The British Medical Journal, it being their rule to exclude announcements injurious to the interests involved in vaccination—surely in such quarters a superfluous precaution. Some people appear to fancy that intolerance is a peculium of theologians; but they would find abundant cause for a different opinion if familiar with the medical world.
It is said that inasmuch as the rising generation of medical men are more roundly educated than their predecessors, they are likely to deal with vaccination in a more scientific and independent spirit. The experience of Dr. W. J. Collins at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital lends reason to the anticipation. Study and observation confirmed Dr. Collins in his father’s practical judgment, which he has re-stated firmly and temperately on proper occasions; supporting it with the wide and open evidence at his command. He has been heard with patience and favour, nor has he encountered any but honourable opposition; proving how much depends on the manner in which a man fights his battle, and how much is conceded to courage with courtesy. Dr. Collins has argued, “Ought Vaccination to be enforced?” before the Abernethian Society; he has met Dr. W. B. Carpenter in public debate; he has discussed the Vaccination Disaster at Norwich in 1882; he has answered Sir Lyon Playfair; and he has brought the doctrine of evolution to bear on the generation of disease.[297] If sometimes we refer to the medical profession with severity, the recollection of members like Dr. Collins operates as a check. Still we must be just. Professions, like kindred trade unions, are controlled by their interests, and there never was church, or community, or corporation which surrendered any source of gain, save by external compulsion. Public vaccination in England represents a medical endowment of £100,000 annually, which the profession, true to the law of its being, cannot renounce voluntarily; and there is no sense in shutting our eyes to that certainty. Of course, it would be absurd to charge medical men individually with defending vaccination because of the gain attached thereto: nothing of the kind is intended: but as Hobbes observed of mankind in the gross, “Even the axioms of geometry would be disputed if their interests were peculiarly affected by them.”
When, therefore, it is said that vaccination is a medical question which may be left to medical men to settle, the answer is—“Nay: vaccination is paid for out of the public pocket, and whatever the evidence adverse to its usefulness, it will be upheld as beneficial by those who profit by it. If those who pay do not object, those who are paid never will. In face of common experience, we hold it cannot be otherwise.”
There are fashions in medicine as in millinery: they are started; they flourish; they pass away; but the permanence of any medical fashion might be secured if fortified by endowment. Venesection was once in vogue; now it is scarcely known; but if in its heyday a law had been passed for its performance at the public expense, a ring of official venesectors would have been created to justify the practice against all gainsayers; to deny or explain away every disaster and fatality; and at all hazards preserve its credit from reproach; whilst it would cost something like a constitutional struggle for the nation to escape from the imposition. It is thus with vaccination. Left to itself, it would, like venesection, have dropped into disuse; but it acquired permanence from the initial error—the endowment of the National Vaccine Establishment in 1808.
The enforcement of vaccination supplies a yet stronger reason for public interference. A church endowed by the State might be endured by Dissenters, but if submission to any of its offices were made compulsory, endurance would give place to active resistance. Such is the case with vaccination. As it is endowed and enforced, it is hopeless to try to reserve it from general discussion and denunciation. Since citizens are liable to fine and imprisonment who withhold their children from the lancet, it becomes their duty to satisfy themselves as to the character of the operation for which they are taxed, and with which their families are menaced; and should their convictions be adverse to its utility and safety, they cannot do their fellow-citizens better service than by bearing the testimony of open resistance.
Thus vaccination is translated to politics and made every man’s business; whilst the interest created by its endowment and enforcement deprives its medical advocates of judicial authority in the controversy. It would be as reasonable to expect slaveholders to denounce slavery, or protected manufacturers to advocate free trade as for those whose professional prestige and advantage are involved in the practice to speak the truth about vaccination. Let us be reasonable. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? We should not require of average human nature the virtue of its rarer forms. Like all monopolies, vaccination endowed and enforced, is defended with unanimity from within, and must be attacked and overthrown from without—nevertheless be it said with some assistance from within, and that assistance most efficient.
It is therefore no cause for surprise that a large share in the agitation against compulsory vaccination has fallen to laymen. Mr. George S. Gibbs (cousin of John Gibbs and brother of R. B. Gibbs) has for thirty years maintained a criticism, chiefly statistical, of the official defences of vaccination, characterised throughout by an accuracy which has never been impugned.[298]
Mr. H. D. Dudgeon has been described as “a veritable and venerable apostle of health.” With a consummate knowledge of hygiene, and a profound faith in its power to overcome zymotic disease, he has set forth its principles with such lucidity and persistency that he has gone far to educate Leicester in setting at naught the vaccine superstition. To the standard assertion of the vaccinators, that sanitation is good against all febrile affections, except smallpox, for which there is no preventive save vaccination (the sovereign variety being conveniently undefined) he has been an opponent merciless as truth. Regret is frequently expressed that the abundant information and admirable sense which pervade Mr. Dudgeon’s writing have been confined to newspapers and occasional pamphlets, but it is probable his teaching has been all the more fruitful because adapted to immediate circumstances.[299] The word spoken in due season how good it is!
The name of Mr. Alexander Wheeler of Darlington is familiar wherever vaccination is brought under discussion. Mr. Wheeler’s interest in the subject was first excited, he writes, by Mr. G. S. Gibbs, “whose scepticism as to its virtue seemed to me absurd”—
Mr. Gibbs inquired whether I had examined the question, and when I confessed that I had not, he asked if I would read Baron’s Life of Dr. Jenner. Nothing loath, I accepted the loan of the volumes. Doubts began to trouble me with the first volume, and the second quite upset my confidence in Vaccination as a positive preventive of Smallpox. I then set to work to ascertain with what care I could, whether there was any truth in the assertion that Vaccination diminished Smallpox or modified its virulence. The process of determination was not rapid, but long before I had formed a definite opinion, I was satisfied that Compulsory Vaccination was indefensible; and my first efforts were directed to the protection of my own children from the infliction. Unsatisfied as to what Vaccination was, or what the Vaccinator effected, I clearly saw that the State had no right to enforce a practice by no means harmless, nor preventive of Smallpox, nor easy to explain the use of.
As lecturer, debater and newspaper controversialist, Mr. Wheeler has acquired well-earned distinction. Knowing far more of vaccination, its history, varieties, consequences, and statistics than his adversaries, they are usually overthrown with a dexterity realised as horrible and astonishing. Like savages with bows and arrows, they come forth in the innocence of faith to encounter arms of precision. In 1878 Mr. Wheeler held a debate with Dr. George Wyld, an enthusiastic advocate of the cowpox discarded by Jenner as impotent against smallpox. Sir Thomas Chambers presided, and the question discussed being, “Is Vaccination worthy of National Support?” How rash and how futile was Dr. Wyld’s championship is recorded in the report of the debate.[300]
Mr. William Tebb is another well-known name in connection with the movement against vaccination. For a time dubious, his attention was quickened and his course decided by the summons of the St. Pancras guardians to have his daughter, Beatrice, vaccinated. His refusal was followed by prosecution after prosecution in the Marylebone police-court, until at last the guardians gave up the contest as hopeless.[301] It was a bad day for vaccination when the compulsory law was applied to Mr. Tebb. As with many others, persecution made of him an inflexible and active antagonist. His tongue, his pen, and his purse, coupled with untiring industry and eminent executive ability, have been devoted to the exposure and overthrow of the conjoint superstition and tyranny. Mr. Tebb is a fine exemplification of Sir T. Fowell Buxton’s opinion, “Vigour, energy, resolution, firmness of purpose—these carry the day. Is there one whom difficulties dishearten, who bends to the storm? He will do little. Is there one who will conquer? That kind of man never fails:” adding, “The longer I live, the more I am certain that the great difference between men, between the feeble and the powerful, is energy—invincible determination, a purpose once fixed, and then death or victory. That quality will do anything that can he done in this world.”[302]
Mr. P. A. Taylor’s speeches in the House of Commons have been widely read, but his Letter to Dr. W. B. Carpenter has been, perhaps, the most effective contribution to the good cause.[303] Dr. Carpenter had volunteered for the defence of vaccination, and had challenged Mr. Taylor; and being of a credulous and uncritical habit of mind, he collected and recited the various legends and factitious statistics that form the body of vaccination, with additions from his private resources; thus constituting himself an objective of attack, and providing Mr. Taylor with an excellent opportunity. Mr. Taylor accepted the challenge: he captured and destroyed Dr. Carpenter’s positions seriatim, leaving him routed and helpless. The Letter has had an immense circulation, and its influence on public opinion is manifesting itself in a thousand ways. Neither Dr. Carpenter nor any vaccinator has ventured to reply to Mr. Taylor; the fact being that no reply is possible. Any one who attentively reads Mr. Taylor’s Letter cannot fail to perceive that the practice represented by Dr. Carpenter is rooted in illusion and imposture. Silence under the circumstances may therefore pass for discretion: silence on Dr. Carpenter’s part possesses a significance it would be difficult to misinterpret. Indeed, none know better than those responsible for vaccination as a medical interest, that the less it is brought under discussion the more likely it is to endure. Quieta non movere is their motto; and officious champions like Dr. Carpenter have little thanks for their restlessness.
Correspondence in newspapers is a well-recognised means for the diffusion of new ideas, and in the use of this means the opponents of vaccination have acquired no little distinction. There is an increasing number throughout the country who not only know their own case, but the case of their adversaries better than do their adversaries themselves; and if an editor has grace enough to maintain a fair field and show no favour, the issue is invariably satisfactory. Two able correspondents, who have gone hence, are especially worthy of mention—Andrew Leighton and William Gibson Ward. Mr. Leighton was a Liverpool merchant, who, having become interested in the vaccination question, made its discussion the occupation of his leisure. With a clear and logical mind, patient, sagacious, and tolerant, prejudice itself could scarcely withstand his sweet reasonableness. Almost to the day of his death, 14th January, 1877, he was engaged in newspaper controversy, each letter bearing witness to his admirable temper and persuasive power.[304] Mr. Ward of Perriston Towers was a man of wide reading and perfervid character, who wrote and talked after the manner of Cobbett, whom in many respects he resembled. Having discovered the truth as concerned vaccination, he applied himself vigorously and successfully to its diffusion. He sustained his prosecution as a parent with the joy of one who delights in battle; and, indeed, as it was said, a periodical prosecution would have suited him exactly, providing him with occasion for a rousing speech in court and a discussion with the bench, to be duly reported in the Herefordshire newspapers. Mr. Ward died 18th October, 1882. Latterly he had access to The Times, and followed up a series of letters on subjects he had made his own with one on which he argued, that smallpox was neither an unmixed evil, nor a cause of extra mortality.[305]
To enter into a closer enumeration of those engaged in the movement against vaccination would be invidious and bound to imperfection. Still it would be grateful to refer to the various services of veterans like Sir Jervoise Clarke Jervoise, Mr. Thomas Baker, Dr. Edward Haughton, Mr. T. B. Brett of St. Leonards, Mr. Edmund Proctor of Newcastle, Mr. John Lucas of Gateshead, Mr. R. A. Milner of Keighley, Mr. W. F. Fox of Dewsbury, Dr. E. J. Crow of Ripon, Mr. Francis Davis, jun., of Enniscorthy, Mr. Wm. Thurlow of Sudbury, Mr. Wm. Adair of Maryport, Mr. Charles Gillett of Banbury, Dr. T. L. Nichols, Mr. James Burns, and Mr. Amos Booth of Leicester. These and others have borne the odium of despised truth, and live to see it steadily acquiring favour and force, whilst the delusion to which it is opposed is entering the region of scepticism preparatory to dispersion and contempt.
All means are good against evil, but deeds are more than words; and talk against vaccination counts far less than resistance to its infliction. The more who are withheld from the rite, the more live to prove its inutility; and the more the law designed to enforce is set at defiance, the surer and sooner will be its overthrow. Nevertheless, let us not forget what this warfare costs, nor how we are indebted to the men and women, brave, tender, and true, by whom it is endured. As a rule, the rich are exempt: the contest is with the poor. As Mrs. Jacob Bright says—
I object to Compulsory Vaccination because it is an outrageous piece of class legislation. No one in easy circumstances, no one possessing the luxury of a family doctor, need have his child vaccinated. He has only to tell his family doctor that he objects to Vaccination, and the matter is at an end. Did ever any one hear of a family doctor who threatened to prosecute the head of a family for nonconformity in this respect? I think not. But the family doctor of the poor is the parish doctor. He is quite independent of his patient, and being paid by other people to vaccinate them, he not only vaccinates them in many cases against their will, but he does it when he likes, and with what virus he likes, irrespective of the feelings or opinions they may entertain.
I was riding some time ago in Sherwood Forest, and stopped to ask for a glass of water at a cottage, where a poor woman was standing with her fat little baby in her arms. I said, “You’ve got a pretty boy there. Has he been vaccinated?” The mother’s face, which was glowing with pride at praise of her boy, suddenly fell, and she said, “No, madam, he hasn’t, but he’ll have to be. We’ve lost one through it,” she added, with tears in her eyes. She is one of a great number of poor people who, rightly or wrongly, believe that Vaccination is dangerous, and yet are not able to resist the pressure put upon them to vaccinate; they are too poor, and in most cases have not the spirit to resist.
I say that it is disgraceful to fine and imprison people for forming an independent opinion on a medical question; and it is particularly disgraceful that my poor neighbour should be thus persecuted when I am free, absolutely free, to please myself whether my children shall be vaccinated. It is not possible that this thing can continue.[306]
The contest, be it repeated, is with the poor. “There is no getting over the fact,” says Dr. John Scott of Manchester, “that vaccination is hated among the working class, in Lancashire, at least.” Vaccination is hated, and rightly hated, and the law is set to overcome that hatred. Multitudes submit because they either know not how, or dread to do otherwise; but an honourable and increasing number prefer the better part—holding by what they recognise for right, resolved to obey God rather than man. It has been said, “The days of martyrdom, like those of miracles, have ceased”; but have they? The record of humble English folk, who, during the past thirty years, have withstood the infamous Vaccination Acts, bears witness to the contrary. Martyrdom and heroism are rarely recognised by those who occasion or dislike their manifestation: it is sympathy that opens the eyes to their appearance. Unknown or despised, these medical nonconformists have stood true to their faith in the order of nature against doctor-craft, and have counted nothing dear to them if so be they could preserve their children and conscience from outrage. They have been prosecuted with all the malice and pertinacity of petty authority—of Justice Shallow and Bumble; have been insulted from the judgment seat; have been fined to the uttermost farthing and loaded with uttermost costs, and this repeatedly; have had their goods and furniture distrained, and their homes broken up; have been sent to jail with hard labour, and subjected to every indignity and cruelty of the prison-house; have been hunted from parish to parish, and in despair driven to exile. And these have been Englishmen, the law English, and the time our own! The Master of the Rolls recently observed, “What is contrary to the feelings of every honest man cannot be the law of England—or, if it be, the sooner it ceases to be law the better.” It would be unfair to charge the injustice of the Vaccination Acts to the English people. To most of them their character and operation are unknown. The chief sufferers are hidden under the hatches of poverty, and are unable to make the land resound with their wrongs. Those, too, who essay to speak for them are confronted with that obdurate dulness with which the early Free-Traders had to contend when restriction was thought to be as good for commerce as cowpox is thought to be good for health in stopping smallpox. Mr. Bright, in praising the speeches of Mr. Villiers at Birmingham, 29th January, 1884, remarked—
I mention their publication to revive the strange and painful fact that during the years when those speeches—so convincing, so absolutely unanswerable, were spoken in the House of Commons, they were addressed, as it were, to men morally stone deaf. The arguments were not answered, the facts adduced were not disproved, the appalling suffering of the people was not denied.
A similar deafness to the oppression of compulsory vaccination prevails, though there are signs of awakening. Still it is not for those who suffer to wait on politicians. The words are trite, but true as trite—
“Know ye not,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?”
Many are discovering that in union is strength. Combinations for mutual protection and insurance against penalties are multiplying. Resist and Organise is their watchword: organise, study the law, find out its weak places, make the most of them, harass its administrators, vote only for guardians who are opposed to compulsion; and, in short, do whatever is possible to frustrate the pernicious legislation.
