We answer that the pauper class dwelling in workhouses are almost as effectually secured from zymotic disease as the convict class in her Majesty's prisons. Their conditions are such that, to use Dr. Carpenter's comparison, the existence of small-pox among them is as impossible as live fish out of water. "Not so at all," says Dr. Carpenter. "They are protected from small-pox by their vaccination." Such is logic begotten of the cross between Science and SuperstitionSanitation and Vaccination! As for the other wing of Dr. Carpenter's assertion, that the class immediately above pauperism are withheld from vaccination by our teaching and influence, it is untrue, and, it is needless to add, Dr. Carpenter in his better mind knows it is untrue. The class designated is neither unvaccinated nor open to our arguments. But, as we have so often to observe, the Jennerian rite is regarded as so useful and so sacred, that whatever is contrived for its glory-even falsehood itself—is accounted praiseworthy. It would require a Pascal to do justice to the morality prevalent among vaccinationists.

MR. HASKER is to be congratulated on having brought the question of repeated prosecutions for non-vaccination to a fresh issue. As an irreducible opponent of vaccination, who has been fined, and who treats the law with scorn, Mr. Ellison, the Lambeth magistrate, holds that he comes under the counsel tendered to the Evesham Guardians by the Local Government Board, and advises the Camberwell Guardians to consider the propriety of leaving him unprosecuted, or appealing to the Local Government Board for fresh instruction. The passage in the Evesham letter, dated Sept. 17, 1875, runs as follows:

"It is important that parents should be well assured that proceedings in case of non-compliance with the law will not be lightly discontinued. On the other hand, the Board are prepared to admit, that when in a particular case repeated prosecutions have failed in their object, it becomes necessary to carefully consider the question whether the continuance of a fruitless contest with the parent may not have a tendency to produce mischievous results by exciting sympathy with the person prosecuted, and thus creating a more extended opposition to the law.

"The Board entertain no doubt that in all cases of the kind in question, the Guardians will not fail to exercise the discretionary powers confided to them in the manner best calculated to give effect to the policy of the law."

None can call this manly council. It is summed up in saying, "Try the metal of recalcitrants. They may yield; but if they don't, then leave them alone. There is no power in the law to effect their subjugation, and their open defiance

and victory may do much to discredit vaccination.” Under the circumstances, it is sound advice, the advice of Mr. Worldly Wiseman. On our side we have to admit that nothing has so contributed to the extension of our agitation as prosecutions for non-vaccination, and especially repeated and vindictive prosecutions; and when we are asked how best to assail and destroy the Jennerian superstition, our invariable advice is, Refuse to have your children vaccinated, proclaim your resistance, and accept the penalty. Lecturing is good, and the circulation of literature is good, but nothing can compare with defiance of Guardians, and open witness-bearing to the light of science and the right of conscience in the presence of magistrates. The infamous law will only be broken down by wide-spread and persistent resistance.

"If these

ANOTHER point in Mr. Hasker's case cannot be passed without notice. When, flushed with victory at the polls, the Liberals took office, they undertook to amend the law by enacting that a single fine should be the penalty for each offence. Forthwith the representatives of the medical profession went into convulsions, and appalled Mr. Dodson with their outcries. dreadful anti-vaccinators," it was said, "are let off with a fine, there will be no limit to their mischief. They will persuade multitudes to withhold their children from vaccination, and smallpox will decimate the country." The result was that the Government took fright, and dropped the project. We, and others behind the scenes, knew that the shrieks of Ernest Hart and Co. were superfluous, and simulated for business purposes. What the Government proposed was to make regular what is the widely-irregular practice. The Camberwell Inspector who prosecuted Mr. Hasker assured the magistrate "that it was not the practice of the Camberwell Guardians to summon more than once for the same unvaccinated child, and that when there had been a conviction under the 29th Section of the Act, the Guardians then let the matter rest"; adding that "the Local Government Board do not wish the Guardians of any Union to repeat prosecutions after a first conviction." What is the rule in Camberwell is the rule in the vast majority of parishes. Nay, more! in many instances, when a parishioner is known to be, well off, and firmly opposed to vaccination, he is not prosecuted even once, but is judiciously let alone. What we complain of is that the like rule does not everywhere prevail. In some parishes poor folk who distrust and detest vaccination are prosecuted over and over again, and not unfrequently with spite

the Compulsory Vaccination Act all over Ireland, and that the Board should take immediate steps to have the legality of Mr. McClelland's decision

