LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION

BY J.T. BIGGS J.P. (1912)

[back] Book in sections

(WHALE 2006/7, Book supplied by John Wantling)

PART   I. HISTORICAL   PREFACE. LEICESTER,  PAST  AND PRESENT.
CHAPTER I. British period, b.c. 844—a.d. 52.
CHAPTER  2. Roman Period, a,d. 52-448.
CHAPTER  3: Saxon period, a.d. 550-780.
CHAPTER  4:. Danish period, a.d. 780-920.
CHAPTER  5. Saxons restored, a.d. 920-1068.
CHAPTER 6. Norman period, a.d. 1068-1265.
CHAPTER 7:  The  Plantagenets.
CHAPTER 8: LANCASTRIAN AND YORKIST  PERIOD, A.D.  1399-1485.
CHAPTER  9. Parliaments held in Leicester.
CHAPTER 10: Royal visits to Leicester.
CHAPTER 11:  Tudor period, a.d,   1485-1603.
CHAPTER 12:  Leicester Abbey.
CHAPTER 13: STUART AND COMMONWEALTH PERIOD, A.D. 1603-1714.
CHAPTER 14: Leicester's ancient charters.
CHAPTER 15: Hanoverian period, a.d. 1714-1837.
CHAPTER 16. VICTORIAN PERIOD, 1837-1912'.
PART 2; LEICESTER'S   AWAKENING.
CHAPTER 17. A NOTABLE REVOLUTION.
CHAPTER  18. VACCINATION AND SMALL-POX,
CHAPTER 19. PARLIAMENT AND VACCINATION.
CHAPTER 20. FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT.
    COMPULSORY VACCINATION AND ELECTIONS.
CHAPTER 21. MR. P- A. TAYLOR, M.P., AND PARLIAMENT.
CHAPTER  22. WHOLESALE PROSECUTIONS—THEIR EFFECT.
CHAPTER 23. THE POSITION IN LEICESTER.
CHAPTER 24. LEICESTER MARTYRS.
CHAPTER 25.  THE GREAT LEICESTER DEMONSTRATION.
    MEETING IN THE MARKET-PLACE.
   EVENING MEETING.
   CONFERENCE OF  DELEGATES.
PART  3. PROPOSED   PARLIAMENTARY  INQUIRY.
CHAPTER 26. MR.  J.  A.   PlCTON,  M.P.,   AND  THE   GOVERNMENT.
    OPINIONS OF  THE  LEADING MEDICAL ORGANS.
CHAPTER 27. THE   ROYAL   COMMISSION   ON   VACCINATIONS-IT APPOINTMENT, CONSTITUTION, AND REFERENCE.
CHAPTER 28. LEICESTER AND THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
CHAPTER 29. LEICESTER GUARDIANS AND ROYAL COMMISSION.
CHAPTER 30.  ROYAL COMMISSION WITNESSES.
    LIST  OF  LEICESTER  WITNESSES,   AND  A  SYNOPSIS OF  THEIR TESTIMONY.
PART   4. STATISTICAL  EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER 31. A LENGTHY EXAMINATION.
CHAPTER 32. VACCINAL INJURIES AND DEATHS AT LEICESTER.
CHAPTER  33.  ERYSIPELAS AND VACCINATION;
CHAPTER  34.  OFFICIALLY AUTHENTICATED DEATHS FROM VACCINATION.
    VACCINAL DEATHS AT MISTERTON.
    VACCINAL  DEATHS AT NORWICH.
    VACCINAL  DEATH  AT  DERBY.
    VACCINAL DEATH AT LEICESTER.
CHAPTER 35. THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S GHASTLY STORY
CHAPTER 36. SMALL-POX IN LEICESTER.
CHAPTER 37. LEICESTER SMALL-POX EPIDEMICS COMPARED.
CHAPTER 38. IMPORTATIONS OF SMALL-POX.
CHAPTER 39. ERRORS OF DIAGNOSIS.
CHAPTER 40.  SMALL-POX AND FEVERS.
CHAPTER 41. ZYMOTIC DISEASES.
CHAPTER 42. INCIDENCE OF ZYMOTIC DISEASES,
CHAPTER 43. POCK-MARKED FACES.