Sometimes it is asked, “Why not obey the law and agitate for its repeal?” but the suggestion is designed for stultification. Suppose the Society of Friends had consented to take oaths until the law was adjusted to their consciences, would they not have been swearing to this day? Suppose some dissenters had not refused to pay church rates, when would church rates have been abolished? Suppose the Irish had submitted to English rule until convinced by reason of the wickedness and folly of their domination, how long would they have had to wait for the redress of their wrongs? Such questions might be run over pages, but to what purpose? All know (unless submerged in cant) that those who would have must take; and that no man’s rights can be entrusted to another’s good-will, be the trustee ever so just. Vaccination is a medical monopoly established, endowed, and enforced—a tyranny to be overthrown. Those who profit by it will never consent to its surrender, whatever the evidence of its inutility and mischief: it would be against experience to expect otherwise: and they will never be so valiant in defence of their monopoly, and so profuse in the assertion of its overwhelming advantages, as when its dissolution is imminent. The wise understand these things. There is, therefore, but one way in which to get rid of the incubus, and that way is outright resistance. Already such resistance has proved successful in several parts of the country. The law has been reduced to abeyance, and similar resistance will be rewarded with similar results. Moreover, further legislation in favour of vaccination has been checked. Parliament will pass no more Vaccination Acts. The plague thus far is stayed: the worst possible has been seen: the business is to clear away what remains.
It is sometimes said that vaccination is unnatural, and the saying is disregarded as unscientific or absurd. But is it unscientific? and is it absurd? Men deserve an order in Nature, and when they perceive that any procedure is at variance with that order, they instinctively condemn it as unnatural, though possibly they may be unable to give a philosophic account of their aversion.
We unite in the assertion that vaccination is unnatural, and when we are asked, Why? we answer, Because it is an operation which violates the order maintained in the formation of the blood. If we follow food into the stomach and attend to the processes of digestion, rejection, and assimilation—the infinite care, in short, with which blood is made, we shall start back with dislike, and even horror, from a practice which sets at naught all this care; which attacks the blood directly, and attacks it to poison it. Hence it is that vaccination is stigmatised as unnatural, being a process which not only reverses the course of Nature in blood-making, but doubly unnatural, as violating that course and poisoning its product.
To re-affirm and illustrate our meaning, we take the following piece of physiological poetry, poetic yet scientifically accurate, from Dr. Garth Wilkinson—
In the human body, whatever enters the blood, be it even the most bland food, the juice of the grape or the pomegranate, or the fine flour of wheat, be it oil, wine, or fig, is broken up first, and then led inwards through long avenues of introduction. The most innocent food goes in most easily and first. The police and surveillance for the rest are exceeding great and many. The senses electively appetise the fine food; it has to pass through their peremptory doors of liking and disliking; instructed doors of memory, association, imagination, reason, wisdom, religion, in adults. It is then attacked by digestive salivas, tests, examinations, and severe juices, and questioned to the uttermost in that degree, which corresponds to the former. It is strained through organ after organ; each a tribunal of more than social exactitude. It is absorbed by the finest systems of choice in pore and vessel, organic judgment sitting in every corner, and presiding over each inner doorway. It is submitted to glandular and lung purifications, and their furnaces of trials and eliminations. At last it is weighed in the balances, and minted by supreme nerve wisdoms; and only after all these processes is it admitted into the golden blood. This of the best food, such as good and wise men eat. The worst food is made the best of by a constant passage through bodily mercies and mitigations—a no less sedulous though a penal process. This is physiology, and divine-human decency, and like a man’s life. Vaccination traverses and tramples upon all these safeguards and wisdoms; it goes direct to the blood, or, still worse, to the lymph, and not with food; it puts poison, introduced by puncture, and that has no test applicable to it, and can have no character given to it but that it is fivefold animal and human poison, at a blow into the very centre, thus otherwise guarded by nature in the providence of God. This is blood assassination, and like a murderer’s life.[307]
Finally, vaccination is an attempt to swindle Nature. The vaccinator says, “Come, my little dear, come and let me give you a disease wherewith I shall so hoax Nature that henceforth you may live in what stench you please, and smallpox shall not catch you.” But can Nature be swindled? can Nature be hoaxed? Mr. Lowell, in praising the genius of Cervantes, says, “There is a moral in Don Quixote, and a very profound one it is—that whoever quarrels with Nature, whether wittingly or unwittingly, is certain to get the worst of it.” There is sometimes an apparent triumph over Nature. We do wrong, and fancy we may evade the penalty by some cunning contrivance, but ere long we perceive with dismay that the consequences were only concealed or staved off, and that we have to answer to the uttermost farthing. Vaccination is a dodge kindred with incantations and similar performances whereby it is hoped to circumvent the order of the Highest, and compel his favour apart from obedience to his will. By artifice it is attempted to obviate a consequence of ill-living, whilst persisting in ill-living; but if it were possible to escape smallpox by such means, we should have equal punishment in some other mode. No: smallpox with its alternatives and equivalents can only be avoided through compliance with the old-fashioned prescription, “Wash you, make you clean; cease to do evil, learn to do well.” The lesson is hard to learn, and harder to practise; but there is no evading it if we would be healthy and happy. Wherefore all tricks like vaccination are bound to nullity and disaster. As Hosea Biglow says—
“You hev gut to git up airly
Ef you want to take in God.”
WILLIAM A. GUY, F.R.C.P., F.R.S.
Is Vaccination a preventive of Smallpox? To this question there is, there can be, no answer except such as is couched in the language of figures.—Journal of the Statistical Society, 1882, vol. xlv. p. 414.
G. F. KOLB,
Member of the Royal Statistical Commission of Bavaria.
From childhood I had been trained to look upon Cowpox as an absolute protective from Smallpox. I believed in Vaccination more strongly than in any ecclesiastical dogma. Numerous and acknowledged failures did not shake my faith. I attributed them either to the carelessness of the operator or the badness of the lymph.
In course of time the question of Compulsory Vaccination came before the Reichstag, when a medical friend supplied me with a mass of statistics in favour of Vaccination, in his opinion, conclusive and unanswerable. This awoke the statistician within me. On inspection, I found the figures delusive; and closer examination left no shadow of doubt in my mind that the statistical array of proof represented a complete failure.
My investigations were continued, and my judgment was confirmed. For instance, Cowpox was introduced to Bavaria in 1807, and for a long time none, except the newly-born, escaped Vaccination; nevertheless in the epidemic of 1871, of 30,472 cases of Smallpox, no less than 29,429 were vaccinated, as is shown in the documents of the State.—From Letter to Mr. William Tebb, 22nd January, 1882.
FOOTNOTES:
[293] The Statistics of the Medical Officers to the Leeds Smallpox Hospital Exposed and Refuted in a Letter to the Leeds Board of Guardians. By John Pickering. Leeds, 1876.
[294] Mr. Constable’s publications have been as follows—
Medical Evidence in the Case of Dale v. Constable. York, 1872. Pp. 30.
Doctors, Vaccination, and Utilitarianism. York, 1873. Pp. 239.
Our Medicine Men: a Few Hints. Hull, 1876. Pp. 689.
Fashions of the Day in Medicine and Science. Hull, 1879. Pp. 300.
[295] Vaccination Tracts with Preface and Supplement. London, 1879. Pp. 348.
[296] Can Disease protect Health? being a Reply to Mr. Ernest Hart’s pamphlet, entitled The Truth about Vaccination. By Enoch Robinson, M.R.C.S. London, 1880. Pp. 38.
[297] A Review of the Norwich Vaccination Inquiry. London, 1883. Sir Lyon Playfair’s Logic. London, 1883. Specificity and Evolution in Disease. By W. J. Collins, M.D., B.S., B.Sc. (Lond.) London, 1884.
[298] The first publication of Mr. Gibbs, The Evils of Vaccination, is dated 1856: the latest is a reply to the question, “Is Vaccination Scientific?” in The Journal of Science, March, 1884.
[299] An article, “Compulsory Vaccination,” in evidence of Mr. Dudgeon’s quality, will be found in The Westminster Review, No. CXXX., April, 1884.
[300] Vaccination: Is it Worthy of National Support? A Public Discussion in South Place Chapel, Finsbury, on 28th May, 1878, under the Presidency of Sir Thomas Chambers, M.P., Recorder of the City of London. London, 1878.
Mr. Wheeler has published the following pamphlets—
Vaccination in the Light of History. London, 1878.
Vaccination—Opposed to Science and a Disgrace to English Law. London, 1879.
Vaccination—1883. London, 1884.
[301] Government Prosecutions for Medical Heresy; a Verbatim Report of the case Regina v. Tebb. Dedicated to the Board of St. Pancras Guardians. With an Introduction and Appendix of Illustrative Matter. London, 1879.
[302] Mr. Tebb’s publications have been many, and his last is especially noteworthy—Compulsory Vaccination in England: with Incidental References to Foreign States. London, 1884. Pp. 64.
[303] Vaccination. A Letter to Dr. W. B. Carpenter, C.B. By P. A. Taylor, M.P. London, 1881.
[304] Mr. Leighton published nothing outside the newspapers except a letter addressed to William Chambers of Edinburgh, entitled, The People of Dewsbury and Vaccination. London, 1876.
[305] “A New View of Smallpox.”—The Times, 25th December, 1879.
[306] Letter from Ursula M. Bright to Annual Meeting of the London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination, held in Shoreditch Town Hall, 13th May, 1884.
[307] On Human Science, Good and Evil, and its Works; and on Divine Revelation and its Works and Sciences. London, 1876.
[INDEX.]
Abbott, Mr., speaker, House of Commons, [219].
Abercrombie, Sir Ralph, [396].
Aberdeen degrees, [330].
Aberdeenshire, Maitland at home, [34].
Acksell, Dr., [408].
Adair, William, [590].
Adams, Dr., Waltham, uses smallpox cowpox, [76].
Adams, Dr., pearly pox for variolation, [120];
on cowpox before Jenner, [138].
Adams, American president, [379].
Adderley, Sir Charles, [553].
Addington, Mr., [186], [195].
Addington, John, surgeon, [189], [218].
Addison, W. J., evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [556].
Alexander, Emperor of Russia, cautioned by Jenner against Walker, [329];
disappoints Jenner, [362];
enforces vaccination, [406].
Allen v. Worthy, [551].
Alsop, Mr., surgeon, Calne, [130].
Amelia, Princess, variolated, [18], [22].
Anderson, Mr., Madras, fraud, [387].
Anderson, Dr., Leith, [151].
Angerstein, Mr., [230].
Antimony, tartarated, substitute for cowpox, [121], [348].
Anti-Vaccination Congresses—Paris 1880, Cologne 1881, Berne 1883, [581].
Anti-Vaccinator, Henry Pitman’s, [544];
John Pickering’s, [574].
Anti-Vaccinators, characterised by Robert Lowe, [528];
by Simon, 558-59;
by Marson, [563];
by Seaton, [569];
by British Medical Association, [580];
by J. G. Talbot, M. P., and by Dr. Barrow, [581].
Aspinwall, Dr., variolator, Boston, [376], [377].
Atheism imputed to variolators, [42].
Austria, death-rates compared with those of England, [506].
Avelin, Professor, vaccination in Prussia, [405].
Ayrton, A. S., vaccinators should be subject to penalties, [532].
Badcock, Mr., Brighton, produces and uses smallpox cowpox, [75], [272], [472], [512], [514].
Bagehot, Walter, [8].
Baillie, Dr., witness for Jenner, [190].
Baker, Sir George, practice of the Suttons, [47].
Baker, John, one of Jenner’s victims, [117], [154].
Baker, Thomas, [509], [590];
evidence House of Commons’ committee 1871, [555].
Bakewell, Dr. R. H., evidence House of Commons’ committee 1871, [559-560].
Ballard, Dr., prize Essay on Vaccination, [547], [548].
Balmis, Dr. F. X., expedition as trader and vaccinator, [401].
Banks, Mr., Jenner’s claims, [195], [233].
Banks, Sir Joseph, [146], [147], [226].
Baptism conjoined with vaccination, [276].
Barbados, variolation, [38].
Barge, Mary and John, [104], [119].
Baron’s Life of Jenner, [349-363], [586].
Baron, Dr. John, romance as to Jenner’s early years, [94];
extra-ordinary narrative, [95];
gush over George IV., [220];
Jenner v. Walker, [226];
Jenner’s shyness, [230];
letter from Jenner on Grosvenor case, [319];
first meeting with Jenner and attitude toward him, [349], [352];
appalled by no inconsistency, [354];
nor admitted change of mind in Jenner, [355-356];
rant over Balmis expedition, [402];
Jenner’s inability to count, [416];
Dr. Watt’s mischievousness, [452].
Uses and sends Jenner equine virus, [269];
apology for confounding horsegrease with horsepox, [270].
Barrow, Dr., “a disgrace to humanity,” [581].
Barrow, Mr., [538].
Barttelot, Colonel, [537].
Bath Vaccine Pock Institution, [163].
Bathurst, Lord, servant variolated and died, [34].
Batts of Temple variolated, [19].
Bavaria, results of vaccination, [596].
Beale, Dr. Lionel, much vaccinated, [302].
Beaufort, Duke of, [176].
Beddoes, Dr., cowpox, [138];
smallpox after cowpox, [165].
Bedford, Duke of, [219], [220].
Bengal subscription to Jenner, [390].
Berkeley, Jenner’s birthplace and home, [92];
inhabitants variolated, [99].
Berkeley, Admiral, [186], [194].
Berkeley, Earl of, [176], [191].
Berlin Royal Vaccine Institution, and Jennerian feast, [405].
Berne Anti-Vaccination Congress, 1883, [581].
Birch, John, variolation harmless, [66];
treatment of smallpox a chief cause of fatalities, [85];
summoned on Jenner’s case, [187];
character of his opposition to vaccination, [274];
scorn for means used to extend craze, [276];
nature of evidence submitted to House of Commons, [276];
desire to know what cowpox was, [277];
absurdity of spurious cowpox, [277];
what had Jenner discovered? [278];
assertion that cowpox was harmless and would never prove fatal, [279];
futility of variolous test, [279];
smallpox following vaccination, [280];
Jenner pestered with failures, [280];
fine promises belied, [281];
death and epitaph, [281], [282];
Jenner’s treatment of Birch, [283];
mention in Edinburgh Review, [290].
Birch, Penelope, reprints brother’s papers, [281],
and erects his monument, [282].
Blandford fire and smallpox, [85].
Blane, Sir Gilbert, [83], [397];
witness for Jenner, [187];
estimate of smallpox for United Kingdom, [208], [209].
Bleeding, [519], [584].
Blistering, [519].
Blood-making, process described, [594-595].
Bombay, vaccination introduced, [385], [388];
subscription to Jenner, [390].
Bompas, flaming fire-brand, [77].
Booth, Amos, [590].
Boringdon, Lord, bill to suppress variolation, [73], [353].
Boston, variolation first practised, [2-4], [7], [377];
completely variolated, [57];
method of practice, [58], [373];
smallpox in 18th century, [371-373].
Bouley, Prof., experiments with horsepox, [273].
Bourne, Sturges, denounces variolation, [72], [246].
Boy, cowpox ox-faced, [297].
Boylston, Dr. Zabdiel, variolation in New England, [2], [5-7], [56], [371].
Bowman, Mr., Newcastle, [550].
Bradley, Dr., Jenner’s conjectural income, [188].
Brady, Mr., liberal pay for vaccination, [536].
Bragge, Mr., surgeon, attempts use of cowpox, [138].
Brahmins hold cowpox impure, [387].
Bread, Beef and Beer, [88], [316].
Bremer, Dr., vaccinations in Berlin, [406].
Brett, T. B., St. Leonards, [590].
Bridgewater, Duke of, son variolated and killed, [34].
Bright, Jacob, [553];
cites Gregory against Marson on marks, [561].
Bright, John, deafness of House of Commons, [592].
Bright, Ursula M., forcible vaccination of poor, [590].
British Medical Journal, refusal of advertisements, [582].
British Medical Association on anti-vaccinators, [579-580].
Brodie, Sir Benjamin, medical practice, [92].
Brotherton, Joseph, [501].
Brown, Thomas, Musselburgh, criticism of vaccination, [285];
sees vaccinated with smallpox, [286];
fallacy of variolous test, [287];
attempted refutation by Edinburgh vaccinators, [287];
re-affirmed position in 1842, [288];
Jenner’s malice toward, [351];
Moore’s insolence, [457];
confession that Brown was in the right, [458];
cited by Hamernik against re-vaccination, [520].
Browne, Hawkins, [246].
Bruce, H. A., spokesman for vaccination ring, [530-531];
untruthful statement, [537-538].
Bryce’s Test, [353].
Buchan, Dr. William, Domestic Medicine, [53];
recommends variolation, [54];
appeal to clergy, [54];
mortality from smallpox and variolation, [66];
maltreatment of smallpox, [85];
prevalence and cause of scurvy, [87-88];
denounces tea, [90].
Bullpox, [144], [272], [374].
Burdett, Sir Francis, scepticism as to vaccination, [253].