MR. THOMAS STRAIN, of Belfast, has, like Mr. Hasker, succeeded in extending the interpretation of the law. Prosecuted repeatedly for the non-vaccination of his child, the. baffled Guardians appealed to the Irish Local Government Board for advice. The Board, lacking the discretion exhibited in the Evesham letter, replied that it was their duty to prosecute Mr: Strain until he submitted; and the Guardians, exultant over the license to persecute, instructed their solicitor to "go at" Mr. Strain as often as possible-weekly, if it could be managed. How these Irish love a shindy in any cause, just or unjust! However, the combat was unexpectedly cut short. The case came before Mr. McClelland on Dec. 23, when Mr. Harper contended, on the part of Mr. Strain, that under the Petty Sessions Act (Ireland) 1851, mentioned at the head of the summons, it was necessary that action for any offence under said Act be taken within six. months from the time when the cause of complaint shall have arisen; and as in Mr. Strain's case the statutory term of six months had long expired, no action against him could lie. Mr. McClelland, from the bench, held that Mr. Harper's objection was valid. He had looked at the Vaccination Amendment Act (Ireland) 1879, and found "that proceedings on account of neglect to have a child vaccinated may be taken during the continuance of the neglect"; but there had been no direct proof before the Court of the continuance of the neglect; but even if proof had been adduced, he considered that the Acts of 1851 and 1879 should be inter preted conjointly; and as Mr. Strain objected on .conscientious grounds to have his child vaccinated; he was entitled to get any benefit conferred by the joint exposition of the Acts. He therefore dismissed the case, with 12s. 6d. costs. The Guardians, thus cruelly checkmated, have resorted afresh to the Local Government Board, saying that Mr. McClelland's decision "will entirely frustrate future prosecutions of defaulters under

would be told that they are not to sit as a Court of Appeal upon said decision." In the meanwhile, the Guardians having done their duty, and having paid the 12s. 6d. costs under threat of distraint, Mr. Strain is relieved from further molestation.

THE frequent advice to submit to vaccination under protest, though scarcely to be accounted serious, is answered by a reference to such cases as those of Mr. Hasker and Mr. Strain. They have put the law to the test with conspicuous advantage. Reforms are achieved by agitation and resistance, and without the means we should wait indefinitely for the end. Statesmen have no ears for anything but loud cries, and pay no heed to opposition that is limited to logic. Moreover, active resistance compels public attention. Mr. Strain's case has been widely discussed in the Irish newspapers, and has afforded many opportunities for the exposure of the fallacies on which the practice of vaccination rests. Mr. Strain himself has proved in the press that his resistance is in nowise fantastical, but justified by science and good sense. A letter by Mr. Kennard, in the Northern Whig of Jan. 17, is one of those pieces of demonstration which, where they do not produce conviction, produce disquiet and scepticism that will not easily be allayed. Distrust in vaccination is spreading widely, and distrust in due season ripens into active disbelief.. The Northern Whig argues that if Mr. Strain and his child were only concerned, he might receive indulgence; but, "by neglecting to have the child vaccinated, he may be the cause of spreading small-pox to other people, who have not his prejudices against vaccination." How ?. If other people are vaccinated, and if vaccination protects from small-pox, how can smallpox spread to them? If it were believed that vaccination really prevented small-pox, its neglect by unbelievers would be treated with indifference. They would be left to the appropriate consequences of their folly. Instead, although possessed of a prophylactic so miraculous, small-pox was never held in such mortal terror as by those who profess unbounded trust in the infallible charm. The verbal confidence and the actual fear are by no means singular in human experience. The assiduity with which men try to believe that they believe (when they do not) is as remarkable as it is touching, although in other aspects contemptible.