CHAPTER 44. THE  "PROTECTION"  THEORY.
CHAPTER 45.  "PROTECTION" BY "MARKS" THEORY.
CHAPTER 46.  THE ROYAL COMMISSION AND. THE "MARKS" THEORY.
CHAPTER 47. LEICESTER'S INFANTILE DEATH-RATE.
CHAPTER 48. SAVING THE CHILDREN'S LIVES.
CHAPTER 49. THE GENERAL DEATH-RATE OF LEICESTER.
PART   5.  STATISTICAL  COMPARISONS  WITH LEICESTER.
CHAPTER  50. LEICESTER COMPARED WITH OTHER TOWNS.
CHAPTER   51. LEICESTER COMPARED WITH LONDON.
CHAPTER  52.  COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISONS WITH LEICESTER.
CHAPTER 53.  LEICESTER COMPARED WITH GLASGOW.
CHAPTER 54. LEICESTER SMALL-POX AND SHEFFIELD.
CHAPTER  55. CRUCIAL COMPARISON FOR LEICESTER.
CHAPTER 56.  GENERAL DEATH-RATES COMPARED.
PART   6.  THE   ROYAL  COMMISSION   ON VACCINATION
CHAPTER  57. THE INVESTIGATION ENDED.
CHAPTER  58. HOW THE COMMISSION  "BLINKED"  THE FACTS
    VIEW OF  THE  DISSENTIENT  COMMISSIONERS.
CHAPTER 59.  A  "ONE-SIDED INQUIRY."
CHAPTER  60. THE ROYAL COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT.
PART  7. PARLIAMENT   AND THE  ROYAL COMMISSION.
CHAPTER  61. THE BILL OF 1898.
CHAPTER  62.  EFFORT TO ABOLISH PENALTIES.
CHAPTER  63.  THE ILLUSORY CONSCIENCE CLAUSE
CHAPTER  64.  LEICESTER GUARDIANS AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.  
CHAPTER 65.  GUARDIANS  AT  THE   HIGH   COURTS  OK  JUSTICE.
CHAPTER  66. THE FAMOUS MANDAMUS.
CHAPTER  67.  CONFERENCE IN LEICESTER.
CHAPTER  68.  RENEWAL OF PROSECUTIONS.
PART  8. SANITATION   versus  VACCINATION.
CHAPTER 69.  MR. H. D. DUDGEON ON SANITATION.
CHAPTER 70. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LEICESTER SANITARY COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH.
CHAPTER 71. LEICESTER MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH AND VACCINATION BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE " LEICESTER METHOD."
CHAPTER   72.  DR. JOHN MOORE   1853-67.
CHAPTER  73.    J. WYATT CRANE, M.D.—1867-79.
CHAPTER  74. LEICESTER MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH AND VACCINATION AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE "LEICESTER  METHOD."
    HENRY TOMKINS, M.D—1885-92.
    THE  " LANCET "  INVESTIGATES  THE   "LEICESTER   METHOD."
    DR. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, B.A. (Lond.), M D., D.P.H.—1892-95.
CHAPTER   75.  DR. H. G. H. MONK, M.R.C.S., D.P.H (Lond.)—1895-1900.
CHAPTER 76.  DK.  G.  KILLICK MILLARD,  M.D.,  D.Sc.   1901-10.
PART   9.  LEICESTER SMALL-POX EPIDEMICS, 1892-94   and   1902-04. 
CHAPTER  77. THE   EPIDEMIC  OF   1892-94.  DR. J. PRIESTLEY, M.O.H.
CHAPTER  78.  LESSONS OF THE SMALL-POX EPIDEMIC AT LEICESTER—1892-94
CHAPTER  79.  LEICESTER SMALL-POX EPIDEMIC—1902-04.  Dr. G. K. MILLARD, M.O.H.
CHAPTER  80.  LEICESTER AND SMALL-POX-  1902-04,
PART   10.  THE "LEICESTER   METHOD."