Burnet, Mr., prosecuted for variolation, [463].
Burns, James, [590].
Burrows, Dr., London bills of mortality, 1818, [77].
Burrows, Sir J. Cordy, production of smallpox cowpox, [76].
Butler, Bishop, national insanities, [91].
Buxton, Sir T. Fowell, [587].
“Buying the smallpox,” [29].
Byng, Lady, two children variolated, [21].
Calcraft, Miss, Jenner on Grosvenor case, [320].
Calcutta Gazette, 1804, [383].
Cameron, Dr., smallpox cowpox, [273].
Candlish, John, [565], [567], [577];
repeated prosecutions, [550-552];
witness before House of Commons’ committee 1871, [553].
Canning, George, declaration as to compulsory vaccination, [254], [310], [476], [480], [485].
Canterbury, Archbishop of, would not commit Church, [275].
Carioli, syphilis invaccinated, [523].
Carlyle, stupidity, [19];
teeth outwards, [215];
swarmery, [291], [292];
injustice by law, [548].
Caroline, Princess of Wales, has six felons variolated, [14];
six charity children, [17];
her own children, [18], [22];
promoter of Maitland’s experiments, [171].
Carpenter, Dr. W. B., answered by Dr. Collins, [583],
and by P. A. Taylor, [588].
Carter, R. Brudenell, invaccination of syphilis, [310].
Catharine, Empress of Russia, variolated, [62], [362], [514];
payment to Dimsdale, [64].
Catpox, [170].
Caution against Vaccine Swindlers, [326].
Ceely of Aylesbury generates smallpox cowpox, [75], [272], [472], [514], [528].
Cervantes, [595].
Ceylon, variolation and vaccination, [345];
smallpox, [392-393]; [408].
Chadwick, Edwin, “Keep your eye on the death-rate,” [450].
Chambers, Sir Thomas, denies that smallpox increases mortality, [439];
his prophecy, [538];
Wheeler and Wyld debate, [586].
Chambers, Wm., Andrew Leighton’s letter to, [589].
Chapman, Mrs., variolator, [44].
Charlotte, Queen, [171], [219], [221], [370], [380].
Chastellux, [59].
Chavasse, Dr., ravages of smallpox, [77].
Chemists and apothecaries friends of smallpox, [325].
Chester smallpox in 18th century, [69].
Cheyne, Dr. George, prevalence of scurvy, [87-88].
Chickenpox, alias smallpox, [366-367].
China, vaccination introduced, [386], [393].
Chinese method of variolation, [16], [394].
Chincough, Watt’s treatise, [439].
Christ’s Hospital, smallpox from, [15];
mortality of smallpox among inmates, [23], [32], [524].
Christie, Dr. Thomas, Ceylon, [392].
Chiswell, Sarah, [8], [10].
Cholera, 1831-32, [448].
Church-rates, compulsory, [542], [560], [593].
Clarence, Duke of, (William IV.) [171], [191], [219].
Clarke, Dr., advocates compulsory vaccination, [305].
Cline, Henry, letter describing first vaccination, [128];
advises Jenner to come to London, [129];
witness for Jenner, [189];
apology for Walker, [227];
National Vaccine Establishment, [459].
Cobbett, William, shuffles of quackery, [20];
in Gray’s Inn, [81];
denounces potatoes and tea, [89-90], [316];
power in common sense, [304];
vaccination fury, [305];
addresses Wilberforce on compulsion, [305];
endowment of vaccination, [307], [311];
its proved failure, [308];
spurious cowpox dodge, [309];
foresees invaccination of syphilis, [309], [531];
Advice to Young Men, [312];
smallpox-made-milder dodge, [313];
had Cobbett followed Jenner, [314];
children variolated, [315];
sanitary science undiscovered, [316];
honourable prejudices, [317].
Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice, unvaccinated infants, [77];
repeated prosecutions, [551].
Cockermouth and Dr. Walker, [220], [325].
Codd, Philip, son vaccinated by Jenner takes smallpox, [312].
Cole, James, infected with horsegrease, [115].
Collins, William, painter, [448].
Collins, Dr. W. J., opponent of vaccination, [543], [547];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [554].
Collins, Dr. W. J., [583].
Colchester, itch and vaccination in 85th Regiment, [126], [277].
Coldbath Fields Smallpox Hospital, [40].
Colliander, Dr., Swedes decline variolation, [408].
Cologne Anti-Vaccination Congress, 1881, [581].
Combe, Andrew, [427].
Combes, The, [449].
Common-sense defined, [303].
Condamine, La, [59].
Coningham, William, [529].
Connah, Mr., Seaford, rarity of smallpox, [83].
Connell, Ira, [545].
Constable, H. Strickland, writings, [581].
Constantinople, practice of variolation, [1], [8], [11], [12], [18].
Convulsions, enormous death-rate in London, [80].
Cook, Turkey merchant, [15].
Cook, Captain, and Jenner, [92].
Cooke, C., cowpox did not prevent smallpox, [165].
Copenhagen, smallpox and vaccination, [420].
Copland, Dr., scepticism as to vaccination, [478].
Corfield, Dr., “the falsest of falsehoods,” [86].
Cornwallis, Marquis, [398].
Corrigan, Sir Dominic, evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [560-561], [567].
Corry, Mr., withdraws 1866 vaccination bill, [532].
Cortez, Mexican smallpox, [511].
Corvisart and Jenner, [400].
Cother, Mr., variolates Jenner’s child, [357];
resulting scandal, [358].
Cough, Whooping, Newcastle, [429], [430];
Glasgow, [439-443];
England and Wales 1838-40, [505].
Courtney, Mr., amazing estimate, [194].
Covent Garden grave-yard, [82].
Covington, F., evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [555].
Cowper, William, [80], [576].
Cowper, W. F., [496];
operates in House of Commons for Epidemiological Society, [497];
extreme docility, [498];
answer to Mr. Duncombe, [499];
simple-minded defence of compulsion, [500].
Cowpox, Jenner’s cases in Inquiry, [104-108];
assures absolute security from smallpox unaffected by time, [105], [121], [141];
incommunicable to those who have had smallpox, [106];
taken repeatedly, [107], [108], [141];
action in conjunction with smallpox, [150];
cowpox and smallpox modifications of same disease, [166];
description of in cow and man, [109];
generation in horsegrease beyond possibility of denial, [100], [110], [112];
reasons for this belief, [154];
difficulty of proof, [100];
indistinguishable in effects from horsegrease, [156], [157];
an uncommon and erratic disease, [75];
probable extinction, [111];
when it ought to be taken, [111];
its inflammation always erysipelatous, [143];
sores eat into flesh, and action checked with escharotics, [157];
recommended as an expulsive irritant, [123].
Mr. Knight attests common faith, [132];
notorious belief in its prophylaxy, [94], [136-139], [179];
Jesty and Nash’s claims, [94-95], [204-206];
unnoticed in Cheshire, [133];
well known in south and unknown in north of England, [137];
known in Gloucestershire not to prevent smallpox, [95], [165];
inquiry of Ingenhousz in Wilts, [130];
unknown in New England, [375];
unknown in bulls, [144], [272].
Discovered, 1799, in London, [145];
distributed by Pearson, [146];
its diverse action, [149];
Jenner’s views discriminated from Pearson’s, [153], [178], [198], [203], [347].
Spurious Cowpox, [99], [113];
various definitions by Jenner, [240];
in Spain, [401];
disowned by Jenner, [239], [336], [454];
a dodge, [278], [356];
Birch’s inquiry, [277-278];
Cobbett, [309];
Hamernik’s opinion, [519-522].
Crewe, Lady, and Jenner, [231].
Crichton, Dr., vaccination and enforcement in Russia, [406-407].
Croft, Dr., faith in cowpox in Staffordshire, [137].
Cross, John, the Norwich epidemic, 1819, [432-439].
Crow, Dr. E. J., [590].
Cumberland, Duke of, [219].
Dairymaids’ faith in cowpox, [95], [114], [334].
Dalkeith, vaccination introduced, [151].
Darwin, Erasmus, letter to Jenner, [275], [371].
Davis, Francis, Enniscorthy, [590].
Davy, Sir Humphry, hydrophobia, [359], [371].
De Carro, Vienna, writes to Jenner, [264], [266-267], [405];
uses horsegrease, [265], [404-405], [512];
conveys virus to India, [384];
Jenner’s congratulation, [385].
Decimation by smallpox, [76].
Delafaye, Dr., preaches and writes against variolation, [42].
Denmark, variolation, [62];
vaccination, [419-420].
Des Gouttes, smallpox and variolation in Geneva, [61].
Devonshire, Duchess of, works for Jenner, [230].
Diarrhœa and vaccination, Newcastle, [429-430].
Diderot, promotes variolation, [59].
Diet, influence on smallpox, [87].
Dilke, Sir Charles, [578].
Dillwyn, William, letter from Jenner, [341-344].
Dimsdale, Dr. Thomas, variolator, [47-48];
controversy with Lettsom, [49];
summoned to Russia to variolate Catharine, [63];
price paid for job, [64], [362];
variolation from arm-to-arm, [76];
parish variolations, [379];
might have anticipated Jenner, [514].
Doddridge, Dr., favours variolation, [41].
Dog distemper, [360];
Jenner vaccinates King’s staghounds, [360].
Dolling, Mr., Blandford, vaccination before Jenner, [138].
Domeier, Dr., [221].
Don Quixote, [595].
Downe, Mr., Bridport, vaccination before Jenner, [139], [204].
Drew, Rev. Herman, anticipates vaccination, [138].
Drysdale, Dr., [84].
Druitt, Dr., [547].
Dublin, variolation, [34].
Dublin Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons report on vaccination, [242-243].
Dudgeon, H. D., [585-586].
Dumfries, variolation introduced, [34].
Duncan, Dr., introduces vaccination to Edinburgh, [151].
Duncombe, Thomas, discomfits sharp practice in House of Commons, [498-499];
disapproves of compulsion, [499], [529].
Dundee, vaccination introduced, [151].
Dunning, Mr., surgeon, [89], [340], [361], [385], [389], [390], [394];
enthusiasm for Jenner, [196];
first uses words vaccinate and vaccination, [229].
Dusthall, Anna, first vaccinated in India, [385].
Dutch in Ceylon, [392].
East India Company, [220].
Edinburgh, smallpox in 18th century, [50];
triumph of vaccination, 1806, [71];
vaccination introduced, 1799, [151];
smallpox epidemic among the vaccinated, 1818-19, [366];
variolation disused, 1815, and no smallpox, [463].
Edinburgh Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons report on vaccination, [241].
Edinburgh Dispensary and smallpox, 1805, [242];
official answer to Dr. Brown, [287].
Edinburgh Medical Journal, Brown of Musselburgh, [351].
Edinburgh Review, [300], [302], [303], [350];
comparative fatality of smallpox and variolation, [66];
smallpox diffused by variolation, [69];
rapid acceptance of vaccination, [70];
attacked by John Ring, [173];
anti-vaccinators described, [289];
a homicidal article, [364].
Edwards, Jonathan, killed by variolation, [56].
Egremont, Earl of, [167], [168], [220], [231].
Eldon, Lord, [73].
Elephants’ milk, [327].
Elgin, Lord, [384].
Ellenborough, asserts influence of vaccination to be transient, [353];
Jenner’s indignation, [354];
encounter with Jenner, [357];
Epidemiological Society, [482].
Ellis, Mr., fraud, [387].
Emerson, R. W., Dr. Garth Wilkinson, [549].
Emery, Aaron, evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [555].
Encyclopædia Britannica, horsegrease and cowpox, [271].
Endowment of research illustrated by National Vaccine Establishment, [461].
English Cyclopædia, Cotton Mather and Lady M. W. Montagu, [7].
English death-rates compared with Austrian, [506].
Engrafting the smallpox, [1].
Enniscorthy, [508-509], [590].
Epidemics, Dr. Waterhouse bewildered, [382].
Epidemics of smallpox, Dr. Seaton on their irregular character, [568].
Epidemiological Society, organised to promote trade in vaccination, [480-491];
primes Lord Lyttelton, [480],
and W. F. Cowper, [497];
untruthful report, [485];
presses for more vaccination, [492];
bolder demands and more untruthful, [493-495];
medical place hunters, [497], [500].
Epps, Dr., variolation, [74];
Tweedledum and Tweedledee, [226];
character of Dr. Walker, [331].
Equination, [229], [264], [265], [368];
practised by Jenner, [268-269].
Erskine, Sir J. Sinclair, Jenner’s sacrifices, [194].
Erysipelas, a note of effective vaccination, [113], [119], [143], [157], [240], [279], [429], [503], [555].
Escharotics to allay vaccination, [109], [118], [157], [161], [198].
Evans, T. W., vaccination in Iceland, [420].
Evesham Guardians, advice from Local Government Board, [576].
Excell, Hannah, vaccinated, [118],
and vaccinifer, [128].
Faces, pock-marked, [468];
disappearance avouched by National Vaccine Establishment, [469-470].
Faith magic, [213].
Famine and smallpox in northern Europe, [409].
Farquhar, Sir Walter, [129], [188], [319].
Farr, Dr. W., decline of smallpox prior to vaccination, [86], [211], [466-467];
confirms Watt’s discovery in Glasgow, [447-448], [450-451];
evidence reinforced from West Indies, [560].
Farriers’ faith in horsegrease, [100], [114], [179], [334-335].
Ferdinand IV. and Naples, [396].
Fewster, Mr., cowpox more severe than smallpox, [139].
Finland, vaccinators to be punished if smallpox ensue, [419].
Flaxman, [581].
Fleuart, Dr., Boston, results of variolation, [5].
Fleming, Dr., Calcutta, letter from Jenner on variolation and vaccination in England, [390].
Fleming, George, cowpox and horsepox, [272].
Florence, variolation introduced, [62].
Forster, W. E., moves for committee on 1867 Vaccination Act, [552], [553];
surrenders to House of Lords, [572];
private faith in vaccination, [577], [578].
Foundling Hospital, [40].
Fox, Joseph, friend of Dr. Walker, [218], [220].
Fox, C. J., [215].
Fox, W. F., Dewsbury, [590].
France, variolation introduced, [35], [59];
prohibited, [60];
application to Cowpock Institution, [168];
Woodville introduces vaccination, [169], [398];
Napoleon’s despotism, [399-400].
Frank, Joseph, scarlet fever, [448].
Freeman, Mr., variolates after Jenner’s vaccination, [280].
Freind, Dr., letter from Dr. Wagstaffe, [17].
Friends, Society of, church-rates, [542], [560];
oaths, [593].
Fry, Danby Palmer, evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [560].
Fugitive Slave Law, [540].
Fuller, John, denunciation of London Vaccine Institution, [250-252].
Fuseli, [581].
Gale, Samuel, a London grave-yard, [82].
Gardner, Edward, Jenner’s witness, [95-96], [97], [99], [101], [131], [152], [192], [362], [363];
Jenner’s prophetic vision, [122];
a hint for the newspapers, [147].
Gartshore, Dr., discovery of cowpox in London, [146].
Gassner in 1801 produces smallpox cowpox, [512].
Geneva, practice of variolation, [61].
George I., favours variolation, [5];
assigns felons for experiment, [15].
George II., extolled for gracious patronage of practice, [43].
George III., receives Jenner, [171],
and promotes vaccination, [219], [243], [370], [380].
George IV., does as his father, [323], [370].
Germany, variolation, [62],
and vaccination introduced. [151].
Gibbs family, [547].
Gibbs, George S., [550], [585], [586];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [554].
Gibbs, John, birth and career, [508-509];
Letter on Vaccination, [500-509], [541], [585].
Gibbs, Richard Butler, leader of anti-vaccinators, [543-544], [550], [578], [585];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [556];
death, [573-574].
Gibbs, Mrs. R. B. (Miss Griffiths), [547], [573], [574].
Gibson, Wm., New Lanark, [366].
Giddy, Davies, prefers variolation to vaccination, [252].
Giffard, Mr., cowpox in Dorset, [137].
Gillett, Charles, Banbury, [590].
Gillman, Mr., fraud in India, [387].
Girl, cowpoxed mangey, [297].
Gilpin, Charles, character of anti-vaccinators, [542].
Gilpin, John, illustration of London life, [80].
Gladstone administration, pitiful performance, [577].
Glasgow, boarding-school girl, [51];
Dr. Walker, [331];
rare place for smallpox, [439];
statistics, 1783-1812, [440], [442-443];
variolation practised, [441];
insanitary conditions, [441];
vaccination introduced, [441];
extent of practice, [442], [446];
mortality unaffected, [442];
other diseases replace smallpox, [442-443], [446-447];
activity of measles, [444];
Dr. Farr on the evidence, [447-448];
character of smallpox victims, [450];
variolation disused, 1815, and no smallpox, [463].
