How does it happen that the respectable proprietor of a respectable journal should endanger his reputation for Liberalism, decency, and common sense by placing his columns at the disposal of some prejudiced quack?

AN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE.

IN a letter to Mr. Wm. Tebb from Mr. A. E. Giles, of Hyde Park, Massachusetts, he says:

"As I was looking over a little book published in Philadelphia in 1876, entitled 'Opium Eating: An Autobiographical Sketch,' I came upon the following observations, which I transcribe for the VACCINATION INQUIRER. The author was a soldier in the Union Army, and in the autumn of 1863, when about eighteen years of age, was captured by the enemy and confined with many other prisoners at Danville, in Virginia. writes:

He

'During the time we were at Danville we suffered considerably from cold and close confinement. Small-pox broke out among us, and attacked a great many, but in most cases in a mild form. Those afflicted had it as violently as could be expected under the circumstances, their systems being in such a depleted condition that the disease had nothing to feed on. In fear of it, and to prevent it, many were vaccinated. I was not, and I thank Providence that I was not, as I knew some to suffer worse from vaccination than they could have done from small-pox, even when it terminated fatally; for cases of vaccination did terminate fatally, and often with more suffering than from the dreaded disease itself. The vaccine virus proved to be poisonous in some instances. I knew a man whose left arm was eaten to the bone by it, the bone being visible, and the cavity, which was circular, was as large as an orange. After months of excruciating pain the man died. Sometimes even vaccination did not prevent small-pox. A man with whom the writer bunked was vaccinated, and it took uncommonly well, a very large scab developing on each arm. Yet this man took small-pox, and badly, while the writer remained perfectly free from it, although he had not been vaccinated for thirteen years; had been exposed to the disease in almost every way; had slept with his comrade while taking it, and after he returned from the small-pox hospital with the eruption but partially healed. I thought if I must have it, I must, and there was an end of the matter, there being no way of avoiding it that I could see; and I do not know but that vaccination while the small-pox was about increased the danger by throwing the men's blood into a fever; while by leaving the blood undisturbed the chances of taking it were at least not augmented.'

"The author was afterwards confined at Andersonville and Goldsboro, where his health was much impaired by privation and exposure. These preliminary experiences are related as showing how he became an opium consumer, into which practice he was inducted by a physician."

INSTRUCTIONS FOR M.P.'s-I think deputations to candidates and members of Parliament for discussion of the vaccination question would be very useful. The ignorance of many of them on the subject is incredible.-D.

THE MEMBERS FOR BIRMINGHAM. THE following is a copy of a letter addressed by Mr. Crane to Mr. Bright, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Muntz :

Quadrant-chambers, New-street, Birmingham, Nov. 22, 1881.

SIR,-I take the liberty of enclosing for your perusal a cutting from the Birmingham Daily Post, containing a report of a conviction under the Vaccination Acts, obtained at Aston on the 18th inst., against Mr. J. W. Mahony, from which you will see that he conscientiously and persistently refuses to have his three children vaccinated, and has already appeared before the magistrates nine times for the offence. I am in. formed that for these three children he has paid in fines and costs no less a sum than £7. 17s. 6d., with the result that they are still, and will ever remain, unvaccinated. I wish most respectfully to draw your attention to the harshness and inequality of the said Acts, under which repeated prosecutions are possible for the same offence; to which men with money avoid compliance, while men without money must either comply, or suffer distraint or imprisonment. Seeing, then, that these Acts do not really enforce vaccination, and that they affect the poor so much more oppressively than the rich, I beg most earnestly and respectfully to inquire whether you are willing to support the repeal of the penal clauses of the said Vaccination Act? I have the honour to remain, yours faithfully,

JOHN CRANE.

Answer from the RIGHT HON. JOHN BRIGHT, M.P.

Kelso, N.B., Nov. 25, 1881.

DEAR SIR, I think the imposition of repeated penalties is very harsh, but I fear the feeling in Parliament is not in favour of greater mildness in the administration of the law. I am, respectfully, JOHN BRIGHT.

Mr. John Crane.

Answer from the RIGHT HON. JOSEPH CHAMBER-
LAIN, M.P.