CHAPTER  81.  HOW LEICESTER DEALS WITH SMALL-POX.
CHAPTER 82: DR. JOHNSTON, M.O.H., AND ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE.
CHAPTER 83: 'Cost of the "Leicester Method "— Quarantine.
CHAPTER 84: Hospital Expenditure.
CHAPTER  85:  The " Leicester Method " at Work.
CHAPTER 86: The Chairman of the Sanitary Committee on the " Leicester Method."
CHAPTER  87: The Medical Officer of Health for Leicester on the "Leicester Method."
PART  11. SUPPLEMENTARY   EVIDENCE AGAINST   VACCINATION.
CHAPTER  88: Vaccination and Syphilis at Leicester.
CHAPTER  89: The Royal Commission on Syphilis and Other Diseases at Leicester.
CHAPTER 90: Leicester's Traducers Unmasked.
CHAPTER 91: The Dissentient Commissioners on Vaccination and Syphilis.
CHAPTER  92: Professional Opinion on the In vaccination of Syphilis.
CHAPTER   93: Vaccination  and Leprosy.
    The Leprosy Investigation Committee.
CHAPTER  94: Inoculation  Experiments—Tuberculin and Leprosy.
CHAPTER 95: Vaccination and Tuberculosis.
CHAPTER 96: Diseases Injected, Intensified, and Increased by Vaccination and Inoculation.
CHAPTER 97: Inoculable Diseases—England and Wales.
PART  12. LYMPH   AND   VACCINATION.
CHAPTER 98: " Lymph."   What is "vaccine lymph"?
    Humanised " Lymph."
    Animal "Lymph."
CHAPTER 99:  "Glycerinated Calf Lymph."
CHAPTER  100: How " Glycerinated  Calf  Lymph " is "Manufactured."
CHAPTER  101: Dr. Klein's Microbic Experiments.
CHAPTER  102: "Small-Pox Virus Vaccine."
CHAPTER 103: Vaccination.
    1.—THE   "CEARA "   FABLE.
    2.—THE "FRANCO-GERMAN" STATISTICAL FRAUD
    Vaccination in Germany.
    Vaccination in Italy.
CHAPTER   104: Eminent Opinions on Vaccination.
PART 13: THE INOCULATION MANIA
CHAPTER  105: Anti-Toxin and Diphtheria.
CHAPTER  106: Continental and American Evidence Against Anti-Toxin.
CHAPTER 107: London Evidence Against Anti-Toxin.
CHAPTER  108: Evidence from the Registrar-General Against Anti-Toxin.
CHAPTER  109: Leicester's Evidence Against Anti-Toxin.
CHAPTER 110: What is Anti-Toxin?
CHAPTER  111:  Tuberculin and Tuberculosis.
CHAPTER 112: The "New " and the "Old " Tuberculins.
CHAPTER  113: Tuberculin Treatment.
CHAPTER  114:  Tuberculin Dispensaries.
CHAPTER  115: The " British Medical Journal " and Tuberculin.
CHAPTER  116:  The Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.
CHAPTER  117:  "ANAPHYLAXIS " ! ! !
CHAPTER  118: Sea Water and Diarrhoea.
PART   14. SUMMARY AND   CONCLUSIONS.
CHAPTER   119. A Thoroughly Impartial Inquiry Wanted.
CHAPTER  120. Leicester Evidence Reviewed.
CHAPTER 121.  Leicester Evidence—Its Teachings.
APPENDIX. Tables 41 to 56.
LIST   OF   STATISTICAL   TABLES. 1-56
TABLE    OF    GRAPHS
BOROUGH   OF   LEICESTER. SUMMARY   OF   VITAL   STATISTICS   FOR   YEAR   1911.

