vantages. What Professor Pasteur demonstrated as to the hygienic properties of the in the air in destroying the virus of oxygen poisonous germs in animals, other speakers at the London Medical Congress showed was equally potent in destroying the infectious nature of other diseases. Dr. J. S. Billings, of New York,

showed that want of cleanliness was the cause

of disease, that in America "yellow fever cities were filthy cities, and yellow fever ships were filthy ships," and Dr. H. MacCormac, of London, stated that the poison of typhus, scarlet fever, or diphtheria, when diluted by pure air, ceases to be communicable; but when this dilution by means of ventilation is neglected, wholesale contamination with the poisonous effluvia generally supervenes. What is true concerning these diseases is equally true of small-pox. The immunity from infection claimed for nurses and doctors is no more due to vaccination in the one

case than the other; both are due to insusceptibility and to sanitation, and the sooner this truth is recognised by all who have charge of the sick, whether physicians, relatives, visitors, or nurses, the better for the community at large. The most salient truths are, however, often the last perceived. We are scourged into the adoption of the plainest teachings of experience by the penalties of suffering and death. Had we not been blinded by prejudice, the disgusting filthiness of vaccination, to say nothing of its unphysiological mode of application, would long since have produced its condemnation and abolition. Instead of which, England has allowed laws to be enacted which in fifty years' time will be looked upon as an amazing monument of the miserable superstition and fanatical folly of the nineteenth century.

MR. JAMES JENKINS, of Mold, writes :-" Being in the centre of coal, lead, brick, and tin-plate works, I have been much impressed with the strong feeling which prevails among our skilled artisans against compulsory vaccination."

WHY? In a village of a thousand inhabitants, two neglected children die of small-pox in a dirty alley; and immediately there is a panic, and respectable people of all ages hasten to be revaccinated. If the two children had died of any other fever, none would have cared. Why? If there was not money to be had by vaccination, would small-pox be such a bogey?

A BIT OF GOOD SENSE.-W. D. gives his personal experience, and thinks it conclusive that re-vaccination is a safeguard. In contradistinction to his experience I would state mine. In China smallpox is at all times prevalent, owing to the dirty habits of the people; but a few years ago it became terrible in its ravages. Many Europeans took the disease; some died, many were sadly marred by it. An order was issued by a large shipping firm, requiring all their officers to get revaccinated. I objected, and did not get done; and although I saw others who had been vaccinated attacked, and even visited some of them in hospital, I escaped. The inference I would draw is this, that the best safeguard for this, or, in fact, any disease, is cleanliness, fresh air and rcise, with proper attention to one's diet.-J. P. in Glasgow Herald, June 30, 1881

THE CASE OF WILLIAM ESCOTT. IN connection with vaccination it is difficult to say what is extraordinary. So powerful is the delusion, so invincible the prejudice, that men, ordinarily accounted rational and benevolent, malicious, furious, with all the characteristics of exhibit themselves as credulous, mendacious, fanaticism, fully persuaded that in their wickedness they are doing God and man service. The case of William Escott is a narrative that vividly illustrates the temper and tactics of the more virulent vaccinators, and the extremities of misrepresentation to which they do not hesitate to resort. The story stands in need of little commentary. The facts set forth in order speak for themselves and convey their own moral. First let us peruse the report of

A MEETING OF THE ROTHERHITHE VESTRY,

held on Tuesday, Sept. 6, the Rector, the Rev. E. J. Beck, occupying the chair, when a letter was read from the Local Government Board, covering one received from Dr. Beech Johnston, public vaccinator, addressed to their Inspector, Dr. Stevens, respecting an outbreak of small-pox in the parish of Rotherhithe. letter was as follows:

Dr. Johnston's

"St. Olave's Union, Vaccination Station. '44, Lower-road, Rotherhithe, S.E., Aug. 17, 1881. "DEAR SIR,-I have the honour to submit to you the following facts in connection with an outbreak of small-pox in my district :-William Escott, shoemaker, of 298, Southwark-park-road, has been for many years a leading anti-vaccinator in this neighbourhood. He has so evaded the Act that no member of his family has been vaccinated. About two months since one of his children became ill with small-pox. No medical man was called in, but the child's mother nursed him through the disease, and the child got well. Immediately after this the mother became seriously ill, and a neighbouring practitioner, Mr. Freston, of Southwarkpark-road, was called in, and found his patient delirious, with high temperature, &c., but without marked eruption. As no information was given him of the presence of small-pox in the house, his attention was not directed to this disease, and the patient died on the third day, and the death was certified fever.' Mr. Freston now assures me that he is of opinion the disease was really small-pox in such a virulent form that death occurred before the eruption appeared, and subsequent events would appear to justify that opinion. Immediately after Mrs. Escott's death, two of her children became ill with confluent small-pox, and both died; and I have this day certified for the removal to the hospital of three others, aged 11, 9, and 7 years, who have been suffering from a most virulent attack of the same disease. After the death of his wife, Escott borrowed of a neighbour named Angus a suit of black clothes in order to attend the funeral. The clothes were kept some days in Escott's house, and then returned. The result was that Angus got small-pox, was removed to hospital, and died there on the 14th inst. Angus stated that he had been vaccinated in infancy. Nearly every house in Escott's immediate neighbourhood has since then been infected, and I give you below a list of cases moved to hospital from this spot during the last month. Many other cases have been and are being treated by private practi

tioners. I remain, dear sir, your obedient servant, W. BEECH JOHNSTON, M.D., Public Vaccinator, No. 3 District, St. Olave's Union."

The Clerk, who read the letter, said sixteen names of patients were attached. The matter came before the magistrate that day, Escott being summoned for refusing to allow his place to be disinfected, and the case was adjourned till Friday.

The Chairman, the Rev. E. J. Beck: If ever a man was a murderer, I think that man is. I think any penalty that can be inflicted on him would be light.

Mr. Bulmer: He has caused the death of several people.

The Chairman: And murdered his own wife. The Clerk explained that proceedings might be taken against the man for transmitting clothing which had been exposed to infection, the penalty

for which was £5. This was the course recommended by the Local Government Board.

Mr. Stevens: Escott is a very respectable man, well-known in the parish.

The Chairman: All the more blame to him if he is.

Mr. Stevens: He is a highly respectable man, and has been in the parish for years.

The Chairman: I do not say he is not a respectable man; but he deserves to be punished. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Stevens said he was sorry the man did not vaccinate. He had, however, already lost his wife and children, and he thought mercy should be shown to him, and that he should not be prosecuted. There were others who held the same opinions as Escott.

The Chairman: I wonder that you should speak of generosity to a man who has been guilty of what I call a great crime. I think justice requires that if we have the power to stop such exceedingly wicked practices, we should do it. If there be a mischievous, I had almost said a murderous practice, it is that of these antivaccinators, who are a source of peril to the whole neighbourhood. This man actually had a shop, and kept it open till it came to the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health. Our Medical Officer was his legal adviser, and entreated him for months to have himself and those near him vaccinated. He would not, and he has brought upon himself the natural and inevitable consequence of his own imprudence and folly. But he has done a good deal worse; he has been the means of spreading the infection to a whole neighbourhood. I do not see any room for mercy or generosity. (Hear.) It seems to me a case where we should act with the utmost strictness. It is not for us to deal with the man and fine him, but for the magistrate; but it is the duty of the parish to act in accordance with the recommendation given us.

Mr. Williams: Wouldn't you summon the man who lent the clothes?

The Chairman: He died in consequence of what was done; there was little mercy shown to him.

Mr. Bulmer: Let the magistrate decide the question; that is the best way.

Mr. Foottit moved that the matter be referred

to the Sanitary Committee, and Mr. Williams seconded.

The Chairman: I am glad that it is proposed not to decide the matter to-night, for perhaps on another occasion we may consider it with a little more dispassionateness. I confess that I myself feel very strongly. I cannot bear to hear of a man communicating such a disease and killing a neighbour. The motion was agreed to.

IN THE POLICE COURT.

With Escott's case before the bench, we need not detain our readers. Stipendiary magistrates have their individual defects, but they are accustomed to hear both sides, and to suspect ex parte statements, and do not recklessly let fly charges of murder and shriek for vengeance like Parson Beck. Having heard the charge against Escott, the magistrate dismissed the summons. clearly shown that he had taken every precaution to avert infection in his power, and that his prosecution, heartless as it was, had its origin in some wretched parochial jealousy.

WHERE ESCOTT LIVED.