Highbury, Moor Green, Birmingham,
Nov. 25, 1881.

DEAR SIR,-I am desired by Mr. Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd inst., with an enclosure. Although Mr. Chamberlain is quite unable to agree with the views of those persons who believe that vaccination is ineffectual in preventing the spread of disease, and does not share their fears of injurious consequences; yet he can sympathise with the feelings of conscientious parents, who, holding these opinions, are prosecuted under a compulsory law, for not doing what in their hearts they believe to be a harm to their children. You are probably aware that the Government did bring in a Bill to restrict the practice of imposing cumulative penalties, but the opposition in the House of Commons was so great that they were unable to proceed with it. The question is one for public discussion and for decision among the constituencies.-I am, yours obediently, WM. WOODINGS.

Mr. John Crane.

DAMNED WITH FAINT PRAISE.-Dr. D. H. Cullimore, physician to the North-West London Hospital, in a letter to the Echo, of Oct. 29, observes :-" I have lived in India several years, and have been medical officer to some of the largest civil districts in Southern India and Burmah, and my experiencefounded mainly on examination of large numbers collected in famine camps-is that diseases of the skin are infinitely more prevalent in England than in India. I have seen enough, however, of small-pox in that country to shake my belief in vaccination as a panacea, to which the individual responsibility of a reluctant people should be made subservient. There is one point of considerable importance. Among the advocates of Compulsory Vaccination, when a case of mild or discrete small-pox follows vaccination, it is proclaimed as at least a partial victory for the latter, whereas, in all probability, it has nothing to do with it. Cases of the mild type were in the majority (except in specially severe epidemics, which still occur) before vaccination was heard of; and I have myself seen in India, during the late famine, hundreds of cases of this mild form that had never been vaccinated, the only medicine being buttermilk and pure air; while, on the contrary, I have occasionally seen confluent small-pox with dangerous purulent fever when vaccination has been successfully performed. Withal I am, however, of opinion that the benefits likely to follow vaccination so exceed the dangers incident to it, that we should be foolish to disregard them. This is, of course, a very different matter from rendering it compulsory, particularly among a people so socially and religiously constituted as the various masses that form our Indian Empire."

ever

THE INGENUOUSNESS OF OFFICIAL

REPORTS.

THE Quarterly Report of the Registrar-General for July, August, and September last (No. 131), informs us that out of the 674 small-pox deaths in England and Wales, 461 occurred in London; and goes on to state that 37 per cent of these were certified as vaccinated, and 62 per cent. certified to have been unvaccinated. (The value of such certificates is not estimated). Persons who read this report in a cursory manner, without reference to the figures and localities, are left free to infer that these small-pox deaths may have been pretty equally spread over the whole area of the Metropolis. Those who examine for themselves, however, may discover that six only out of the 29 Superintendents' districts, furnished no less than 391 of the 461 deaths-Greenwich, 153; Hackney, 96; Fulham, 59; Islington, 37; Lambeth, 29; and Poplar, 17; whilst of the remaining 70, 43 occurred in the six other districts of St. Olave-Southwark, 11; Mile End Old Town, 9; Camberwell, 7; Bethnal Green, 6; Shoreditch, 5; and Wandsworth, 5; thus leaving 27 of the entire 461 to be supplied by Kensington, Chelsea, St. George, Hanover-square, Westminster, Marylebone, Hampstead, Pancras, which, whilst in three districts not one was reWhitechapel, St. Saviours, Lewisham, and Woolgistered. It may, perhaps, be said that in some of the six first named districts there are Asylum Board Hospitals. If so, it only proves that the patients were paupers. It will be seen that lowlying localities furnish the chief proportion; nevertheless, wherever the wealthy have been persuaded to pay a fee for re-vaccination, their escape has, no doubt, been sedulously assigned to that operation as the reason.

The same report mentions that "a localised outbreak, causing 9 deaths, occurred in the subdistrict of Wokingham." Having made inquiry in the neighbourhood, we are able to state that five of these deaths were in a low-lying district of one parish, all of whom had been vaccinated, and two of them re-vaccinated a fortnight prior to their death by small-pox, probably thus communicated to them. Nor were any of the remaining four alleged to have been unvaccinated; whilst from the consequent silly re-vaccination panic several persons were made seriously ill, and one death, at least, if not more, resulted directly from the operation, without the aid of small-pox.