of Nennius, which is assigned to the year 796 b.c. The ancient name is perpetuated by a village called Leire, not far from where the river—now the Soar—takes its rise.

Within the precincts of Leicester Castle, the Castle " Mount" or " Mound," now very much reduced in height, is probably the oldest artificial work in the neighbourhood constructed by the native inhabitants, the Coritani. The "Mount" is supposed to be the original Celtic Caer, or Castle, from which the name Kaer-Ieir, Caer-lerion, Caer-Legria, Legra-ceastre, or Leicester, is derived.

The antiquity of Leicester is, therefore, beyond question, and, according to historians, not only King Lear and his youngest daughter, afterwards Queen Cordeilla, but also Kings Morvidus, Gorbonian, Arthgallo, Elidure, and many other of the pristine British Kings and Queens, either visited, were crowned, reigned, held their Courts, or were buried in this ancient City.

Prefect or Roman Governor, and both in excellent preservation.     These   and  other  remnants  of  a similar   character;   the   massive and imposing fabric of masonry called the " Jewry Wall" ; the "Milliare," or Roman milestone; the stone bases and   heads of columns, with a large number of other remains; Samian  ware;  glass and ornaments—all testify to the domination   and long-continued sway of Imperial  Rome.   "The Milliare," one of the most important of these relics, the  oldest  stone   inscription   known   in   Britain, is now in the Museum.   It is cylindrical in form, three feet six inches high, and twenty-one inches in diameter.    It was disinterred in 1771 by the side   of   the   Roman   "Via   Possata,"   or   "Posse Way."    It bears this inscription :—

"IMP. CAESAR, DIV. TRAIAN. PARTE F DIV.  TRAIAN HADRIAN, AVG.  PONT. IV., COS III. A RATIS II."

The translation is as follows: —" To thy Emperor and Caesar, the august Trajan Hadrian, son of the divine Trajan, surnamed Parthicus, grandson of the divine Nerva Pontifex Maximus, four times invested with tribunal power, thrice Consul. From Ratae. two miles."

From this it is not an unreasonable conjecture that the Emperor Hadrian  actually visited the city on his way to the North.   Besides the "Fosse Way," another of the principal roads constructed by the Romans, the "Via Devana," passed through the City.    The advancement of Leicester under the Romans must have been both continuous and rapid, for its name, Ratae, as one of the important stations in Britain, was published in Ptolemy's Geography at the beginning of the second century. Considerable evidence of Roman buildings has been found even outside the ancient city walls. Being situate on the " Fosse Way," several Roman Emperors or Generals, who afterwards assumed the purple, would certainly visit, or pass through, Ratae on their journeyings to the North and South of Britain.

CHAPTER 6. Norman period, a.d. 1068-1265.

When the Norman hosts assailed Leicester, the title of city, held (if we date from b.c. 844) for nearly two thousand years, appears to have been lost, possibly as a punishment for the bravery of the inhabitants and the stubborn resistance they offered to William the Conqueror, who took the city by storm in 1068, about two years after the Battle of Hastings. In the assault a large portion of the city was destroyed, along with St. Mary's Church. William handed the Government over to the tender mercies of Hugo de Grentemaisnil, one of the Norman adventurers.

Although applications have been made from time to time to the Government, the title of "city" has never been restored.

Even after the Conquest, Leicester continued to experience a troublous time. When

"...the mighty Conqueror,
By a mightier overcome!"

had passed away, a dispute arose as to his successor. Grentemaisnil, Governor of Leicester, favoured Robert Curthose, the Conqueror's eldest son and Duke of Normandy. William Rufus, the Red King, raised an enormous army, and the

CHAPTER 13: STUART AND COMMONWEALTH PERIOD, A.D. 1603-1714.