Gloucester cathedral, Jenner’s monument, [363].
Goatpox used in Madrid, [401].
Goethe, stupidity, [279].
Goldson, Wm., reports smallpox after vaccination, [283],
which Jenner would not look at, [284];
publishes pamphlet, [284];
suggestions, [285];
infamous treatment by Jenner and Ring, [285], [350-351], [361];
Edinburgh Review, [290].
Good, Dr. Mason, horsegrease, [100], [260], [262], [267].
Goulburn, Mr., prohibition of variolation, 1840, [74].
Grainger, Mr., extent of vaccination in 1850, [475].
Granville, Dr., decimation by smallpox, [77].
Grattan, patriot, [184], [185].
Graveyards in London, [82].
Gregory, Dr. George, mortality from variolation, [66];
regrets prohibition, [74];
smallpox declining before vaccination, [86];
letters from Brown of Musselburgh, [288];
smallpox and vaccination in Ceylon, [393];
estimate for National Vaccine Establishment, [461];
scepticism as to vaccination, [477];
cited by Jacob Bright against Marson on marks, [561].
Grey, Mr., Jenner’s reward, [195].
Griffiths, John, [189].
Grosvenor, Robert, vaccinated by Jenner, 1801, has smallpox, 1811, [318-321].
Gull, Dr. Wm., asserts vaccination as protective as smallpox, [355], [564];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [564-565].
Guy, Dr. W. A., vaccination a question of figures, [596].
Guy’s Hospital, 1802, [275].
Halford, Sir Henry, [319], [459].
Halifax, smallpox in 18th century, [27], [30].
Halifax, Viscount, compulsory vaccination, [572].
Hall, Sir Benjamin, letter from John Gibbs, [501].
Hamernik, Dr. Joseph, pustules from tartar emetic, [121];
answer to Simon, [519-523].
Hannen, Mr. Justice, [551].
Hanover, variolation, [34].
Hart, Ernest, [582].
Haughton, Dr. Edward, [590].
Hawes, Dr., [218].
Haygarth, Dr., [57], [83], [569];
variolation in Geneva, [61];
Chester smallpox, [69];
transmits vaccine virus to Boston, [376-377].
Haynes, William, smallpox and horsegrease, [117].
Heaths of Hertford variolated by Maitland, [19-20].
Heberden, Dr. William, successful variolator, [140].
Hecquet, Dr., [35].
Henley, J. W., homely sense and sympathy with poor, [498], [499], [531], [535], [536];
Lord R. Montagu’s nonsense, [539].
Herpes, interference with vaccination, [340-343], [356].
Hertford, [19], [20], [23], [48].
Hervey, Dr. James, [459].
Hicks, Henry, [102], [134].
Hicks, Dr., letter to Jenner on cowpox from horsegrease, [133].
Highlands of Scotland, variolation practised, [29].
Highmore, Anthony, tribute to Woodville, [163].
Hignells vaccinated by Jenner, variolated by Freeman, [280].
Hill, Rev. Rowland, thundered for vaccination, [290];
controversy with Moseley, [293-296].
Hjaltalin, Dr., Iceland, [422].
Hobbes, [583].
Holland, variolation in, [62].
Holland, Lord, letter to Jenner from Madrid, [400].
Holland, Sir Henry, failure of vaccination, [490].
Holstein, cowpox believed good against smallpox, [94].
Home, Sir Everard, [193], [459].
Hooper’s Lexicon Medicum, [271].
Hopwood, C. H., [577].
Horsegrease, Jenner shows his nephew a horse with diseased heels, saying, “There is the source of smallpox,” [97], [359], [513];
belief of farriers and farmers that cowpox originated in horsegrease, [100], [110], [111], [154], [179];
originates on thigh of colt with erysipelas, [112];
action indistinguishable from cowpox, [157];
futile inoculations of cows by Dr. Woodville and others, [145], [259];
Jenner’s account of his faith, [154];
Pearson sets aside Jenner’s doctrine, [153], [158], [178], [472], [512];
considered horsegrease “like to damn the whole thing,” [158], [260], [336], [375];
Jenner dropped horsegrease, [180];
and why, [178], [260], [368], [375];
dropped and resumed, [512];
not a word about horsegrease in New England, [375];
repudiated by Dr. Mason Good, [263];
used successfully by Thomas Tanner and Loy, [263];
Sacco, [264], [405];
and De Carro, [265], [405];
La Font, [265];
Melon, [267];
Baron, [269];
and by Jenner, [267-268], [271],
who uses and distributes the equine virus, [268], [347];
explanation of mystification, [270-272].
Horsegrease Cowpox, Jenner’s happy thought and original prescription, [114], [201], [334], [347], [472];
the note of Inquiry, [125], [202];
Marson’s opinion, [562].
Horsepox, [472], [568];
Prof. Bouley’s experiments, [273];
cases described by Mr. Langton, [273];
probable resort to, [273].
Hosty, Dr., report on variolation in London, [59].
Houlton, Rev. Robert, engaged to puff Suttons, [46].
House of Commons’ committee on Jenner’s petition, [186-193];
report, [194];
vote, £10,000, 1802, [196];
vote, £20,000, 1807, [243-249];
committee, 1871, [552-573].
Howgrave, Francis, opposes variolation, [31].
Hufeland, tartar emetic for vaccine virus, [121], [348].
Hume, Joseph, exposure of malversation of public money by National Vaccine Establishment, [460].
Hume-Rothery, Mrs., [548], [578].
Hume-Rothery, Wm., [548], [578];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [556].
Hunter, John, “Don’t think, but try,” [98];
relations with Jenner, [91-93], [348];
heard of cowpox from Jenner, [136], [193];
two diseased actions in same part cannot occur simultaneously, [164].
Hutchins’s History of Dorset, [85].
Hutchinson, Jonathan, evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [567-568].
Huxham, John, [521].
Hydrophobia, inoculation, [359], [371].
Iceland, smallpox and vaccination, [420-423];
measles, [422].
India, vaccination introduced, [383-393];
variolators bribed, [386];
frauds practised, [387-388];
subscriptions for Jenner, [390];
Sir Richard Temple on vaccination at this day, [391].
Indians vaccinated by Balmis, [402];
fabulous stories of smallpox, [402].
Ingatestone, Suttons’ variolation establishment, [45].
Ingenhousz, Dr., discovers Jenner’s mis-statements, [130-132], [140].
Inoculation. See [Variolation.]
Inquiry, Jenner’s, publication, [102];
analysis, [103-127];
pronounced by Simon a masterpiece of medical induction, [103], [333];
its essential doctrine, [335];
printed last time in 1801, [337];
why kept out of print, [344].
Inquiry, Pearson’s, [136].
Ireland, variolation introduced, [34];
practised after prohibition, [474];
distress a cause of smallpox, [472];
fees for vaccination, [489];
vaccination said by Sir Dominic Corrigan in 1871 to have practically extinguished smallpox, [561].
Irish oppression, [593].
Italy, Sacco’s vaccinations, [403-404].
Itch prevents vaccination, [126], [277].
Jefferson, Thomas, letter to Jenner, [380].
Jeffrey, Francis, [289];
fury of vaccination controversy, [290];
contrary to all analogy that vaccination wears out, [302];
homicidal article in Edinburgh Review, [364];
declining faith in vaccination, [365].
Jellyby, Mrs., [322].
Jenner, Edward, regimen prior to variolation, [45];
birth and education, [91];
relations with John Hunter, [92-93];
Sodbury legend, [93];
a bore about cowpox, [95];
miraculous prevision, [95];
Gardner’s questionable reminiscences, [97], [122];
horse with greasy heels the origin of smallpox, [97], [359];
marriage in 1788, [97];
a good hand at verses, [97];
purchase of degree from St. Andrews, [98];
inoculates son with swinepox, [98];
experiments with cowpox, [98-99];
origin of cowpox in horsegrease beyond denial, [100];
difficulty of proof, [100].
First vaccination, 1796, [101];
publishes Inquiry, 1798, [102];
describes cowpox, [109];
tries in vain to generate it from horsegrease, [110-112];
invents spurious cowpox, [113];
denies virtue for cowpox and asserts it for horsegrease cowpox, [114];
cases of horsegrease, [115];
fancy as to origin of smallpox, [120], [359], [513];
absolute security from smallpox after horsegrease cowpox, [121];
cowpox as an expulsive irritant, [123];
single point of originality, [124];
visit to London, 1798, [127];
without cowpox, [129];
advised by Cline to settle in London, [129];
difference with Ingenhousz, [130-132];
favourable reception of Inquiry, [134];
Pearson claims association, [134];
brick-bats flying around, [135];
cowpox always erysipelatous, [143];
uses cowpox from London, [147];
jealousy of Pearson, [147];
inquiries at a stand, [148];
visits London to counteract Pearson and Woodville, [148];
anxious, fretful, helpless, [151];
Further Observations, 1799, [152];
purpose and poverty of pamphlet, [152];
differences with Pearson and Woodville, [158];
slovenly and incomplete knowledge, [158];
Vaccine Pock Institution, [160-161];
Continuation of Facts and Observations, 1800, [163];
annexation of Pearson and Woodville’s work, [163-164], [181];
re-asserts the abiding prophylaxy of cowpox, [166];
tries to undermine Vaccine Pock Institution, [167];
reception by King and Queen, [171];
John Ring’s alliance, [172], [176];
presented with plate, 1801, [176];
finds honour windy fare, [177];
determines to drop horsegrease, [178], [180];
mode of transformation, [178];
Origin of the Vaccine Inoculation, 1801, [178];
claims discovery of cowpox, [179],
and discriminates true from spurious, [180];
artful explanations, [182-183];
application to Lord Sherborne, [183];
prepares petition, [184-185],
which is referred to committee of House of Commons, [186];
evidence before committee, [186-194];
claim limited to conveyance of cowpox from arm to arm, [193];
voted £10,000 by House of Commons, [196].
Jenner’s case examined by Pearson, [197-203];
could he have taken a patent? [207];
factitious glory, [215];
delay in payment of £10,000, [216];
fate as London physician, [216];
Royal Jennerian Society, [218-219];
head turned with adulation, [221];
uxorious habits, [222];
quarrel with Walker, [225-226];
wreck of Royal Jennerian Society, [227];
impecuniosity, [228];
shyness, [230];
“the cowpox doctor,” [230];
plans for pecuniary relief, [231];
reference of Parliament to Royal College of Physicians, [232-234];
Jenner’s evidence and disownment of spurious cowpox, [239-240];
voted £20,000, [243-248];
director of National Vaccine Establishment, [255];
withdraws and expects sensation, [256];
sulking at Berkeley, [257];
tactics as to horsegrease, [259], [262], [263];
what did he discover? [261];
swinepox, [262];
reverts to original position, [264], [267];
uses and diffuses horsepox, [268-269];
a slovenly investigator, [270], [272];
Birch on spurious cowpox, [277-278];
pestered with failures, [280-281];
Birch “a sad wicked fellow,” [283];
treatment of Goldson, [285];
claim to absence of failures, [287];
friendship with Rev. Rowland Hill, [294].
Miraculous quality of Jenner’s contempt, [301];
split with Walker, [307];
vaccinates sons of Sir Richard Phillips and Philip Codd, who afterwards had smallpox, [312-313];
also of Earl Grosvenor, [318-321];
the slush his followers had to march through, [315];
dislike of Walker and his Institution, [324];
Ring as bully and libeller, [324-330];
Jenner’s later writings, [333-348];
why Inquiry was suppressed, [333-337];
mystery of horsegrease, [334-336];
experiments with horsegrease on cows, [335];
spurious cowpox dodge, [336];
herpes and vaccination, [340-342];
elusion of variolous test, [342];
smallpox flying in all directions, [344-345];
comparative London mortalities, [346];
successive poxes for vaccination, [347-348], [525];
final publication on Tartar Emetic, [348];
Baron’s biography, [349-363];
meeting with Baron, [349-350];
treatment of adversaries, [350-352], [474];
investigation resented, [352];
appropriation of work of others, [352-353];
denial that influence of vaccination wore out, [353];
Lord Ellenborough, [353-354], [357];
dying testimony to vaccination, [354];
contrivances to break his fall, [355-356];
variolation of son and scandal, [357-358];
insanitary house and sickly family, [85], [318], [358-359], [448];
belief that human diseases originated in animals, [97], [359];
suggested extension of vaccination, [359-360];
much adulation excused self-deception, [360];
abhorrence of London, [361];
exclusion from Royal College of Physicians, [361];
presentation to Emperor Alexander, [362];
death of Mrs. Jenner, 1815, [362];
perplexities toward close of life, [362];
death, 1823, [362];
funeral and memorials, [363];
statue in London, [363];
sends equine virus to Edinburgh, [368];
tactics as concerned horsegrease, [375];
sends gold box to Dr. Waterhouse, [378];
project and reward for conveyance of virus to India, [383-384];
vaccination in Madras and Bombay, [388];
tribute from India, [390];
Sweden and Ceylon, [392];
medal from naval officers, [398];
anecdote of Napoleon, [400].
Arithmetical incapacity, [415], [423];
reason for vote of £20,000, [453];
denial of spurious cowpox, [454];
deceived as to National Vaccine Establishment, [454-456];
insolence toward Brown of Musselburgh, [457-458];
his virus the stock of National Vaccine Establishment, [472-473];
treatment of opponents, [474];
did not introduce cowpox, [512];
smallpox from horse through cow, [513];
vaccinates King’s staghounds, [515];
ruthless, untruthful, mercenary, [578].
JENNER’S
Publications on Vaccination and Successive Assurances.
An Inquiry into the Cause and Effects of the Variolæ Vaccinæ, a Disease discovered in some of the Western Counties of England, particularly Gloucestershire, and known by the name of the Cow Pox. London: 1798.
1798.—What renders the Cow Pox Virus so extremely singular is, that the person who has been thus affected is for ever after secure from the infection of the Small Pox; neither the exposure to the variolous effluvia, nor the insertion of the matter into the skin, producing this distemper.
It is curious to observe, that the virus, which with respect to its effects is undetermined and uncertain previously to its passing from the horse through the medium of the cow, should then not only become more active, but should invariably and completely possess those specific properties which induce in the human constitution symptoms similar to those of the variolous fever, and effect in it that peculiar change which for ever renders it unsusceptible of the variolous contagion.
It clearly appears that this disease leaves the constitution in a state of perfect security from the infection of the Small Pox.—Pp. [121], [337].
Further Observations on the Variolæ Vaccinæ. London: 1799.
1799.—The result of all my trials with the virus on the human subject has been uniform. In every instance the patient who has felt its influence has completely lost the susceptibility for the variolous contagion.—Pp. [152-158], [336].
A Continuation of Facts and Observations relative to the Variolæ Vaccinæ, or Cow Pox. London: 1800.
1800.—The scepticism that appeared even among the most enlightened of medical men, when my sentiments on the important subject of the Cow Pox were first promulgated, was highly laudable. To have admitted the truth of a doctrine, at once so novel and so unlike anything that had ever appeared in the Annals of Medicine, without the test of the most rigid scrutiny, would have bordered upon temerity; but now, when that scrutiny has taken place, not only among ourselves, but in the first professional circles in Europe, and when it has been uniformly found in such abundant instances, that the human frame, when once it has felt the influence of the genuine Cow Pox in the way that has been described, is never afterwards, at any period of its existence, assailable by the Small Pox, may I not with perfect confidence congratulate my country and society at large on their beholding in the mild form of the Cow Pox, an antidote that is capable of extirpating from the earth a disease which is every hour devouring its victims; a disease that has ever been considered as the severest scourge of the human race.—Pp. [166], [338-339], [357], [365], [473].
The Origin of Vaccine Inoculation. London: 1801.
1801.—It now becomes too manifest to admit of controversy, that the annihilation of the Small Pox, the most dreadful scourge of the human species, must be the final result of this practice.—P. [183].
Petition for Remuneration to House of Commons. 1802.
1802.—Cow Pox admits of being inoculated on the human frame with the most perfect ease and safety, and is attended with the singularly beneficial effect of rendering through life the persons so inoculated perfectly secure from the infection of the Small Pox.—Pp. [184], [337], [355].
On the Varieties and Modifications of the Vaccine Pustule occasioned by an Herpetic State of the Skin. Printed in Medical and Physical Journal, August, 1804; and reprinted as a pamphlet, Cheltenham, 1806, and Gloucester, 1819.—P. [340].