IMMUNITY OF NURSES AND DOCTORS.

IN a letter in the Manchester Examiner of Dec. 22, Mr. Enoch Robinson thus argues the question of the immunity of nurses and doctors from small-pox, as asserted by Dr. Tomkins:"In attributing the immunity of nurses and medical students to vaccination, Dr. Tomkins commits the common mistake of drawing a sweeping conclusion from a few isolated facts. The following consideration will expose the fallacy of his argument:-The highest annual death-rate from small-pox in the last century, before vaccination was practised or known, was 3,000 per million of the population. It has been estimated that six cases of the disease occurred to each death, making 18,000 cases of small-pox per million. Subtract 18,000 from one million, and we have 982,000 persons untouched by the disease. Small-pox is not more infectious now than in the last century. Until Dr. Tomkins can tell us to which of these two divisions of the population the nurses and students belong, whether to the 982,000 or to the 18,000, it is impossible for him logically to say that vaccination was the cause of their immunity. By vaccinating 97 per cent. of the population, vaccination gets the credit of saving from small-pox the 982,000 per million who under no known circumstances would have been touched by the disease. Dr. Tomkins asks the opponents of vaccination for facts as startling on the other side. The results of the daily exposure of medical men to diseases more infectious than small- pox are a positive answer. Scarlet fever is the most infectious of the zymotic diseases; smallpox occupies the fifth place. How many medical men die annually of scarlet fever? They are not protected against it by the inoculation of an animal disease. Neither in my student's days at Guy's Hospital, nor in the twenty years I have been in practice, have I known a student or practitioner die of scarlet fever, and I cannot call to mind a single case of one suffering from the disease. Will Dr. Tomkins explain this immunity? If his doctrine were true, medical men, in the presence of the highly-infectious disease of scarlet fever, would be swept off the face of the earth."

VACCINATION AND ERYSIPELAS.

The Globe, Dec. 21, 1881.

As it is highly desirable to deprive the antivaccinationists of even the faintest show of reason for their pernicious agitation, it would be well for the faculty to determine whether any constitutional disposition ever exists favourable to the development of erysipelas after the vaccinating operation has been performed. In a case which has just come before the Manchester coroner, the medical evidence clearly proved that the infant owed its death to this cause. The operation appears to have been properly performed, and the child was in a good state of health at the time, but erysipelas set in and resulted in death. Four years ago, another infant in the same family died through precisely the same cause, and the foreman of the jury also

deposed that he once lost a child under similar circumstances. We may assume, therefore, that such unfortunate occurrences, although very rare, compared with the immense number of operations performed, are frequent enough to prejudice the less-educated portion of the community against vaccination. The large number of lives saved by its instrumentality are forgotten in presence of the palpable fact that a few are sacrificed. Medical inquiry should, therefore, be addressed to the question as to whether more effectual means cannot be adopted for the prevention of erysipelas. In the case in question, the father of the deceased infant had strongly protested against its vaccination, on the ground of his previous loss through that instrumentality, and he will now say, of course, that the law forces people to sacrifice their children for the general good.

[According to Jenner, erysipelas was the test of true and effective vaccination. Vaccination without erysipelas is what our new cow-pox impostors undertake to provide.-ED.]

MISTAKEN PROSECUTIONS.

THE Shoreditch Guardians have recently been more than usually active in prosecuting anti-vaccinators, but with more zeal than knowledge. A number of cases were brought before Mr. Bushby, at Worshipstreet, and all dismissed, because the children in question were beyond the age of fifteen months. The Act allows a period of twelve months in which proceedings must be taken if the child has not been vaccinated within a precedent period of three months. In the Vestry, Mr. Belstead accused the Guardians of wasting the ratepayers' money in such abortive proceedings. He stated that he had written to Sir William Harcourt, directing attention to the fact that James Watson had been illegally summoned and convicted, and that the Home Secretary had replied that the fine would not be enforced. Mr. Deacon thereon charged him with falsehood, saying he could produce no such letter. Mr. Belstead thereon declared that if he could not produce the letter, he would pay £50 to the London Hospital, if Mr. Deacon would give £50 to the Hospital if the letter was produced. The challenge was accepted, and here is the letter:

"Whitehall, Nov. 24, 1881.

