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.