VACCINATION EQUAL TO VARIOLATION.
1804.—What I have said on Vaccination is true. If properly conducted it secures the constitution as much as Variolous Inoculation possibly can.—Baron’s Life of Jenner, vol. ii. p. 15.
Duly and efficiently performed, Vaccination will protect the constitution from subsequent attacks of Small Pox as much as that disease itself will. I never expected that it would do more, and it will not, I believe, do less.—Ibid. p. 135.
1806.—The security given to the constitution by Vaccine Inoculation is exactly equal to that given by the Variolous. To expect more from it would be wrong. As failures in the latter are constantly presenting themselves, we must expect to find them in the former also.—Letter to Richard Dunning, 1st March, 1806.—Pp. [339], [355].
Facts for the most part unobserved or not duly noticed respecting Variolous Contagion. London: 1808.
1808.—It should be remembered that the constitution cannot, by previous infection, be rendered totally insusceptible of the Variolous Poison. Neither the casual, nor the inoculated Small Pox, whether it produce the disease in a mild or violent way, can perfectly extinguish the susceptibility.—P. [338].
Letter to William Dillwyn on the Effects of Vaccination in Preserving from the Small Pox. Philadelphia: 1818.
1818.—My confidence in the efficacy of Vaccination to guard the constitution from Small Pox is not in the least diminished. That exceptions to the rule have appeared, and that they will appear, I am ready to admit. They have happened after Small Pox Inoculation; and by the same rule, as the two diseases are so similar, they will also happen after Vaccine Inoculation.—P. [344].
Last Testimony.
1823.—My opinion of Vaccination is precisely as it was when I first promulgated the discovery. It is not in the least strengthened by any event that has happened, for it could gain no strength; it is not in the least weakened; for if the failures you speak of had not happened, the truth of my assertions respecting those coincidences which occasioned them would not have been made out.—P. [354].
The whole of Jenner’s claims re-asserted for Smallpox Cowpox by Mr. John Simon, after Inoculation with which—
1857.—“Neither renewed vaccination, nor inoculation with Smallpox, nor the closest contact and cohabitation with smallpox patients, will occasion him to betray any remnant of susceptibility to infection.”—Papers relating to the History and Practice of Vaccination. London: 1857.—P. [513].
Jenner’s Successive Poxes
In their order, [124], [185], [207], [240], [334-338], [347-348], [472-473], [512-513].
Cowpox, first faith, [93-95], [99], [114], [334].
Swinepox, [98], [99], [262].
Cowpox did not prevent smallpox, [99], [113], [143], [179], [201], [347], [512].
Horsegrease, [97], [99-100], [104], [124], [142], [273], [335].
Spurious Cowpox defined, [99], [113-114].
Horsegrease Cowpox, [100], [110-114], [119-121], [124-125], [153-155], [198], [201], [259-274], [335], [375].
Horsegrease dropped, [178-180], [201-203], [260], [266], [375].
Cowpox resumed, [180-183], [202-203], [512].
Spurious Cowpox dropped, [239-240], [277-278], [314], [336], [356], [454].
Horsegrease or Horsepox adopted neat, [229], [264-273];
the true and genuine life-preserving fluid, [269];
equine virus sent to Edinburgh, [368].
Sacco’s practice, [264], [267], [336], [512],
and De Carro’s, [265], [405].
LETTERS FROM JENNER TO—
John Addington, Surgeon.
1802.—Detained at Berkeley by domestic joys, [218]
1804.—Cannot leave his wife, [222]
John Baron, M.D.
1810.—Denunciation of Brown of Musselburgh, [351]
1811.—London and the Grosvenor disaster, [319]
1818.—The true and genuine life preserving fluid from a horse, [269]
” —Vaccination equivalent to smallpox, [355]
Miss Calcraft.
1811.—Apology for Grosvenor disaster, [320]
Dr. De Carro, Vienna.
1803.—Opposition to horsegrease hindered vaccination, [265]
” —Transmission of virus to India, [385]
W. Dillwyn, Walthamstow.
1818.—Difficulties which attend vaccination, [341-345]
Richard Dunning, Surgeon, Plymouth.
1804.—Terms Vaccinate and Vaccination, [229]
” —Herpes the pest of vaccination, [340]
” —John Ring and Goldson, [351]
” —Despotism in India, [385]
1804.—England compared with India, [389]
1805.—Potatoes, [89]
1806.—Vaccination equal to variolation, [339]
” —Wicked opposition in London, [361]
1807.—Odd notion about Hindoo women, [390]
” —Vaccination in Chinese, [394]
Dr. Fleming, Calcutta.
1806.—Vaccination and variolation in England, [390]
A Friend.
1794.—Origin of cowpox in horsegrease beyond denial, [100]
1797.—Difficulty of raising cowpox from horsegrease, [100]
1804.—Experience as London physician, [216-217]
Edward Gardner.
1796.—First arm to arm vaccination, [101]
1798.—True and false cowpox, [99]
” —Perplexity and agitation, [129]
” —Conceit and ignorance of Ingenhousz, [131]
1798.—Brickbats flying around, [135]
1799.—Counteract Pearson, [147]
” —Extreme pains with Further Observations, [152]
1823.—Homicidal Edinburgh Review, [364]
Dr. Ingenhousz.
1798.—Prophylaxy of cowpox certain and permanent, [131]
Andrew Johnstone.
1813.—Declines to preside over United London Vaccine Institution and Royal Jennerian Society, [323]
Dr. Lettsom.
1811.—Perversity of London: comfort in Asia and America, [321]
James Moore.
1808.—Family afflictions, [255]
1809.—Sir Lucas Pepys, [255]
” —Expected astonishment, [256]
” —Views and wrongs, [257]
1810.—Impudence of John Gale Jones, [301]
1812.—Vaccination in Prussia, [405]
1813.—Fresh evidence of cowpox from horsegrease, [267]
” —Has been equinating for months, [267]
” —Experience with horsegreased carters, [268]
” —Proper variety of equine virus, [270]
” —Watt’s mischievous discovery, [451]
1816.—Cowpox likely to cease through disappearance of horsegrease, [269]
” —Bad virus of National Vaccine Establishment, [458]
Dr. George Pearson.
1798.—Cowpox follows cowpox, [142]
” —Vaccination always erysipelatous, [143]
1799.—Refusal to join Vaccine Pock Institution, [161]
John Ring, Surgeon.
1801.—Ignorance of time for taking virus, [181]
W. F. Shrapnell.
1794.—Typhus at Berkeley, [85]
1800.—Success in London, [171]
” —Praise of John Ring, [173]
Dr. William Woodville.
1799.—Success with Woodville’s London virus, [149]
Rev. Dr. Worthington.
1810.—Away with Malthus!, [89]
” —While variolation is practised smallpox cannot be subdued, [72], [390]
LETTERS TO JENNER FROM—
John Addington, Surgeon.
1802.—Royal Jennerian Society, [218]
Henry Cline, Surgeon.
1798.—Experiments, with cowpox, [128]
Dr. Erasmus Darwin.
1802.—Christening and vaccination united, [276]
Dr. De Carro, Vienna.
1803.—Horsegrease Jenner’s distinction, [405]
Joseph Fox.
1802.—Royal Jennerian Society, [218]
Dr. Hicks, Bristol.
1798.—Cowpox from horsegrease, [133]
Lord Holland.
1803.—Vaccination in Spain, [400]
John Hunter.
” —Puffing Jenner’s tartar emetic, [93]
Dr. Ingenhousz.
1798.—Adverse inquiries as to cowpox, [130]
Thomas Jefferson.
1806.—Glorifies vaccination, [380]
Rev. G. C. Jenner.
1799.—Excites jealousy of Pearson, [147]
Francis Knight, Surgeon.
1798.—Attests country faith in cowpox, [132]
Dr. Marshall.
1801.—Vaccination in Naples, [398]
Dr. George Pearson.
1798.—Associates himself with Jenner and reports public dislike of horsegrease, [134]
1799.—Invitation to join Vaccine Pock Institution, [160]
Dr. Percival, Manchester.
1798.—Failure to get cowpox from horsegrease, [133]
Dr. Sacco, Milan.
1808.—Miraculous exploits as vaccinator, [403]
Lord Sherborne.
1801.—Advice as to petition for reward, [184]
Benjamin Travers.
1803.—Royal Jennerian Society, [219]
Dr. Underwood, Madras.
1801.—Dread of variolation, [383]
Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse.
1801.—Vaccination accounted beastly and indelicate in Philadelphia, [374]
” —Dexterous management of vaccination, [377]
” —Vaccinates cows, [378]
” —Cows with smallpox, [379]
Jenner, Edward, inoculated with swinepox, 1789, and subjected to variolous test, [98], [262].
Jenner, Rev. George C., sent to Colchester to vaccinate 85th Regiment, [126];
excites Jenner’s jealousy against Pearson, [147];
bears witness before committee of House of Commons, 1802, [192];
asserts he had never had one failure with vaccination, [287].
Jenner, Robert F., vaccinated, [118];
variolated, [357];
scandal, [358].
Jenner, Mrs., marriage, 1788, [97];
habitual invalidism, [222];
death, 1815, [362].
Jenner, Sir William, evidence before committee of House of Commons, 1871, [564].
Jenneric Opera, Walker’s, [325].
Jervoise, Sir J. Clarke, [590];
opposes compulsory vaccination, 1867, [538];
evidence before committee of House of Commons, 1871, [554].
Jesty, Benjamin, claim to cowpox inoculation, [94], [204], [245];
invited to London and portrait painted, [205];
put to variolous test, [205];
epitaph at Worth Matravers, [206];
distinction from Jenner, [206].
Johnson, Dr., condition of sailors, [397].
Johnstone, Andrew, [322].
Jones, John Gale, [301].
Jordan, Mrs., [171].
Joules, the ox-faced boy, [298].
Jurin, Dr., mortality of London smallpox, [25], [373];
conditions of variolation, [30].
Justice, Mr., Axminster, inoculates with cowpox, [138].
Keats, Mr., introduces vaccination to British army, [151].
Keighley guardians committed to York Castle and released to do as before, [575].
Keith, Dr., [13];
son variolated, [22].
Keith, Lord, [397].
Kemp, Mrs. E., [555].
Kendall, Mr., vaccination of poor, [536].
Kennedy, P., [1].
Kine-pox, [374], [377].
Kirkpatrick, Dr., denied that smallpox followed variolation, [41];
etiquette of variolation, [44],
and success, [45].
Knight, Francis, attests prevalent faith in cowpox, [132];
vaccinates Duke of Clarence’s children, [171].
Knowles, J. Sheridan, [227], [250].
Kolb, G. F., Bavarian vaccination and smallpox, [596].
Ladies’ Sanitary Association, [547], [548].
La Font of Salonica, [265], [267].
Lanark, New, smallpox among vaccinated, 1818, [366].
Lancashire, Leigh’s Natural History of, [3];
vaccination hated in, [591].
Lancet, The, vaccination failures and dangers, [502-503];
refuses advertisements against vaccination, [582].
Lane, Mrs. General, [509].
Langrish, Dr., variolator, [40].
Langton, John, case of horsegrease, [273].
Lankester, Coroner, falsifies certificate of death, [68], [555].
Lansdowne, Marquis of, [130].
Leeds, mortality of smallpox in 18th century, [30];
Mr. Pickering’s exposure of fraudulent statistics, [575].
Lefevre, Shaw, opposes grant to Jenner, [244].
Leicester, [585].
Leighton, Andrew, [589].
Leprosy induced by vaccination in West Indies, [559].
Lettsom, Dr., Society for General Inoculation, [49];
denounces inoculation, [71];
bears witness for Jenner, [187];
ascription of London smallpox to United Kingdom, [187], [208-209], [212], [215], [295];
Royal Jennerian Society, [219], [220];
pœans for Jenner, [290];
letter from Jenner on perversity of London, [321];
sends virus to Dr. Waterhouse, Boston, [376];
letter from Waterhouse, [378].
Lewis, Marianne, “the mangey girl,” [299].
Lichfield Cathedral, [52].
Lindblom, Archbishop, [411].
Lipscomb, Mr., anti-vaccinator, [290].
Lister, Dr., Cline’s experiment, [128].
Liverpool mortality, [451].
Lyttelton, Lord, instrument of Epidemiological Society, [480-481];
confession of personal ignorance, [480], [491].
Local Government Board, repeated penalties, [577].
London, condition 1701 to 1722, [25];
population in 18th century unknown with accuracy, [77];
prodigious infantile mortality, [80];
manner of life of citizens, [80];
overcrowding and defective light and water, [81];
cesspools, and rain the chief scavenger, [82];
grave-yards, and church-going a cause of illness, [82];
no standard for England or the world, [83], [347];
influence of variolation on smallpox, [86];
diet of inhabitants, [88];
considered by Jenner the centre of opposition to vaccination, [321];
variolation revived, 1806, [321].
London Bills of Mortality, 1701-22, [24];
fallacy of taking them as standard of other populations, [25];
untrustworthiness, [26], [77];
how got up, [26], [78];
evidence as to disease, 1791-1800 and 1801-1810, [223-224].
London Corporation, subscription to Royal Jennerian Society, [220].
London Medical Gazette, 1844, “revaccinate, revaccinate,” [473].
London Medical Repository, 1821, Ring’s libels on Walker, [329].
London Smallpox, 1701 to 1722, [24-25];
heaviest and lightest years in 18th century, [79];
no standard for smallpox elsewhere, [25], [208-210], [347], [431], [433];
did not raise death-rate, [210];
ever present waxing and waning, [211];
unchecked and cultivated yet diminishing, [211];
decline ascribed to vaccination, [222-225];
statistics, 1791-1800, [223],
and 1801-1810, [224];
diminishing in common with fevers before vaccination, [346];
before and after vaccination, [487];
a natural phenomenon, [511];
no epidemic from 1796 to 1825, [562];
prevalence prior to outbreak of Franco-German war, 1870, [562].
London and Boston Smallpox, [373];
Norwich, [433];
Vienna, [232], [369].
London Smallpox Hospitals, sermon of Bishop Maddox, [40].
London Society for Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination instituted, 1880, [580].
London Vaccination, decline of smallpox ascribed to, [222-225];
Lord Henry Petty’s speech, 1806, [232];
its vicarious operation, [295], [324];
extension checked, [301];
statistics from 1791 to 1820, [346],
in 1816, [456];
development of a fabulous salvation, [466-468].
London Vaccine Institution founded 1806, [227];
petitions Government for assistance, [250];
annexes Royal Jennerian Society, [322-324], [453], [457];
number of vaccinations, 1803 to 1826, [323];
character of agents, [325];
charged with fraud and imposture, [326-329];
diplomas, [330];
tribute to Walker, [333];
thrives despite National Vaccine Establishment, [457], [458], [460].
Louisa, Princess, introduces vaccination to Berlin, [151].
Louis XV., died of second attack of smallpox, [60].
Lowe, Robert, passes Vaccination Act, 1861, [526];
romance and rant, [526-527];
asserts that smallpox is transmuted to smallpox, and that security from smallpox is proportioned to vaccination marks, [528];
denunciation of anti-vaccinators, [528];
the Act a failure, [530];
sneers at Mr. Henley, [536].
Lowell, J. Russell, [595], [596].
Loy, Dr., horsegrease inoculation, [263], [265], [336].
Lucas, John, [590].
Ludlow, Mr., Sodbury and Jenner, [91].
Lues Bovilla, [292].
MacLaren, Duncan, [573].
Maddox, Bishop, [40].
Madras, vaccination introduced, [388];
subscription to Jenner, [390].
Madrid, vaccination, [400];
use of goatpox, [401].
Maitland, Charles, adviser of Lady M. W. Montagu, [10];
variolation of her son, [11],
and her daughter, [12];
variolates in Newgate, [15-16];
the Batts and Heaths, [19];
in Aberdeenshire and Hanover, [34];
defence of variolation, [18];
controversy with Massey, [28];
Prince of Wales promoted his experiments, [171].
Malthus, [244], [245];
vicarious mortality, [569-570].
Manchester, experiments with horsegrease, [133];
address of Cow Pox Dispensary, [169];
vaccination widely practised, [175].
Mar, Countess of, [21].
Marcolini, [523].
Maria Teresa variolated by Ingenhousz, [130].
Marks, Vaccine, protective power of many according to Robert Lowe, [528];
Mr. Henley’s observation, [535];
Marson’s whimsical notion, [561].
Marlborough, Duke of, [8].
Marlow, Dr., Oxford, [176].
Marseilles, vaccination found useless in 1828, [520].
Marshall, John, experiments with horsegrease, [335].