Sir, With reference to your letter of the 9th inst., I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that he learns, on inquiry, that the summons in the case of James Watson was informal, having by mistake been taken under the 29th sec., instead of the 31st sec., of the Vaccination Act of 1867, and the fine will therefore not be enforced.-I am, sir, your obedient servant, A. F. O. LIDDELL.

Mr. H. Belstead, Highbury New Park.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR'S REPLY TO DR. CARPENTER. We beg to call the especial attention of our readers to the issue of a second hundred thousand of this masterly indictment of vaccination, and to invite them to renewed exertion in promoting its circulation. Wherever the pamphlet is read it produces conviction, and it remain unanswered, because unanswerable.

A GOOD PRECEDENT.

AT the Guildhall, Norwich, on Dec. 16, before S. Reeve (chairman), J. D. Smith, A. Master, W. J. Utten Browne, and G. Barnard, Esqs., Charles Lincoln, rivetter, was summoned for neglecting to have his child, Robert Charles, vaccinated within three calendar months after its birth. Mr. J. Cross supported the information, while Mr. Burgess and Mr. Lee Bliss were present on behalf of the Norwich Anti-Vaccination Society. The father said the reason the child had not been vaccinated was because he had a great objection to vaccination. He saw a case in a Norwich newspaper the other day of a doctor having certified that a child had died from the effects of vaccination.

Mr. Browne-Did he give a certificate that a child died in consequence of having been vacci nated?

Mr. Burgess-Yes, sir.

Mr. Browne (to Mr. Cross)-Is this statement correct?

Mr. Cross-Mr. Mills has given a certificate as mentioned, but it is no excuse for the defendant. For where one child dies from vaccination, thousands of lives are saved.

The Chairman-We want to treat those persons who act in good faith differently from those who defiantly break the law. If believed that vaccination would injure my child, I am not prepared to say what I should do; but all my children have been vaccinated, because I believe it is to their interest. But even if I did not agree with it, the law steps in and makes vaccination imperative. The only course that can be adopted is to get the law altered. It is no business of the magistrates whether the law is good or bad; they are bound to carry it out. No human being can possibly approve of all the laws on the statute book. The usual course is to inflict a small penalty for the first offence and a heavy one for the second.

Mr. Cross-Not always 80. Some have been fined a pound in the first case, while others have been fined only a shilling.

The Chairman-I never fined a man a pound the first time he was summoned.

Mr. Browne-The amount of the fine depends upon the circumstances of the case.

The Chairman (to the defendant)-The magistrates are bound to carry out the law, and you will be fined 5d. and 9s. 7d. costs. If you do not pay, the sum will be levied by distress.

Mr. Burgess-The Society is ready to pay the money.

Mr. Browne-You must pay it directly.

Mr. Burgess immediately complied with the request.

This fine is the lowest that has been inflicted by any Bench of magistrates in England for nonvaccination.

EXPERIENCES WITH SMALL-POX.-At a discussion on vaccination opened by Mr. W. Young before the Argyle-square Church Mutual Improvement Society, on Nov. 29, Mr. Emery remarked that in his opinion the danger of small-pox infection had been much exaggerated, and stated that some eleven years ago his wife had an attack of smallpox. At the time she was suckling a baby eight months old, and continued to do so throughout. The baby, although unvaccinated, did not contract the disease. Mr. Fairchild stated that he had no faith in vaccination, believing that attention to sanitation and a just regard to the laws of health were far more reliable barriers against the spread of small-pox than poisoning the blood with vaccination. Like Mr. Emery, his experience showed him that vaccination was useless. He had had eleven children; one of these had been vaccinated, whilst the remaining ten had not, yet the vaccinated one was the only one who had suffered from small-pox.

