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.
Deaths from
Ten Years ending-- Smallpox.
1760 100
1770 108
1780 98
1790 87
1800 88
SUBSEQUENT TO VACCINATION.
Deaths from
Ten Years ending-- Smallpox
1810 64
1820 42
1830 32
1840 23
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.