Marshall, Dr. Joseph, witness for Jenner, [189];
first cowpox missionary, [220], [396], [397].
Marson, J. Furness, smallpox after smallpox, [355];
petitions Parliament, 1856, for more stringent vaccination laws, [497];
judge of prize essays, [547];
evidence before House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [561-563];
whimsical notion about marks, [561];
other assertions and admissions, [562];
ferocious and foolish calumny, [563];
ruthless, untruthful, mercenary, [578].
Massey, Rev. Edmund, variolation and high treason, [23];
sermon against variolation, [28].
Massey, Isaac, Maitland’s assurance, [18];
how variolation was promoted, [22];
mortality of smallpox, [23];
challenge to the variolators, [23];
no comparison between variolation as practised and smallpox, [31];
concealments of the variolators, [33].
Master of the Rolls, law and human nature, [592].
Mather, Cotton, introduces variolation, [2], [3], [7], [29], [56-57], [371];
fabulous relation to Lady M. W. Montagu, [7], [10].
Mathews, Dr., denounces variolation, [71], [232].
May, Henry, preserving vaccination from reproach, [67].
Mayerne, Sir Theodore, [199].
Maunsell, Dr., usefulness of the spurious cowpox dodge, [278].
Mead, Dr., Newgate experiment, [16];
revived variolation, [36];
experience of variolation, [39];
“it is more material into what kind of body smallpox is infused than out of what it is taken,” [516];
slight and severe smallpox, [521].
Measles, inoculated, [359];
in Iceland, [422];
Newcastle, [428-430];
Glasgow, [444-445];
England and Wales, [505-506].
Mellor, Mr. Justice, [551].
Merret, Joseph, horsegrease cowpoxed, [99], [104].
Merriman, Mr., [290].
Mexico, terrible tale, [511].
Mexico and Peru vaccinated, [321], [322], [401-403].
Micawber, [471].
Milan horsegrease, [264].
Mildmay, Sir Henry, [194].
Mill, J. Stuart, [510].
Millet, Mr., erysipelatous colt, [112].
Milner, R. A., [590].
Mitford, Miss, lost faith in vaccination, [479].
Monro, Dr. Alexander, variolation and smallpox in Scotland, [49-50];
smallpox an infantile malady, [242].
Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley, fabulous statement as to Cotton Mather, [7];
visits Turkey, [8];
description of variolation as practised there, [9], [20];
has her son “engrafted,” [10];
and her daughter in London, [12];
Maitland’s account of transaction, [13-14];
opinion of English quackery, [21], [381];
epitaph in Lichfield Cathedral, [51-52];
“immortality,” [74].
Montagu, Lord Robert, reckless advocacy of vaccination, [533-535];
money wanted to work the mill, [537];
absurd adjuration, [539];
evil Act of 1867, [548];
member of House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [553].
Montagu, Wortley, ambassador to Turkey, [8];
letters from wife, [10], [21].
Monteggio, [523].
Monteith, Dr., Newcastle Dispensary, [424-430].
Moore, James, Spain preserved from variolation, [62];
meetings of vaccinists in Salisbury Square, [228];
Walker and the Duke, [228];
Walker characterised, [331];
vaccination in Ceylon, [393];
Balmis’ vaccine girdle round the world, [401];
vaccination in Germany, [406];
smallpox and vaccination in Sweden, [412-413];
appointed Director of National Vaccine Establishment, [455], [456], [459];
insolence toward Brown of Musselburgh, [457].
Moore, Sir John, [455].
Moore, Parson, derivation of cowpox from horsegrease, [155].
Morley, John, Catharine’s variolation, [62].
Morris, Edward, mischiefs of variolation, [246-247];
moves that Jenner have £20,000, [247-248].
Morris, William, horsegrease indistinguishable from cowpox, [156].
Morris, William, measles in Iceland, [422].
Mortality, Total, unaffected by smallpox, [438], [439], [546], [560].
Mortality, Vicarious, in Glasgow, [443-446];
Dr. Farr’s illustration, [447-448], [451];
Dr. Woolcombe’s, [449];
Dr. Gregory’s, [505-506];
Malthus’s, [569], [570].
Moseley, Dr., [72], [187], [361];
“vaccination gratis,” [236];
Edinburgh Review, [290];
exasperating and matter of fact, [292];
controversy with Rev. Rowland Hill, [295];
character, [296].
Mount Temple, Lady, [547].
Mudie, Dr. P., chickenpox must be smallpox, [367].
Munk, Dr., character of Moseley, [296-297].
Naples, vaccination, [396].
Napoleon enforced vaccination, [399];
anecdote about Jenner, [400].
Nash of Shaftesbury inoculates with cowpox, [94], [204].
National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League, [543], [550], [578-579];
Reporter, [578].
National Health Society’s statistical fraud, [209].
National Vaccine Establishment founded, 1808, [255], [453];
for investigation, [257-258], [454];
equine virus received from Jenner, [268];
Cobbett’s judgment, [307];
indifference to Jenner’s advice, [340];
Jenner’s interest, [350];
reports, 1808-1840, [453-470];
constitution, [455];
Moore appointed director, [456];
investigation unattempted, [457];
lax management, [458];
funds looted, [459];
Board a gossipping place, [460];
Joseph Hume comes to judgment, [460];
Parliamentary report on extravagance, 1833, [461];
reports, 1841-50, [470-477];
the initial error of State vaccination, [584].
Nature not to be swindled, [595].
Navy, introduction of vaccination, [398];
medal to Jenner, [398].
Negroes, variolated, [56];
curiosity of Waterhouse as to vaccination, [379].
Neighbour, James, evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [568].
Nelmes, Sarah, Jenner’s first vaccinifer, [101], [116], [120].
Nettleton, Dr. Thomas, Halifax smallpox, [27];
practice as variolator, [30].
Newbury, variolation restricted to residents, [44].
Newcastle Smallpox, [424-430].
New England, absence of smallpox in 1787, [84], [374].
Newman, Prof. F. W., abridgement of Siljeström, [418];
account of opposition to vaccination, [544-546].
Newgate, London, variolation of six felons, [15];
and Christ’s Hospital, [524].
Nichols, Simon, produces cowpox from horsegrease, [107].
Nichols, Dr. T. L., [590].
Noailles, the Countess De, account of connection with anti-vaccination movement, [546-548];
liberal support of London Society, [580].
Nonconformists and church-rates, [542].
Northampton clear of smallpox for years, [83];
Dr. Pearce holds debate on vaccination, [541];
speech of Charles Gilpin, [542];
dislike of vaccination, [555].
Norwich Smallpox Epidemic, 1819, [431-439];
rarity of smallpox, [433];
introduction of vaccination, [432-433];
bribery practised, [434];
vulgar treatment of smallpox, [437];
variolation disused, 1815, and no smallpox, [463].
Nottingham Vaccine Institution, [225].
Nurses in smallpox hospitals never catch smallpox, [497].
Oaths, compulsory, [593].
Orleans, Duke of, children variolated, [60].
Paget, Hon. Arthur, Vienna, [384].
Paine and Walker, [330].
Paisley, vaccination introduced, [151].
Pakington, Sir John, confessed ignorance, [482-483].
Pall Mall Gazette, smallpox localised in London, [209].
Palmerston, Lord, [483].
Paris, vaccination found useless in 1825, [520];
Anti-Vaccination Congress, 1880, [581].
Parry, Dr. C. H., Letter from Jenner on Tartar Emetic, [348].
Paytherus, T., [102], [147].
Patent, Jenner could not have obtained one, [207], [260], [278].
Paterson, Dr., Montrose, praise of Dr. Pearson, [162].
Pearce, Dr. Charles T.,
[541-542];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [554].
Pearce, Thomas, case of horsegrease, [115].
Pearson, Dr. George, associates himself with Jenner, [134];
publishes Inquiry, [136];
Jenner’s note thereon, [153];
discovers prevalence of faith in cowpox, [137-139];
subjects London dairymen to variolous test, [140];
denies equine origin of cowpox, [142];
conjectures that inoculation is applicable to other diseases, [143-144];
discovers cowpox in London, uses and distributes it, and lectures, [146-147];
sets aside Jenner’s doctrine, [153], [158], [472], [512];
considered horsegrease like to damn the whole thing, [158], [260], [336], [375];
founds Vaccine Pock Institution, 1799, [159], [251];
refusal of Jenner’s assistance, [160-161];
success of Institution, [168];
application from French Consulate, [168];
public reception of cowpox, [170];
Pearson heard with impatience by House of Commons’ committee, [193];
publishes Examination, [197];
his own and Woodville’s claims, [197];
that he corrected Jenner’s assertions, [198];
developed practice, [198];
established Vaccine Pock Institution, [199];
impossibility of Jenner making a secret of vaccination, [199];
his pecuniary claims absurd, [199];
what he did and for what he might have been rewarded, [199-200];
merits of Examination, [200];
Pearson failed to recognise strength of his own position and Jenner’s imposture, [201-203];
Pearson and Woodville really introduced cowpox to Europe and America, [151], [203], [260-261], [352], [360], [375], [404];
Jesty invited to London, [204-205];
offers reward for smallpox after cowpox, [258];
held revaccination impossible, [205], [259], [303];
estimate of Jenner, [225];
Pearson as seen by De Carro through Jenner, [265], [266].
Pease, Sir Joseph, advocates limitation of penalties, [577].
Peel, Sir Robert, adverse to compulsion, [476], [480], [485].
Pegge, Sir Christopher, [176].
Peking, vaccination in, [394].
Pennington, Sir Isaac, horsegrease, [142].
Pepys, Sir Lucas, [255].
Perceval, Mr., [72];
moves that Jenner have £10,000, [243], [247].
Percival, Dr., Manchester, letter to Jenner, [133].
Persia, variolation and vaccination, [394].
Peru and Mexico, [321], [322], [401-403].
Petition, Jenner’s, [184];
discussed, [185-186].
Peto, Sir Morton, [529].
Petty, Lord Henry, brings Jenner’s case before House of Commons, [231-232], [234], [243], [245], [253], [257], [454].
Philadelphia, variolation, [38];
letter from Jenner, [341-342];
cowpox accounted indelicate, [374].
Phillips, Sir Richard, son vaccinated by Jenner takes smallpox, [312].
Phipps, James, first person cowpoxed by Jenner, [101], [116], [119], [120].
Physicians, London, College of, approve of variolation, [43];
report on vaccination, [235];
decline to receive Jenner without examination, [361].
Pickering, John, starts Anti-Vaccinator, [574];
exposes fraudulent statistics in Leeds, [575].
Pitman, Henry, labours and suffering in opposition to vaccination, [544], [545], [574].
Pitt, William, [184], [215], [231].
Plague stayed by vaccination, [359].
Playfair, Sir Lyon, [546], [553], [578], [583].
Plett, Holstein, inoculated with cowpox, 1791, [94].
Pock-Marked Faces, [468];
disappearance avouched by National Vaccine Establishment, [469-470].
Poor Law Authorities, vaccination committed to, [471].
Post Office conveyed correspondence of Royal Jennerian Society gratis, [275].
Potato introduced, [88-89];
denounced by Cobbett, [316], [317].
Pouschin, [63].
Prague Hospital, [520], [521].
Priessnitz, treatment of smallpox, [508], [509].
Prig, Betsy, [240].
Prince, Rev. T., Boston smallpox, 1752, [373].
Procter, Edmund, [590].
Prussia, vaccination introduced, [405];
revaccination proved useless in army, [520].
Pulteney, Dr., cowpox, [131], [136], [138].
Putnam, Dr., Boston, uses smallpox cowpox, [76].
Pylarini, [1], [7], [10].
Quakers and vaccination, [228];
their Institution and pox preferred, [457-458];
church-rates, [560];
oaths, [593].
Ramsay, Dean, [51].
Ranby, Sergeant, variolator, [41], [59].
Ratcliffe, Dr., [199].
Red gum deadens vaccine virus, [340].
Redesdale, Lord, [572].
Rees’s Cyclopædia, [163].
Rendall, Mrs., cowpoxer, [94].
Rennie, Dr., smallpox and vaccination in Peking, [394].
Revaccination treated as impossible, [159];
Dr. Pearson’s opinion, [198], [259], [303];
recommended, 1844, [473];
pronounced superfluous by National Vaccine Establishment, 1851, [473];
proved useless in armies of Prussia and Wurtemburg, [520].
Reynolds’s System of Medicine, [66].
Rhazes, [521].
Richardson, Dr. B. W., [547].
Ricord, M., invaccination of syphilis, [310].
Riddiford, Abraham, smallpox after horsegrease, [115].
Rigby, Miss, death from variolation, [34].
Rigby, Mr., surgeon, Norwich, [434].
Ring, John, Jenner’s henchman and bully, [172];
gets up medical testimony, [172], [174];
his publications, [173];
Jenner in Portman Square, [176];
witness for Jenner, [190];
recommended for Chief Vaccinator and result, [255], [455];
Birch on his failures, [280];
attack on Edinburgh Review, [290], [303];
libels Walker, [324-330];
brutality to Goldson, [351];
compliments Dr. Waterhouse, [378];
“wit,” [379];
ruthless and untruthful, [578].
Ringwood, smallpox after vaccination, [252], [308], [313].
Robinson, Dr. Bryan, [34].
Robinson, Enoch, Can Disease protect Health? [582].
Roby, Dr., Boston, [5].
Rochdale smallpox, [30].
Rodway, William, smallpox after cowpox, [106].
Rolph, Mr., surgeon, common Gloucestershire faith in cowpox, [137].
Rome, variolation introduced, [62].
Rose, George, moves vote for National Vaccine Establishment, [252], [254], [255], [308].
Rous, Lord, [192].
Rowan, Miss Frederica, [418].
Rowlandson’s caricatures, [298].
Rowley, Dr. William, [187], [290], [361];
opponent of vaccination, [297];
evidence of subsequent smallpox and injuries, [298];
delirium of vaccinators, [299];
his character, [299].
Royal Society, [1], [2], [7], [30], [37].
Royal Jennerian Society, [218-229];
admit smallpox after cowpox, [293];
Cobbett’s remarks, [305], [307], [312];
wreck and salvage, [322];
annexed by London Vaccine Institution, [323];
union disliked by Jenner and Ring, and denounced, [324], [326], [329];
Society wrecked by Jenner’s jealousy and intrigue, [453], [455], [456].
Ruskin and Cobbett, [304].
Russia, vaccination introduced and prescribed, [406];
tolerated resistance, [407].
Russian Emperor Alexander cautioned by Jenner against Walker, [329];
an unprofitable interview, [362].
Sacco, Dr., Milan, uses horsegrease, [264], [267], [336], [512],
and supplies De Carro of Vienna, [265], [405];
his cowpox transmitted through De Carro to India, [385];
exploits as vaccinator, [403-404], [406].
Salvani, vaccine missionary, [401].
Salivation, [519].
Sanitation, new faith, [448], [474], [477].
Sancho, William, [258].
Sangrado, [571].
Scarlet fever inoculated, [359];
in Newcastle, [428], [430];
increased and intensified since vaccination, [448];
in England and Wales, 1838-40, [505], [506].
Scheuchzer, Dr., variolation, 1721-28, [32].
Schleisner, Dr., Icelandic smallpox, [420-421].
Schultz, Dr., [62].
Sclater-Booth, G., [576].
Scotland, smallpox and variolation in 18th century, [50];
smallpox an infantile disorder, [51];
smallpox among vaccinated, 1818-19, [366];
statistics of smallpox, 1859 to 1872, [534];
Compulsory Act, 1863, [563].
Scott, Dr. Helenus, [385], [388], [392].
Scott, Dr. John, [591].
Scott, Sir Walter, [371].
Scrofula excited by variolation, [166], and vaccination, [515].
Scurvy, prevalence in 18th century, [87];
influence on smallpox, [521].
Seaford, Sussex, [83].
Seaton, Dr. E. C., Handbook of Vaccination, smallpox cowpox, [75];
mendacious letter, [485-497];
ruling spirit of Epidemiological Society, [486];
intrigues for place and power, [495];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [568-570];
ruthless, untruthful, mercenary, [578].
Sebright, Sir John, [247].
Seville, fatalities from vaccination, [401].
Sewell, Mr., attempts to produce cowpox from horsegrease, [335].
Sewell’s Point, Boston, [58].
Shaftesbury, Lord, neglected vaccination, [481];
improved houses might exterminate smallpox, [482].
Sherborne, Lord, [183], [184], [185].
Shrapnell, Mr., [171], [269].
Sievier, statue of Jenner, [363].
Siljeström, P. A., smallpox in Sweden, [417-419].