TRUTH FOR ONCE.-Another case of death from vaccination has just come to light in Norwich, and this time the facts are so simple that it is impossible for the interested supporters of vaccination to explain them away. William Larwood was the father of the child in question, which was born on March 21 of this year, and which died, as the following certificate testifies :-"I hereby certify that I attended Arthur Larwood, whose age was stated to be 8 months; that I last saw him on the 29th day of November, 1881, at Rupert-street; and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cause of his death was as hereunder written, namely, Vaccination. Witness my hand this 29th day of November, 1881. R. J. MILLS, M.B., All Saints'-green." From inquiries we have made, it appears that the child, Arthur Larwood, was a fine, healthy boy just prior to his being vaccinated on Oct. 25, at the surgery of Dr. Guy, on St. Andrew's Plain. Two days after the operation was performed the child commenced to be ill, and gradually got worse, until death put an end to its sufferings on Tuesday lastjust five weeks after vaccination. We have viewed the dead body, and can furnish evidence of the truth of our assertion that the poor little victim is a shocking illustration of the horrors of vaccination. In the case of one of the vaccinated spots, the flesh has gradually decomposed, leaving the arm-bone clearly visible, and producing a hole large enough to thrust the finger quite down to the bone. The sufferings which this poor little thing must have undergone are lamentable to think of, and should prove a warning to parents who, although disbelieving in the efficacy of vaccination, hesitate to run the risk of incurring a money penalty for default under the Vaccination Acts. The case under consideration is only one of a dozen which have come directly under our notice; and we should in this, as in others, have hesitated to make the facts public but for the manly conduct of Dr. Mills in certifying the true cause of death.-Daylight, Dec. 3, 1881.

VOL. III., No. 35.]

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

OUR progress is marked by the number of charges in defence of vaccination. As Dr. Johnson said, he knew when he was striking to purpose by the multiplicity of rebounds. One of the latest deliverances is a lecture, "Small-Pox and Vaccination," by Dr. D. Rutherford Haldane, President of the Edinburgh College of Physicians, in which he relates with unsuspecting faith the common series of inaccuracies that pass for the history of inoculation, along with the various fashionable fads as to the origin and suppression of zymotic disease, coupled, of course, with an exaggerated and incorrect reference to Pasteur's last revelation. He represents the medical profession as at first opposed to vaccination as prejudicial to their craft; the fact being that, led by the King and Court, the practice was accepted by acclamation, and that, with a few exceptions, the conversion of the profession was effected wholesale. The craze was universal, and apparently irresistible, being hastened, no doubt, by the desire to escape from the danger and horror of small-pox inoculation. Dr. Haldane deals with vaccination as if it were a single and simple affection, invariable as English gold coin, having not a word to say of Jenner's horse-grease; nor, like the President of the London College of Physicians, identifying small-pox inoculated on the cow with cow-pox. Let us hope that in the course of a few years such lectures will have become impossible, the ignorance and prejudice to which they are addressed having ceased to exist.

[PRICE 1d.

to those changes which result from the act of living. The natural products of secretion, or the excreta which are either retained too long within the body itself, or, being excreted, are not passed on to the vegetable kingdom for utilisation and re-application to man's wants-these excreta are the mainsprings of this class of disease, when allowed to remain where they ought not to be. It would be as impossible for zymotic diseases to exist among us as it is for fish to live long out of water, if all excreta were rapidly removed and immediately utilised. The presence of zymotic disease in our midst is evidence that some kind of excreta is retained somewhere in too close proximity to particular individuals.”

Nothing could be more explicit. Dr. Carpenter here refers the existence of small-pox and its kindred to the tolerance of filth and stench; holding that apart from filth and stench it would be as impossible for them to exist as live fish out of water. He moreover adduced her Majesty's convict prisons as evidence of the truth of his contention, that it is possible to live securely exempt from zymotic disease. In those select and exclusive establishments, inhabited by men and women drawn from the most unhealthy and disreputable classes, the death-rate is no more than about 8 per 1,000; and this marvellously low mortality is ascribed by Dr. Carpenter to the observance of those sanitary conditions whereby small-pox and its kindred are made impossible.