MR. W. E. BRIGGS sits in the House of Commons as Liberal member for Blackburn, and is evidently a simple sort of person. Mr. Thomas Duxbury having written to inquire whether he would support Mr. Taylor's motion for the repeal of the penal clause of the Vaccination Act, Mr. Briggs, in his reply, advanced the following propositions :

1. "We must rely upon the advice of the great majority of medical men, whom we trust with our lives, and look to them to restore us to health.

II. "No Act of Parliament of this character is passed without very careful deliberation, and upon the clearest and most weighty evidence procurable."

His faith in M.D.'s is thus of a piece with his faith in M.P.'s. Doctors are to be trusted, and Parliament is to be trusted.

III." When an Act is passed, it becomes law, and it is our duty as good citizens to obey it, however unjust we believe it to be."

Strange doctrine this! We have been taught at church and elsewhere, that a man's first duty is to refuse to do what he knows to be wrong, whatever the command of kings and parliaments; and we have always considered that a good citizen can perform no higher service toward his fellows than by witnessing to what is right in persistent disobedience to unjust law.

IV." The law has in view, not vindictive prosecution of an offender against the Act, but the ensuring that the Act shall be carried out."

Mr. Briggs describes the Act by inversion. It does not enforce performance, and is vindictive in its impotence.

carefully sifted, and I can promise you that I will carefully and attentively listen to the arguments for and against. Until then I must reserve my opinion."

Reserve his opinion, indeed! When Mr. Briggs can write of an unvaccinated child as a centre from which small-pox would most probably spread," it may be asked what he reserves, or what folly is left for him to commit!

THE Committee of the London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination, possessed with the courage of their convictions, invited Dr. Drysdale to lay before the members what he considered the defence of Animal Vaccination; and in pursuance of the same policy they have invited Dr. W. B. Carpenter to give them a lecture. Dr. Carpenter has kindly consented, and in Steinway Hall, 15, Lower Seymour-street, Portmansquare, on Friday evening, 3rd February, at 7.30 o'clock, he will read a paper entitled, "The increase of Small-pox Mortality in London, during the year 1880, without any corresponding increase in other parts of the Kingdom, a reason-not for a repeal of the Compulsory Vaccination Act-but for increasing the efficiency of its operation." Dr. Andrew Clark will occupy the chair, and a discussion by medical men will follow. The occasion can scarcely fail to be a most interesting one, and it is unnecessary to solicit a good attendance.

PILLS AGAINST PANIC.

OUTBREAKS of small-pox in the United States and Australia have given rise to great excitement and occasional panic. It is plain from the reports in the newspapers that the dangers of the disease are wildly exaggerated, and especially its power of diffusion and infection. Here in London, where

Here again Mr. Briggs is conspicuously at fault. What he fancies does not happen is precisely what does happen. An anti-vaccinator of moderate means can meet the heaviest penalties with indifference; and the knowledge that he can and will defy the law, generally secures him from prosecution. On the other hand, the fact that a poor parent cannot meet a repetition of fines, tempts cowardly guardians to set the law in force against him. In short, the administration of the Vaccination Act is characterised by the wildest irregularity, and is discreditable in the extreme to the Parliament that passed it. Mr. Briggs ends with saying:

"No doubt the subject will be thoroughly discussed once more, and the evidence on both sides

spite of recurrent attempts to create alarm, and to drive the inhabitants, young and old, into the vaccinators' shops. Small-pox is a matter of locality; its haunts are slums where dirty folk abide and foul smells prevail; whilst those who dwell in better quarters have little or nothing to fear. The sufferers from small-pox among the lower orders are collected in large hospitals, which some describe as dangerous to the neighbourhood, and others as harmless to those even in immediate proximity, if only their sanitary conditions be good. Those who are most afraid of small-pox are those whose acquaintance with it is limited to hearsay, and whose terror is played upon by those who have vaccine virus to sell. It may be vain for us to try to inspire a rational temper into those who like to be terrified (a numerous body);

but they can scarcely disregard the authority of a faithful vaccinationist like Dr. Henry D. Littlejohn, of Edinburgh, Medical Officer to the Scottish Board of Health. In the Annual Report for Scotland, 1879-80, he thus delivers himself of advice, the fruit of twenty-five years of active sanitary service. Mark his words :

"All medical authorities are agreed that the risk attending the entering a room in which there are cases of infectious disease is infinitesimally small to the healthy individual; and that even where a person actually assists in removing a patient sick of an infectious disorder to another apartment or to a conveyance, while the risk is greater, it is in reality very small to the sound constitution.