ON the accession of James I., in 1603, his Queen and two of their children passed through Leicester, on their way from Edinburgh to London. Prince Charles, afterwards Charles I. (then, only four years old), was at that time too weakly to bear the long journey, but he travelled through the town the following year.

In 1611, Leicester suffered from a severe out­break of the Plague. Infected houses were marked with a cross, business was practically suspended, and there, seemed to be no one with sufficient acumen or knowledge to cope with, or mitigate, the effects of the epidemic.

In 1612. King James visited Leicester for the first time, but subsequently he came on several occasions. In 1616 small-pox broke out in the town. Information was at once sent, to King-James, who was intending to pay a visit. His Majesty, however, although neither inoculated nor vaccinated, was not afraid, and came—in spite of the small-pox—and no serious consequences ensued.

An event which occurred at that visit is worth recording, as a peculiar instance of the administration of justice in those days. Nine women were

In   1792   the   Leicester   Navigation   Act   was obtained,  and  in  1794  two boats  arrived laden with   merchandise,   from   Gainsborough.     They returned  to Gainsborough with  wool and other commodities.

Leicester is a recognised and important agricultural centre. Fairs are still held at stated times for the sale of wool, cheese, horses, sheep, and cattle, for which products and animals the town and county have long been famous.

Leicester has been celebrated for its Hosiery from time immemorial, and one of the hosiery firms is the largest in the world. The introduction of machinery into this industry, early in the nineteenth century, in North Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, led to rioting and terror, and several of the " Luddites," as the malcontents were called, were brought to trial, convicted, and hanged at the "new drop" at Leicester, on 17th April, 1817, six being executed at one time.

In the same year (1817) the Savings Bank was established, and flourished until the crisis of 1847-48, which severely taxed its resources. It weathered the storm, and is now one of the most prosperous and useful institutions in the town.

In 1821 the town, which up to that time had been partially illuminated with oil lamps, was first lighted by gas.

In 1832 the Leicester and Swannington Railway was ready for traffic, being the second passenger railway opened in the Kingdom. Coal was first brought into the town by rail in that year from the Swannington Collieries,

CHAPTER 16. VICTORIAN PERIOD, 1837-1912'.

ALTHOUGH properly belonging to the Hanoverian Period, the reign of Queen Victoria was so long and glorious, so pregnant, with progress in every department of the country's history, that it has extended beyond the limits of her reign, and merits separate treatment.

With the more popular representation of the people, secured by the Reform Act of 1832, and the Municipal Corporations Act Of 1835, fresh impulse was imparted to the public life of the country at large, and especially to' the reformed Boroughs. In that general advancement Leicester naturally shared.

The advent of newspapers in the town also tended to the diffusion of knowledge. The "Journal" was published on 12th May, 1753 ; the "Herald" in 1789; the " Chronicle" in 1791; and the Leicestershire "Mercury" in 1836.

The " Advertiser" appeared on 1st January, 1842; in 1857 the "Guardinn" was started; whilst in the same year the "Chronicle" and "Mercury" were united. The "Midland Free Press" was removed from Kettering to Leicester in 1858. In 1872 the " Daily Post," the first daily paper, was issued.

Since that date other papers have been launched, and some discontinued. There are now three daily papers—the " Daily Post" in the morning, and the "Mercury" and the "Mail" in the evening. Another weekly paper, the "Pioneer," was started in 1900.

In these days of innumerable " excursions," it might be well to record that the system of cheap trips had its humble birth in Leicester. The Midland Counties Railway opened on 5th May, 1840, and the initial railway excursion in the world was a trip on 5th July, 1841, from Leicester to Loughborough, at a return fare of one shilling. That was organised by the late Mr. Thomas Cook, of Leicester, the eminent founder of the great firm of Thomas Cook and Son. From so small a beginning has grown the present gigantic excur­sion systems, with ramifications embracing the whole world. It is a reflection upon the excursion-loving public that a monument has not yet been erected to commemorate the achievement of the late Thomas Cook.