It was

as

Southwark-park-road, formerly known Jamaica Level, runs between Rotherhithe and Bermondsey, Escott's house being on the Rotherhithe side of the way. It is a noisome neighbourhood. Adjacent are the arches of the SouthEastern Railway, some of which are let to manure manufacturers, one of whom operates on stale fish, the stench from which is sometimes overpowering. Close to Escott's shop is Raymouth-road, the gardens of which abut on the railway arches, where the residents complain bitterly of the neglect of their dust-bins, which are not emptied for months, applications to the parish officials meeting with no attention. In short, the corner of Rotherhithe under attention is a pestilential quarter, just where small-pox and other fevers might be expected to prevail.

And there, during the now-expiring London epidemic, small-pox has prevailed. A reader of Dr. Johnston's letter would suppose that the outbreak he describes was something sudden, springing ab ovo from Escott's family. Nothing could be more untrue-more dastardly and maliciously untrue. As early as Christmas there were cases of small-pox in the neighbourhood, and as the season advanced they multiplied, so that, as reported, there was scarcely a house in Raymouth-road exempt from the disease. The victims were chiefly among the young; in one family two girls, of 12 and 15, and a lad of 17 perished, all vaccinated. In February a workman of Escott's, who lodged close by in Southwarkpark-road, was stricken down. Not until they had lived in the midst of the epidemic for full six months were the Escotts attacked.

THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE IN THE
ESCOTT HOUSEHOLD.

It was in the early part of June that John Escott, aged fourteen, sickened. He had not been vaccinated; no medical assistance was called in; he was nursed by his mother; and he recovered.

Mrs. Escott, aged 48, became seriously unwell

on July 7; Mr. Freston was called in on the 9th; she died on the 12th, and was buried on the 15th. She had been vaccinated in childhood; no eruption was visible on her person, and the cause of death was certified by Freston as "enteric fever six days, and diarrhoea two days." The subsequent assertion that she died of suppressed smallpox is not worth refutation. She was not only of a feeble constitution, but was at a critical period of life, and was much exhausted with watching and nursing at home and among her neighbours.

Percy Escott, aged 4, sickened on July 13, and died on the 21st. Was not vaccinated. Certificate of death: "Small-pox."

Ellen Escott, aged 11, sickened with smallpox on July 16. Was not vaccinated, and recovered.

Charles William Escott, aged 17, sickened on July 19, and died on the 27th. Was not vaccinated. Certificate of death: "Small-pox."

Walter, aged 9, and Frederick Escott, aged 7, also fell sick about the 19th. They were not vaccinated, and both recovered.

Two daughters, aged 19 and 22, were vaccinated in infancy, and neither took the disease.

Such is the record of the Escott family. There were six cases of small-pox, all unvaccinatedtwo deaths and four recoveries. It is by no means an uncommon record, and we do not pretend to draw any conclusions from it either for or against vaccination. The question is not to be argued from such narrow and uncertain premisses. It would be easy to assert that under worse circumstances the whole family might have been swept away; or, that under better treatment none need have died; and so on and on. It might also be pointed out that the two daughters who were vaccinated in infancy escaped unscathed; but the answer is, that had they been attacked, and had we said: See the uselessness of vaccination! we should instantly hear that vaccination in childhood is of little or no account after girlhood, and that these young women, not being re-vaccinated, had no advantage over their unvaccinated sister and six brothers; and that it is disingenuous to try to discredit vaccination by the imputation of a claim that is now frankly dis

allowed.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARDS.

Mr. Browning, medical officer, and Mr. Edwards, sanitary officer for Rotherhithe, visited Escott's house on July 25, and on the 26th a magistrate's order was obtained for the removal of the four children suffering from the disease, on the ground of insufficient accommodation, and that the patients were being waited upon by three unvaccinated persons. To the execution of this order Mr. Escott opposed a firm resistance, in which he was sustained by his medical attendant, Mr. Freston, who held that to remove the children would imperil their lives, whilst the accommodation was ample. The patients occupied the two upper rooms in a three-storey house, devoted exclusively to their use; their attendants were vaccinated, and none of them were allowed to enter the shop, although the contrary was untruly alleged.