"As a rule, it is rare to find nurses affected who live for hours and days at a time in the same atmosphere with the sick, and who at the same time make use of the simplest precautions. It is still rarer to hear of medical men sickening of infectious diseases caught in their practice, and it is well known that medical men never, or very rarely, bring the infection of such diseases to their

households.

"For twenty-five years I have been engaged in active sanitary work, and have had, with very limited staff, to cope with serious outbreaks of Cholera, Small-pox, Fever, Scarlatina, Measles, and Hooping-cough, and although I have during that period brought up a large family, I have neve communicated any of these diseases to my children or dependents, nor am I aware that any of the numerous sanitary inspectors who have

acted under me have ever contracted or communicated these diseases while in the public

service.

"To live in the constant dread of infection is one of the surest methods of courting the risk of an attack. It is a popular, and I believe a true, saying with regard to Cholera, that the fear of it kills more than the scourge itself. This holds. equally good of other forms of infection; and the Sanitary Inspector, to be an efficient public servant, must be assured of this cardinal fact, that infectious germs of all kinds have no power of successfully attacking the healthy individual."

Let panic-stricken Americans and Australians peruse these observations and take courage. They are addressed by Dr. Littlejohn to sanitary inspectors whose lives are spent in contact with zymotic disease; he telling them that the risk of receiving and diffusing infection is to be lightly regarded, and that their defence is to be found in the maintenance of physical vigour and a courageous spirit. Wherefore, it may be argued, if doctors, nurses, and sanitary inspectors in contact with fevers have so little to fear, why should those whose contact with them is occasional (if occasional) be filled with alarm when it is reported that some cases of small-pox have occurred in a party of immigrants, or in some low lodginghouses, or here and there in a large city? And it may further be reflected how remarkable it is

that the medical men who stimulate and justify the abject terror concerning small-pox exhibit so little fear of the disease themselves, as if the sellers and buyers of vaccine were of different flesh and blood.

Whilst Americans and Australians in comfortable circumstances have little reason for concern about small-pox personally, they need not distress themselves as to its influence on the common mortality. To read their newspapers, it might be supposed that every man, woman, and child killed by small-pox is as a person shot or strangled, who but for small-pox would have remained alive. Our European experience proves that such a mode of reckoning is entirely illusory. Small-pox does not raise the death-rate; on the contrary, even severe variolous epidemics are signalised by a low general death-rate. In other words, small-pox is not a cause of extra deaths, but a substitute of other forms of death. It displaces kindred fevers, and when it disappears, they return and maintain, and even augment, the average mortality. Small-pox is usually described as a loathsome disease, which, indeed, is its be reworst offence; but its loathsomeness may duced to indifference by rational treatment, and need never be magnified into an intolerable affliction. For the benefit of vaccination, small-pox has been converted into a bogey of the first magnitude, and so effectually that it is scarcely possible for some people to command their nerves sufficiently to discuss its phenomena intelligently. It is actually asserted, and apparently believed, that if an outbreak of small-pox is not checked somehow, it may spread over an entire community and sweep off its members like plague in the middle ages. It is not for us to define possibilities, but we shall look in vain for any evidence of such terrific insurgence of small-pox. It has never been witnessed in European cities. In London last century, when the disease had numerous facilities for prevalence, and was cultivated by inoculation, the deaths never exceeded 4,000 in any year among a million of inhabitants. It may be ignorance that conjures up these possibilities of death and desolation from small-pox, but in presence of facts so well authenticated, it looks like imposture. Assuredly, if vaccination had not to be cracked up, the truth would be forthcoming.

Do we, therefore, think lightly of small-pox? By no means. We take it, with its kindred fevers, for an index to foul conditions of life, and a call to substitute wholesome conditions. When the Edinburgh pietists prayed Lord Palmerston to command a fast to avert cholera, he advised them to try cleanliness. In like manner, when it