Simmons, Mr., Manchester, experiments with horsegrease, [133], [155].
Simon, John, recitation of Jennerian legend, [103];
Jenner’s masterpiece, [124], [142], [155], [156], [158], [333];
Papers on History and Practice of Vaccination, [510-519];
terrible tales, [511];
London smallpox, [511-512];
cowpox derived from smallpox and infallible prophylaxy thereof, [512-513], [525];
mis-statement of Jenner’s prescription, [513], [525];
all vaccination assumed effective, [514];
drawbacks unfairly stated, [515];
scrofula, [515];
admitted dangers, [515];
qualities of virus unknown, [516];
syphilis, [516];
difficulties of vaccination, [516];
sickly children, [517];
selection of virus, [517];
an ideal rarely realised, [518];
questions addressed to 500 medical men, [518];
answers predetermined, [519];
value and characteristics, [524-525];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [557];
unscrupulous character, [558];
ruthless, untruthful, mercenary, [578].
Simonds, Professor J. B., cowpox a questionable disease, [272].
Simpson, James, [189].
Sims, Dr., [187], [226], [331].
Skey, Dr., [189].
Sloane, Sir Hans, [15], [23];
Newgate experiment, [17];
cautious counsels, [17].
Smallpox an infantile disease in Scotland, [51], [242], [445];
epidemic, 1818-19, [367];
in China, [394];
in Sweden, [409-410];
in Norwich, [436];
in Glasgow, [440];
disease of young and poor, [26], [437], [440], [445], [470].
An alternative of other diseases, in Sweden, [415-417];
in Newcastle, [428];
in Glasgow, [439-444];
the fact enforced by Dr. Farr, [447-451];
by John Gibbs, [504-506];
by Professor F. W. Newman, [546];
by Dr. Bakewell, [560];
by Malthus, [570];
the disease to be studied with its congeners, [511];
epidemic of 1871, [570-571].
In London, 1701-1722, [24-25];
18th century, [77-87];
1791 to 1820, [346];
development of fabulous salvation, [466-468];
decline prior to vaccination, [86], [211], [466-467].
In England and Wales, conjectural mortality, [25], [194], [208-209], [345];
case according to John Gibbs, [505], [507];
fabulous salvation, [526-528].
In Boston, [3-6], [371-373];
Chester, [69];
China, [394];
Edinburgh, [49-51], [366];
Geneva, [61-62];
Glasgow, [439-445];
Newcastle, [424-430];
New England, 1787, [84], [374];
Norwich, [432-438];
Sweden, [408-419].
Declining prior to introduction of vaccination in London, [86], [222-225], [466-467], [487];
over Europe, [368], [431], [446], [468], [476], [514];
in Vienna, [369];
Sweden, [410], [414-416];
Italy, [404];
Denmark, [419];
Glasgow, [446];
Dr. Farr’s evidence, [86], [211], [466-467].
Exaggerated horrors, [76], [430], [570];
Massey’s evidence, [23];
Wagstaffe’s, [24];
Monro’s, [50];
Haygarth’s, [69];
Birch’s, [85];
multitudes never had smallpox, [65];
unknown for years in some parts of England, [83];
rarity in Norwich, [433];
disease ever had some limit, [210], [431];
wild assertions of House of Commons’ committee, [212];
terrible tale of Mexico, [511].
Rate of mortality prior to vaccination in Boston, [3], [372];
Christ’s Hospital, [23], [524];
London, [24-25], [26], [31], [79-80], [373];
Halifax, Rochdale, Leeds, [30];
Edinburgh, [50];
London Smallpox Hospital, [66];
Newcastle [427];
Glasgow, [440];
according to Dr. Buchan, [66],
and Edinburgh Review, [66].
Increased by variolation, [69], [72], [236], [246], [390], [426], [431], [462-464].
Intensified by maltreatment, [84], [427], [437], [521];
by food, [87], [316], [521].
Sporadic character, [209], [522], [568].
Origin in horse according to Jenner, [97], [359], [513].
Smallpox cowpox introduced, [75];
connection with cowpox denied [273];
cows contract smallpox from milkers, [378-379];
Ceely and Badcock, [75], [272], [472], [514], [528];
unqualified confidence of Simon, [512-513], and Robert Lowe, [528].
Smith, Dr. Southwood, absolute faith in sanitation, [478], [556].
Smith, William, cowpox after cowpox, [106].
Smith, William, exaltation of Jenner, [247].
Spain, escaped variolation, [62];
vaccination introduced, [400-401].
Spencer, Earl, [397].
Spencer, Herbert, increased vaccination and smallpox, [541].
Squirrel, Dr., opponent of vaccination, [290], [301], [361].
Stanhope, Earl, [73].
Staunton, Sir George, [394].
Steigertahl, Dr., [17].
Stephens, Joanna, remedies for stone, [37].
Stepney, [26], [27].
Stevens, Dr., never saw injury from vaccination, [566].
Stiles, Henry, smallpox after cowpox,
[130].
Stockholm, [417-418].
Strickland, Sir George, opposes compulsion, [483], [485].
St. Andrews, Jenner’s purchase of degree, [97];
Ring’s sneer at same, [329], [330].
St. Christophers, [38].
St. Pancras guardians, [587].
Stuart, Lady Louisa, fiction as to introduction of variolation, [13].
Sunderland, Earl of, son variolated and killed, [34].
Suttons, eminent variolators, [45], [179], [188];
method of practice, [46].
Sweden, variolation introduced, [62],
but little practised, [408];
Jenner’s pride in, [345], [392];
sorely afflicted with smallpox, [408];
influence of famine, [409];
children chief sufferers, [409];
disease aggravated by bad treatment, [410];
steadily declining when vaccination was introduced, [410-411];
vaccination made obligatory, 1816, [411];
means of livelihood for clergy, [411];
asserted extermination of smallpox, [413-414];
Siljeström’s evidence, [417-419].
Swarmery, [291].
Swift’s city shower, [82].
Swinepox, [98], [99], [262], [401].
Sydenham, [448], [521].
Syphilis, invaccination foreseen by Massey, [27],
and Cobbett, [309];
declared impossible, [68],
by Simon, [516],
by H. A. Bruce, [530],
and by Sir Dominic Corrigan, [561];
Ricord’s warning, Brudenell Carter’s experience, and Sir Thomas Watson’s ghastly risk, [310];
inseparable from public vaccination, [503];
Henley’s answer to Bruce, [531];
W. J. Addison’s evidence, [556];
dreaded in West Indies, [559];
Jonathan Hutchinson’s cases, [567],
and proof that it is latent and active in some vaccinifers, [568].
Tanner, Thomas, got cowpox from horsegrease, [263].
Tar water, [21].
Tarleton, General, glory to Jenner, [246].
Tartar emetic, letter from Hunter, [93];
used for vaccine virus, [121];
Jenner’s last effort, [348].
Taupin, failed to invaccinate any disease, [522].
Taylor, David, [190].
Taylor, Peter Alfred, [553], [577], [580];
reply to Dr. W. B. Carpenter, [588].
Tea introduced, [89];
denounced by Cobbett, [316].
Tebb, William, [580], [587], [596].
Temple, Sir Richard, smallpox and vaccination in India, [391].
Terry, Dr., [15].
Thiele, Dr., 1836, produces smallpox cowpox, [512].
Thomson, Dr., Boston, [5].
Thomson, Dr. John, smallpox epidemic in Scotland, 1818-19, [366];
depressing experience with vaccination, [366-368];
receives equine virus from Jenner, [368];
absence of epidemic smallpox when vaccination was introduced, [369].
Thornton, Dr., [190].
Thorpe, Rev. R. A., [448].
Thurlow, William, [590].
Timoni, Emanuel, [1], [2], [7], [10].
Tortworth, eight paupers cowpoxed, [107].
Travers, Benjamin, [217], [218], [219].
Trinidad, vaccination in, [559].
Tronchin, Dr., variolator, [60].
Trotter, Dr., smallpox in navy, [397];
medal for Jenner, [398].
Turgot, [59].
Turkey, variolation, [1], [9], [11];
malignity of smallpox, [12].
Turner, Mr., experiments with horsegrease, [335].
Turton, Sir Thomas, [250-251], [252].
Underwood, Dr., [383].
United States, vaccination introduced, [370-382].
Urquhart, William, [34].
Vaccination, origin of term, [229];
vaccinium and vacciolation, [220], [222], [229].
Precipitate approval of London physicians, [70], [173];
Dr. Pearson’s work, [151], [170];
acceptance by King and Court, [171];
the heir of variolation, [174], [191], [249], [370], [395];
received with acclamation, [274], [405];
offered gratis, [236], [326-327];
means by which promoted, [275];
character of furore, [278], [299], [305];
public goaded to belief, [286];
fury of controversy, [290], [305];
swarmery, [291];
favoured by decline and absence of smallpox, [222-225], [369], [476], [487], [514], [562].
Tables of comparison and advantage, [214], [377].
Disrepute in and around London (1805) [281], [293];
abatement of faith under failure (1808) [308-309], [317], [453];
(1822-23) [364-365], [426];
(1825 and 1838) [520];
Sir Henry Holland’s testimony (1839) [490];
faith never so low as prior to enforcement of practice, [477-479];
revival of delusion, [309], [426], [474-475].
Reduction of claim to making smallpox milder, [238], [288], [313], [321], [338], [566];
security exactly equal to variolation, [339], [355].
Opinion that prophylaxy wore out, Goldson, [284];
Brown, [288];
contested in Edinburgh Review, [302];
by Thomson, [368];
asserted by Lord Ellenborough, [353];
denied by Jenner, [354];
condemned by National Vaccine Establishment (1851), [473].
Failure from reports of National Vaccine Establishment, [464-466].
Easy art practiced by ladies and gentlemen, [276], [280], [305], [314], [489];
Walker’s opinion, [324];
practice in Sweden, [411-413];
becomes difficult, [343];
Simon’s ideal conditions of safety and success, [516-518].
In Spanish America, [401-403];
Austria, [404], [506];
Bavaria, [596];
Ceylon, [392-393];
China, [393-395];
Denmark, [419];
Dublin, [242-243];
Edinburgh, [241-242];
Finland, [419];
France, [169], [398];
Glasgow, [441-446];
Iceland, [420];
India, [383-393];
Ireland, [561];
North Italy, [403-404];
Newcastle, [426];
Norwich, [432-434];
Russia, [406];
Scotland, [151], [534], [563];
Spain, [400];
United Kingdom (1853), [481-483];
United States, [370-382];
Vienna, [404].
Adopted and enforced by State in England: Cobbett on projected compulsion (1803), [305-307],
(1808), [310-311];
established and endowed (1808), [250-258];
paid for out of poor rate (1840), [470];
enforced (1853), [480-485];
vaccination office projected, [493-494], [496], [501],
with compulsory revaccination (1855), [496];
compulsion intensified (1861), [526];
repeated penalties enacted (1867), [538], [540-541], [550];
reported against by House of Commons’ committee (1871), [571];
House of Commons concurs, [572];
rejection by House of Lords and submission of Commons, [572-573];
erratic and arbitrary administration of the law, [575-576];
Evesham letter (1876), [576];
subsequent attempts to modify law, [577].
Law detested by the poor, [479];
why abhorred, [501];
cruel and despicable persecution, [590-592];
hated in Lancashire, [591].
Vaccination as a trade, [470], [479], [480], [485], [488-489], [493], [496], [518], [519], [533], [536], [537], [580];
public practice worth £100,000 a year, [583].
Vaccination Inquirer, [580].
Vaccination Tracts, [581].
Vaccine girdle round the world, [401].
Vaccine Pock Institution founded, 1799, [159], [251];
Jesty’s visit, [205];
reward offered for smallpox after cowpox, [258];
consequently shut up, [259].
Vaccine roses, [332].
Vaccine Scourge, [325].
Vaccinoff, a Moscow foundling, [406].
Vantandillo, Sophia, prosecution, [462].
Variolation practised in Turkey, [1], [9], [11];
introduced to Boston, [2-7];
to England, [12-14];
experiment in Newgate, [15-17];
on charily children, [17];
children of Prince of Wales, [18];
Maitland’s operations, [19-20],
easy acceptance of practice, [22],28;
opposition of Masseys, [23-28], [31-34];
Dr. Nettleton’s practice, [30];
Jurin’s precautions, [30-31];
Dr. Scheuchzer’s tabulation of cases, [32];
Dr. Wagstaffe’s observations, [33];
disasters, [34];
the position (1728), [35-36].
Revival of practice under Dr. Mead (1748), [36-37], [39-40];
in Smallpox Hospital, Cold Bath Fields, [40];
sermon of Bishop Maddox, [40];
theological opposition, [42];
approval of London College of Physicians (1754), [43];
etiquette of practice, [44];
Mrs. Chapman’s procedure, [44];
Jenner’s account of preparatory regimen, [45];
Suttons’ methods, [45-47];
Dr. Dimsdale’s, [47-49];
Society for General Inoculation (1775), [49];
extent of variolation, [52];
Dr. Buchan’s evidence, [53-55];
practice in New England, [56-59];
France, [59-61];
Geneva, [61-62];
Empress Catharine, [62-65];
fatalities, [66-69];
cleared the way for vaccination, [70];
Dr. Lettsom on dangers, [71];
Wilberforce urgent for suppression, [71];
denounced by Dr. Mathews, [71];
by Sturges Bourne, [72], [246];
by Jenner, [72];
by Lord Henry Petty, [246];
Lord Boringdon’s bill, [73];
successful prosecution for exposure (1815), [73], [462];
Dr. Epps (1831), [74];
prohibited by Act of Parliament (1840), [74], [470], [464];
Dr. Gregory’s regret, [74];
revived by Ceely and Badcock (1839-40), [75-76].
Practised in China, [16], [394],
India, [392],
Italy, [62],
Persia, [394],
Scots Highlands, [29],
Wales, [29].
Introduced to Barbados, [38];
Boston, [2], [7], [11], [57-59], [371-374], [377];
Florence, [62];
France, [59];
Geneva, [61];
Germany, [62];
Holland, [62];
Ireland, [474];
Newbury, [44];
New England, [56];
Newcastle, [445];
Norwich, [435], [437];
Paris, [60];
Philadelphia, [38];
Rome, [62];
Russia, [62-65];
St. Christophers, [38];
Scotland, [50];
Spain, [62];
Sweden, [62], [408].
Practised from arm to arm, [63], [120], [193];
Jenner asserts its happy effects, [123];
uncertainty of operation, [105], [108], [166], [212];
cannot affect smallpox, Hamernik, [522];
effects governed by mode and conditions, [150].
A pest and a terror, [71], [72], [213];
an excitant of scrofula, [123], [166];
a cause of smallpox, [69], [236], [246], [390], [426], [431], [462-464].
Contrasted with vaccination, [214], [377], [466];
discredited by vaccination, [301], [514];
led to acceptance of vaccination, [249], [370], [395].
Variolous Test after swinepox, [98];
description, [125];
worked marvellously, [181], [212];
exploded by variolators, [279];
Brown’s evidence of futility, [287];
evaded by Jenner and Vaccine Test preferred, [342-343];
applied in Boston, [377].
Venesection, [519], [584].
Vere, Aubrey de, [566].
Vicarious Mortality, Norwich, [438];
law of, explained by Dr. Farr, [448],
Dr. Woolcombe, [449];
Dr. Gregory, [505-506];
Malthus, [569-570].
Vicarious Vaccination, [237];
attested by Rev. Rowland Hill, [295];
in London, [321], [324], [346], [488];
in Vienna, [369], [404];
in India, [388];
in Northern Italy, [403-404];
in Russia, [407];
in Germany, [408];
in Sweden, [414];
in Denmark and Copenhagen, [419-420];
in Glasgow, [446];
in United Kingdom, [492], [514].
Victoria, Queen, revaccinated, [564].
Vienna, [232], [369], [404];
vaccinated and equinated indistinguishable, [405].
Villiers, Mr., [592].
Voltaire, [59], [62], [65].
Wachsel, J. C., [146], [280];
experiments with horsegrease, [335].
Wagstaffe, Dr., Newgate experiment, [16];
various character of smallpox, [24], [238];
dangers of variolation, [33].
Wakley, Mr., [74].
Wales, variolation practised, [29].
Wales, Princess of (Caroline), [5];
promotes variolation, [14-15], [17].
Wales, Prince of (George iv.), [171], [219], [220], [221].
Walker, Annie, [331].