On Aug. 17, Mr. Freston called in Dr. Johnston,

to certify to the condition of the children, with a view to their removal to a convalescent home. Dr. Johnston suggested that they should first go to the hospital for a few days, to which their father did not object, and, accordingly, they were taken away upon the following day, Aug. 18. Immediately afterwards Mr. Escott burnt the bedding, and applied to the sanitary officer of Bermondsey to have his house disinfected, and a man who has attended to these jobs for five years past was directed to do whatever was requisite. By him disinfection was completed to the perfect satisfaction of Mr. Freston.

Now, mark the ridiculous rivalries of these parish officers. Escott's home is in Rotherhithe, but he had gone over the way, and called in the Bermondsey officer to attend to the disinfection, whereon the Rotherhithe officer went to Greenwich, and took out a summons against Escott for neglecting to have his house disinfected! The magistrate heard the charge carefully, envenomed as it was by Dr. Johnston's scandalous letter, and in the end pronounced Escott blameless of any negligence whatever, and dismissed the summons. The sanitary officer, unabashed, asked to have at least the cost of the summons, which was promptly refused. To prefer a false accusation, and then to claim to have the price of the accusation from the accused, was something in excess of impudence.

THE STORY OF THE COAT.

Having thus disposed, in the simplest terms, of the allegations advanced against Mr. Escott, there still remain that of the borrowed coat, with the consequent death of the man from whom the coat was borrowed, and the sixteen cases of smallpox said to be derived from the outbreak in the Escott family.

The summary answer to the coat story is, that Escott never borrowed a coat; but the lie, delivered with such circumstance, has a distant relation with matter of fact. Charles Escott, a fine young fellow of seventeen, had a companion who lodged over an oil-shop, on the opposite side of the road; and as he was preparing to attend his mother's funeral, his friend urged him to wear his black clothes, which were better than his own. Escott declined, but being persuaded to try them on, they fitted so nicely and looked so well, that he consented to wear them on the occasion. The clothes were not in use for more than two or three hours, and were returned as soon as done with. Mrs. Escott was buried on July 15, and not until the 19th did young Escott become unwell, and not until Aug. 8-three weeks and three days after the funeral-did his companion fall ill. Whatever truth there may be in the doctrine of the communication of disease by germs, we ask, how was it possible for Escott to convey them to his friend's garments before they had ripened on himself? But we have no call to contest an assertion that is without a vestige of authority. If small-pox be as catching as commonly supposed, there were scores of ways in which, in his situation, the youth was open to attack. Poor fellow his death was probably due to the treatment to which he was subjected. His landlady declined to nurse him, and he was taken from his warm bed at night, when

the pox were breaking out upon him, dressed, and walked to an ambulance, placed several hundred yards off, so as not to excite observation, and conveyed to the hospital. His friends were presently informed that his case was desperate, and on the eighth day he died.

THE SIXTEEN CASES OF SMALL-POX. That sixteen cases of small-pox sprang from the outbreak in the Escott family is simply a piece of fiction, and most malicious fiction. It is part of the pretence, so artfully conveyed to the public, that the epidemic in Rotherhithe originated in July among Escott's unvaccinated children, when, in fact, the neighbourhood was infected from Christmas onwards, and not until the epidemic was abating, and the stench from the manureworks in the tropical heat of July was peculiarly offensive, were the Escotts attacked. It may be true that there were sixteen cases in the district subsequently, but why, in the name of reason, should they be specially affiliated to the Escotts ? No family around ever even pretended to have contracted the disease from them, and if Dr. Johnston has any authority for his statement outside his active imagination, let him produce it and have it verified.

CONDUCT OF THE NEWSPAPERS.

Newspapers are supposed to lead public opinion, but it is more correct to say that, with greater or less success, their conductors seek to discover and express and pander to it; and so far from attempting independent instruction or advice, they shrink from the expression of any opinion they consider likely to offend the mass of their subscribers. Now vaccination happens to be in favour with the educated and semi-educated mob, and consequently whatever is supposed to tend to the credit of the practice is diligently published, whilst whatever tends to its discredit is as diligently suppressed. Of the method of suppression pursued, we might adduce many instances (some so outrageously unjust as to be well-nigh incredible) sufficient to dissipate the agreeable illusion that truth is sure of a hearing in any respectable English journal. A story like that of Escott, therefore, as concocted by Dr. Johnston and endorsed by the Local Government Board, was sure of eager acceptance, and has been published everywhere, and commented upon as a relation of so much indisputable matter of fact. We must limit ourselves to a few citations as representative of many in proof of what cock-and-bull rubbish can be gravely reproduced as sound gospel and homily.