Walker, Dr., John, birth and adventures, [220];
Royal Jennerian Society, [221];
character and habits, [222], [225];
differences with Jenner, [225], [226];
resigns office, [226];
London Vaccine Institution established, [227],
and prospers, [453], [458], [460];
interview with a duke, [228];
public warned against, [250];
at Surrey Chapel, [293];
the great London vaccinator, [322];
ease of vaccination, [324];
a Quaker of Paine’s pattern, [330];
attacked by Ring, [324-330];
indifference to money, [330];
reply to Moore, [331];
practice and peculiarities, [332];
death and character, [333];
Jenner’s conduct toward, [307], [350];
warns Emperor Alexander against him, [362];
first cowpox missionary, [396];
a fanatic, [457].
Walkley, Hester, pregnant and variolated, [107].
Waller, Prof., Prague, [523].
Ward’s drop, [21].
Ward, William Gibson, [589].
Warren, Rev. T. A., [292].
Washington’s soldiers variolated, [57].
Waterhouse, Daniel Oliver, first vaccinated in New England, and put to variolous test, [376].
Waterhouse, Dr., knowledge of smallpox and variolation in New England, [57], [58];
absence of smallpox in 1787, [58], [84], [374];
introduces vaccination, [374], [376];
his ready faith, [375];
experiments, [376];
advertisement, disasters, tactics, [377];
compliments from Jenner, [378];
vaccinates a cow, [378];
vaccination good for weakly children and whooping-cough, [378];
cows catch smallpox, [379];
opinion of negroes, [379];
Ring’s “wit,” [379];
his cautions disregarded, [381];
bewildered as to epidemics, [382].
Watson, Sir Thomas, invaccination of syphilis, [310].
Watson, Sir William, [146].
Watt, Dr. Robert, discovery in Glasgow, [439-452];
interdependence of forms of zymotic disease, [449], [504];
evidence from West Indies, [560].
Webb, Dr. Francis, [547].
Weller, Richard, vaccinated by Cline, [128].
Wellesley, Marquis, vaccination in India, [386], [389].
Wellington, Duke of, [323].
Wesley, John, interest in medicine, [37].
West, Dr. Charles, evidence House of Commons’ Committee, 1871, [565].
Westfaling, Thomas, [102].
Westminster, Duke of, [209].
Wheeler, Alexander, [586-587].
Whitbread, Mr., [248].
Whooping-cough, cured by vaccination, [378];
in Newcastle, [429];
in Glasgow, [439].
Wilberforce, William, [184], [195], [232], [247], [254];
urges prohibition of variolation, [71];
Cobbett’s letter, [305], [317].
Wilkinson, Dr. J. J. Garth, in Iceland, [422];
account of his opposition to vaccination, [548], [549-550];
evidence House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [554];
Vaccination Tracts, [581-582];
process of blood-making, [594-595].
Willan, Dr., [66], [146];
treatise Vaccine Inoculation, [266].
Williams, Perrot, Welsh variolation, [29].
Willis, Dr. C. J., Persia, [394].
Wilson, Bishop, [81].
Winchester, [40].
Windham, Mr., [71], [194], [233], [247].
Witchcraft and vaccination, [525].
Witham, Mr., [173].
Wollaston, Dr., [371].
Wood, Dr. Alex., evidence as to Scotland House of Commons’ committee, 1871, [563].
Woodville, Dr. William, supposed derivation of smallpox from Animals, [138];
birth and career, [145];
Anthony Highmore’s testimony, [163];
experiments with horsegrease, [145], [163], [335];
obtains cowpox in London, [145];
smallpox eruptions follow its use, [146], [148], [149], [472];
explanation, [149], [150], [151];
difference from Jenner, [158];
testifies for Jenner, [188];
as seen by De Carro through Jenner, [265], [266];
Jenner’s behaviour toward, [350], [352];
visits Paris and vaccinates, [169], [398];
work in conjunction with Pearson, [197], [198], [200], [203].
Woodward, Dr., [1].
Woolcombe, Dr., vicarious mortality, [449].
Worcester, [189].
Worgan, Dawes, [259].
Worthington, Dr., [89], [102].
Wright, Richard, variolation in Wales, [29].
Wurtemburg, revaccination useless in army, [520].
Wynne, Sarah, smallpox averts cowpox, [105-106].
Wyld, Dr. George, debate with Alexander Wheeler, [586].
York, Duke of, [126], [168], [171], [219].
Young, William, [580], [581].
H. NISBET AND CO., PRINTERS, STOCKWELL STREET, GLASGOW.
The LONDON SOCIETY for the ABOLITION of COMPULSORY VACCINATION,
114 VICTORIA STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W.
OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY.
I.—The Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination.
II.—The Diffusion of Knowledge concerning Vaccination.
III.—The Maintenance in London of an Office for the Publication of Literature relating to Vaccination, and as a Centre of Action and Information.
ADDRESS OF THE SOCIETY.
Smallpox is a member of the group of diseases, described as zymotic which originate in unwholesome conditions of life, and in common are diminished and prevented by the reduction and removal of those conditions.
In times when the laws of health were imperfectly understood, it was believed that by poisoning the blood with the virus of smallpox, or cowpox, a future attack of smallpox might be escaped. While many kindred medical practices have been discredited and forgotten, Vaccination, endowed by the State, has survived, and has entered into legislation, and is enforced with fine and imprisonment. It is in vain for Nonconformists to plead that they do not believe that Vaccination has any power to prevent or to mitigate smallpox, or that it is attended by the risk of communicating foul diseases. They are told they may believe what they like, but that vaccinated they must be, for the benefit of the rite is settled beyond dispute, and that only fools and fanatics venture to question what has been irrevocably determined.
It is to attack and overthrow this monstrous tyranny that the London Society has been established. The members desire to enlighten the public mind as to the history of Vaccination, as to its injury in communicating and intensifying other diseases, and as to the failure of the compulsory law to stamp out or even diminish the ravages of smallpox. Many too, whilst disinclined to discuss Vaccination as a medical question, or to surrender confidence in its prophylaxy, are opposed to its compulsory infliction. They maintain that every remedy should be left to justify itself by its own efficacy, and that of all prescriptions the last which requires extraneous assistance is Vaccination; for its repute is based on the fact that its subjects are secure from smallpox, and in that security may abide indifferent to those who choose to neglect its salvation. Even nurses in smallpox hospitals, it is said, when efficiently vaccinated and revaccinated, live unaffected in the variolous atmosphere. Therefore, they hold that to compare an unvaccinated person to a nuisance, as is frequently done, is to make use of an epithet that implicitly denies the virtue asserted for Vaccination, a nuisance being a voluntary danger or annoyance which another cannot conveniently avoid. They also hold that to establish any medical prescription, and to create interests identified with that prescription, is to erect a bar to improvement; for it is obvious that any novelty in the treatment of smallpox must, in the constitution of human nature, meet with resistance from those whose emoluments are vested in the established practice.
The London Society, therefore, claims to enlist the energies, not only of those who resist Vaccination as useless and mischievous, but also of those who, true to their faith in liberty, would leave its acceptance to the discretion of the individual. In the controversy into which they enter, they propose to employ all the familiar agencies wherewith in England revolutions are effected in the public mind and in Parliament; and they appeal with confidence for the sympathy and support of their countrymen. The Vaccination Acts under which they suffer have not been enacted with the full cognizance of the nation, but have been forced through indifferent Parliaments by the persistency of medical faction. The members of the Society are confident that, as soon as the truth about Vaccination is fully known and appreciated, the freedom they contend for will be conceded without fear, and that posterity will view with amazement the outrage upon human right and reason that is at present committed under the shadow of English liberty.
Prejudice, which sees what it pleases, cannot see what is plain.—Aubrey De Vere.
He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.—J. Stuart Mill.
The Vaccination Inquirer,
The Organ of the London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination.
Published Monthly, price 1d., or 1s. 6d. per annum, post free.
I would earnestly invite the attention of those who are concerned for the repression of wrong, and the promotion of human welfare, to the great and growing question of Vaccination. We hear on every side that we cannot be secure from Smallpox unless we have our blood poisoned with Cowpox in infancy, in adolescence, and at stated periods throughout life. The prescription is so unnatural that only custom renders it tolerable; it excites suspicion and aversion wherever rationally considered; and dislike and disgust are justified by inquiry. Smallpox is not averted by Vaccination; and the virus introduced to the blood bears with it other diseases, even the worst of diseases, and enfeebles and predisposes the constitution to other maladies. In short, Vaccination under cover of maintaining the common health inflicts upon it serious and deadly injuries. And by a strange exercise of tyranny, this most mischievous superstition is made compulsory and enforced by fine and imprisonment; and Englishmen are dragged from their homes and treated as convicts because they refuse to submit their children to the abominable rite. Mr. Bright says, “The Law is monstrous, and ought to be repealed.” Yet is this monstrous law maintained!
Possibly you are opposed to Vaccination, or indifferent, or a believer. In any case, I ask you to subscribe for the Vaccination Inquirer. If you are opposed to Vaccination, it will stimulate and inform your opposition; if indifferent, it will remove your indifference; if you are a believer in the rite, it may convert you to a better mind.
WILLIAM YOUNG, Secretary,
114 Victoria Street, Westminster.
WORKS ON VACCINATION.
William White.
Sir Lyon Playfair taken to Pieces and disposed of: likewise Sir Charles W. Dilke, Bart.: being a Dissection of their Speeches in the House of Commons on 19th June, 1883, in defence of Compulsory Vaccination. Second Edition. 6th thousand. 1s.
“It is a very dainty pamphlet of two hundred pages, so printed that it is a luxury to read. There are six pages of index, which will give some idea of its fulness of matter. Mr. White does all his work in a workmanlike way, and this work is no exception. He gives the two speeches of Playfair and Dilke in full, and fully answers them. They are literally taken to pieces and disposed of. Read William White on Playfair and Dilke. It is the end of controversy. Reply is impossible.”—Herald of Health.
“Mr. White has done what has never been done before,—that is, he has taken to pieces Sir Lyon Playfair’s speech, analysed his arguments, and exposed much of what is untrustworthy. The book ought to be in the hands of all who desire to understand the question of Vaccination.”—Newcastle Weekly Chronicle.
“This is a clever and most reasonable criticism and overhauling of Playfair and Dilke’s opinions, of which the best idea can be gained from a study of the book itself, which will be found complete in every detail.”—Brighton Gazette.
“The official vindication of vaccination was contained in Sir Lyon Playfair’s speech backed up by Sir Charles Dilke, and Mr. White has taken the various points of both speeches, item by item, and has replied to them with a clearness and effectiveness which must go far to shake the foundation of vaccination itself; whilst, in our view, it effectually disposes of the plea for compulsory vaccination.”—Northamptonshire Guardian.
“Anti-Vaccinationists will gloat over these pages. It is said that anything can be done with figures. We certainly at the time thought that Sir Lyon Playfair showed they were in favour of vaccination. On reading Mr. White’s book we are just as keenly impressed with an opposite view. We recommend the work to our readers.”—Eastern Daily Press.
“A remarkably well-written book by a practised hand. The subject is an unlovely one, and the proverbial ‘both sides’ have much to say; but this book ought to interest, amuse, and inform both sides. It everywhere tells of patient thought, industrious research, and a keen mind.”—The Truthseeker.
Alfred Russel Wallace, LL.D.
Author of The Malay Archipelago, the Land of the Orang-Utan and Bird of Paradise, 1869; Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, 1871; The Geographical Distribution of Animals, 1876; Island Life, or The Phenomena and Causes of Island Faunas and Floras, 1880; Land Nationalisation, its Necessity and Aims, 1882; etc.
To Members of Parliament. Forty-Five Years of Registration Statistics; proving Vaccination to be both Useless and Dangerous. 6d.
William Tebb.
Compulsory Vaccination in England: with Incidental References to Foreign States. 1s.
“Not only crowds but Sanhedrims are infected with public lunacy.”—Dryden.
Contents:—Vaccination Results. Vaccination in the Workhouse. Vaccination in Public Schools. Vaccination in the Post Office. Vaccination in the Police Force. Vaccination in the Army. Vaccination in the Navy. Vaccination in the Prisons. Vaccination in Life Assurance. Vaccination amongst Emigrants.
P. A. Siljeström.
A Momentous Education Question for the Consideration of Parents and Others who desire the well-being of the Rising Generation. Translated from the Swedish by Dr. Garth Wilkinson. 4d.
P. A. Taylor, late M.P. for Leicester.
Current Fallacies about Vaccination. A Letter to Dr. W. B. Carpenter, C.B. 1d.
Speeches of Mr. P. A. Taylor and Mr. C. H. Hopwood in the House of Commons on 19th June, 1883. 6d.
Personal Rights. 6d.
Alexander Wheeler.
Vaccination until 1883. 6d.
This Essay is dedicated to those whose minds are sufficiently loyal to Science to be free to examine without prejudice, the most prejudiced question of the day.
J. J. Garth Wilkinson, M.D., and Wm. Young.
Vaccination Tracts with Preface and Supplement. 2s. 6d.
1. Letters and Opinions of Medical Men.
2. Facts and Figures showing that Vaccination has failed to stamp out, arrest, or mitigate Smallpox.
3 & 4. Opinions of Statesmen, Politicians, Publicists, Statisticians, and Sanitarians.
5. Cases of Disease, Suffering, and Death reported by the Injured Families.
6. The Vaccination Laws a Scandal to Public Honesty and Religion.
7. Vaccination a sign of the Decay of the Political and Medical Conscience of the Country.
8. The Propagation of Syphilis to Infants and Adults by Vaccination and Re-Vaccination.
9. Vaccination evil in its Principles, false in its Reasons, and deadly in its Results.
10. Vaccination subverts Dentition, and is the Cause of the prevalent Deformity and Decay of the Teeth.
11. Compulsory Vaccination a Desecration of Law, a Breaker of Homes, and Persecutor of the Poor.
12. Historical and Critical Summary in Three Parts. Part I.—The Imposture of the current Smallpox Lymph called Vaccine, and the new Imposture of Calf Lymph. Also, the Chaos of Statute Law dealing with Vaccine Substance.
13. Part II.—The Cry of the People against Vaccination is seconded by the Registrar-General’s Returns, and justified by the Evidence of Pathology.
14. Part III.—Pro Aris et Focis. The Religious Nature and Political Necessity of the Vaccination War.
E. W. Allen, 4 Ave Maria Lane, London, E.C.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
[Pg vi]: ‘L’Envoi ... xlix’ replaced by ‘L’Envoi ... l’.
[Pg vii]: ‘XV ... Physicans’ replaced by ‘XV ... Physicians’.
[Pg xiv]: ‘afflicted with with what’ replaced by ‘afflicted with what’.
[Pg xxix]: ‘records of the the Smallpox’ replaced by ‘records of the Smallpox’.
[Pg xxxiv]: ‘In the the words’ replaced by ‘In the words’.
[Pg xxxviii]: ‘two or or three’ replaced by ‘two or three’.
[Pg 3]: The date of ‘March 10th, 172½’ reflects the fact that it is an Old Style (Julian) date.
[Pg 49]: the term ‘efficiency’ here (and at the four other occurrences in the book) should probably be ‘efficacy’. These have not been changed.
[Pg 126]: ‘did subequently fall’ replaced by ‘did subsequently fall’.
[Pg 148]: ‘slow to repond’ replaced by ‘slow to respond’.
[Pg 175]: ‘not everflow when’ replaced by ‘not overflow when’.
[Pg 221]: ‘embarassments were’ replaced by ‘embarrassments were’.
[Pg 317]: ‘un-unwearied exertions’ replaced by ‘unwearied exertions’.
[Pg 322]: ‘CHARTER XXIV’ replaced by ‘CHAPTER XXIV’.
[Pg 350]: ‘than sauvity’ replaced by ‘than suavity’.
[Pg 363]: ‘13th February, 1823’ replaced by ‘13th January, 1823’ (see previous page 362, where it is stated that he died on the 26th of January).
[Pg 376]: ‘including a physican’ replaced by ‘including a physician’.
[Pg 410]: ‘from 1774 to 1708’ replaced by ‘from 1774 to 1798’.
[Pg 468]: ‘is tranferred to’ replaced by ‘is transferred to’.
[Pg 483]: ‘medica practitioner.’ replaced by ‘medical practitioner.’.
[Pg 503]: ‘and, inoculcated’ replaced by ‘and, inoculated’.
[Pg 519]: ‘which, by resaon’ replaced by ‘which, by reason’.
[Pg 551]: ‘repeatedy before’ replaced by ‘repeatedly before’.
[Pg 611-613]: a few ‘——.’ replaced by ditto mark (”), for consistency.
[Footnote [261] (anchored on [page 406]): ‘History o Vaccination’ replaced by ‘History of Vaccination’.