Daily News, Sept. 8.

Possibly the bitterest opponents of vaccination may be impressed by the grim details of the story which was told and discussed by the Rotherhithe Vestry on Tuesday. A person in the locality had made himself conspicuous for many years as a vehement anti-vaccinator, and had ingeniously succeeded in evading the Act, so that no members of his family were vaccinated. A couple of months back one of this man's children took small-pox. No doctor was called in, but the child was nursed by its mother, and recovered. Then the mother herself took small-pox and died, after which two more of the children fell victims to the disease,

and three more had to be taken to the hospital. Bad though this was, there was more to come, if the story told at the Vestry is true. The antivaccinationist borrowed from a neighbour a suit of black clothes to wear at his wife's funeral. He kept the clothes in his house a few days before returning them. Shortly after their return their owner also took the small-pox, was conveyed to the hospital, and died there. Since then several houses in the same neighbourhood have become infected, and some sixteen cases of small-pox have been taken to the hospital. Commentary on such cases is needless. The liberty of the individual is sacred so long as it does not infringe upon the liberty of someone else. If anti-vaccinationists only did harm to themselves, no one would have a right to interfere with their fancies; but when their vagaries may lead to the wholesale infection of a district, and the deaths of several persons, it is time that the laws which aim at preventing the spread of contagion should be thoroughly put into force.

British Medical Journal, Sept. 17.

The wickedness of encouraging the anti-vaccination agitation could not, it is opportunely pointed out by the Globe, be more strikingly proved than by an account it printed of the origin of an outbreak of small-pox in Rotherhithe. "A leading anti-vaccinator," Escott by name, who had had none of his children vaccinated, has lost his wife and two children by small-pox, and four others have had the disease. Escott borrowed a suit of

mourning from a friend named Angus to attend

his wife's funeral, and returned the clothes without disinfection, with the result that the lender caught small-pox, and died. Since then, nearly every house in the neighbourhood has been attacked, and sixteen patients have been removed to hospital.

Manchester Courier, Sept. 9.

The late Thomas Hood once made a remark to the effect that "evil is wrought by want of thought more than by want of heart." If he had obstinacy, and ignorance, more than by aught else, said instead that evil is wrought by conceit,

he would have been nearer the truth. The amount of mischief done by these qualities is simply incredible, and never is the fact so conspicuously illustrated as in the proceedings of the antivaccinators. These people are, with scarcely an exception, the most ignorant of the ignorant. They have secured the support of one or two medical practitioners of the second order, and they have succeeded in proving in certain out-of-the-way places that they possess a certain amount of political influence, the result of which was that that great statesman, Mr. Dodson, made an effort to conciliate them by relaxing the strictness of the Vaccination Acts as soon

as he came into office. It happened, however, that the attempt of the Liberal Government in this direction was contemporaneous with the outbreak of a fresh epidemic of small-pox, and Mr. Dodson consequently dropped his measure with as much precipitancy as he had taken it up, and by so doing saved the country to a certain extent from the evils which would be certainly entailed upon it were vaccination made any less compulsory than it is at the present moment.

Then repeating the Escott fable, the Courier proceeds :

Over sixteen cases from the immediate neighbourhood of this man's house are now in hospital, and by way of putting the top stone to his criminal folly,

he has obstinately refused to allow his house to be disinfected, and has allowed himself to be summoned before the police-magistrate, who seems, with singularly ill-judged leniency, to have adjourned the case. At the meeting of the Rotherhithe Guardians some rather strong language was used, the Chairman stigmatising Mr. Escott with some "murderer." Few people will be harshness as a disposed to go quite so far, seeing that the man had obviously no intention of killing his wife and children, or even of inflicting the death penalty on his neighbour. That he has succeeded in causing the loss of four lives and in creating a very large amount of sickness in the neighbourhood in which he lives is, however, indisputable, and his own reflections on those facts can hardly be of a very pleasurable description-unless, indeed, he be, as too many of his class unfortunately are, too impenetrably hide-bound in conceit and ignorance to appreciate the mischief which he has done. The real culprits in a case like this are not so much the poor simpletons whose names come to the front, but the men who make their living by propagating error, and who, in defiance of light and leading, set up their own crude theories in opposition to all the teachings of experience, and to the all but universal consent of the scientific world.

Leeds Mercury, Sept. 10.

William Escott is an anti-vaccinator, of whom it may at least be said that he has the courage of his convictions. He had, it appears, succeeded in evading the provisions of the Vaccination Act, and about two months ago one of his children was attacked with small-pox. The disease became epidemic, and every house in Escott's immediate neighbourhood was infected, and as many as sixteen cases had to be removed to the hospital. Truly Escott showed his contempt alike for smallpox and for doctors, and as he has himself lived through the epidemic which has desolated his home, he may probably hold himself forth as a burning and shining light in the good cause. He is said to be a highly respectable man, who has been in the parish for years, and we shall no doubt be justified in assuming that he is as honest in regard to his convictions as he is respectable in his social relations. Unfortunately, however, neither moral honesty nor social respectability acts as a safeguard against mischievous and erroneous practices. His very honesty, in fact, has become almost a crime. It is not necessary to accept the opinion pronounced by the Chairman of the Rotherhithe Vestry, that if ever a man was a murderer, Escott is one. We need not go quite so far as that; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that his conduct directly led to the death of his wife and two

of his children, and to the infection of the district in which he lived, by a foul and malignant disease. Such a man, notwithstanding his sincerity, could scarcely claim the sympathy of the public if he should have to pay for his obstinacy by penalties other than those he has already brought upon

himself.

Dr. Underhill once spoke of "the infinite lying of the newspapers"; and in these specimens we see how falsehood once set a-going is parrot-like squawked through the whole newspaper forest. The worst of it is that there is no redress for untruth in the sacred cause of vaccination. The Daily News, for example, would not on any terms retract the calumny heaped upon Escott. "Shameful!" exclaims a reader. It is shameful; but so

it is and so it will be. Newspapers are not prophets of righteousness which testify to their generation like the spirit in Ezekiel "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear," but are dependent for their existence and prosperity on the goodwill of their readers, and their conlikely to endanger that goodwill. For the present ductors judiciously withhold whatever seems vaccination is in the ascendant, but as soon as the wind of public opinion veers, the change will be manifest in the Press, and the very editors who are traducing men like Escott, will then smother them in adulation as confessors of good sense in a stupid and superstitious community.

WILLIAM ESCOTT.

Finally, let us express our cordial sympathy with Mr. Escott in the severe domestic affliction that has befallen him, and the merciless annoyance and obloquy to which he has been subjected. In every contest for truth and right a few have to suffer for many; and when the struggle is over, we say, "Blessed were the Martyrs!" Nevertheless, martyrdom, however glorious in retrospect, is far from agreeable in transaction, and few there be who are equal to the strain; but even the feeble may try to recognise presentday martyrs, and to soften for them the stress of affliction and strife. One had need to have clear convictions to pass through the ordeal to which Mr. Escott has been subjected; but with truth for one's companion, much may be borne :

"For saved by that divine alliance,
From terrors of defeat;
Unvauntingly, yet with defiance,
One man the world may meet."

VACCINATORS AT RYDE. OUR British Sangrados are "too-too" funny. Le Sage could not have ventured to create such inconsistency.

At the late Congress of the British Medical Association, Dr. Martin, of the United States, was the great vaccination gun; his experience and authority were brought forward as the sufficient reason why all should bow before him.

Well, Dr. Martin repudiated the use of any but what they are just now pleased to call calf lymph. He stated that he had utterly abandoned the use of the humanised virus, and that he had done so by a "natural and perfectly logical process of deductive reasoning," because," while he propagated humanised virus," he was repeatedly annoyed by receiving complaints of erysipelas from physicians to whom he issued it.

He further characterised humanised lymph as "an abomination." This is the variolized lymph which for seventy years has been used in thousands upon thousands of cases, and passed a resolution declaring their "full conwhat then? Why the meeting unanimously fidence in the present supply of lymph," while expressing a hope that the Government would organise a supply of calf lymph for public vaccinators! Do these gentlemen think there is no limit to public gullibility?

Brighton, Sept. 25.

P. A. TAYLOR.