In 1843, the year of the disastrous failure of Clarke, Mitchell, Phillips, and Smith's Bank, a manufacturer named Brampton experimented with India rubber fasteners for gloves. He submitted his invention to Mr. Caleb Bedells, who, promptly recognising its value, also applied it to boots and shoes. This led to important results and enormous developments. Thus the world-wide Elastic Web industry was inaugurated at Leicester. It is singular that this article should have been applied to the coverings for both the hands and the feet.

In 1849 the Town Museum, on the. New Walk, was opened, and in the same year the Leicester Chamber of Commerce was established for the furtherance and extension of trade.

Another important industry was commenced in Leicester, about 1851, the year of the first great International Exhibition in London. A number of shoemakers settled here, and work commenced at premises in Cank Street, under a Northampton firm. When "riveting" took the place of sewing," an enormous business was founded by Mr. Thomas Crick, whose name, as the pioneer, will always be associated with this industry, and also with his benevolent bequest of alms-houses at the " Retreat," Great Glen. This industry has flourished so enormously that Leicester has not only the largest firm engaged in this trade, but has become the greatest boot and shoe centre in the world, over 40,000 persons being engaged in this business.

Appropriately, side by side with the shoe industry, Mr. Henry Davey founded that of "last" making, at Leicester, in 1750. The business then established in this article—so closely allied and practically a component part of shoemaking—has continued to grow, and now nourishes in our midst, under modernised conditions.

By an extraordinary coincidence the Hat and Cap industry was introduced about the same date, by Mr. Thomas Webster. Thus two industries providing coverings for the head and for the feet were practically established together at Leicester.

Engineering   works,  particularly   those   connected with the production of shoe machinery, are amongst the most extensive and famous, in the world.

Leicester became associated with the Chartist movement in its early days, and Feargus O'Connor, one of the pioneers, delivered an inflammatory address in the Market Place in 1838. Thomas Cooper, a Leicester man, and Republican writer, became its local leader. He was prosecuted and imprisoned, at Stafford, in 1842. During his incarceration he wrote the "Purgatory of Suicides." The, six points of the Charter were :—Manhood Suffrage; Vote by Ballot-; Annual Parliaments; Equal Electoral Districts; Payment of Members; and the Abolition of the Property Qualification. Three of these are now (1912) the law of the land, and it is possible that one or more of the other three will follow suit.

That gifted and brilliant literary genius, Thomas Babington Macaulay, was born at Rothley Temple, near Leicester, 25th October, 1800. It is said that he was not only, a writer of history at seven years of age, but he learned, and could repeat from memory, the whole of Milton's "Paradise Lost." His distinguished career as an orator in Parliament, and as ah author, historian, and poet, induced Lord Palmerston to offer him a peerage in 1857. He took the title of Lord Macaulay of Rothley, but enjoyed it only a brief period, for he died on the 28th of December, 1859, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, 9th January, 1860. It is a singular coincidence that he, being born near Leicester, should write his well-known, and oft-quoted, phillipic on smallpox, when referring to the death of Queen Mary from that disease. As an illustration of a signal error of diagnosis, and an example of medical uncertainty, it is worth quoting here. King William had been uneasy on account of the state of the Queen's health, and Lord Macaulay, in his History of England, Vol. TV. (1866 Edition), pages 116 and 117, wrote :—

"Sir Thomas Millington, who was physician in ordinary to the King, thought that she had the measles. But Radcliffe, who, with coarse  manners and little book learning, had raised himself to the first practice in London chiefly by his rare skill in diagnostics, uttered the more alarming words—small-pox. That disease, over which science has since achieved a succession of  glorious and beneficent victories, was then the most terrible of all the ministers of death. The havoc of the plague had been far more rapid; but the plague had visited our shores only once or twice within living memory, and the smallpox was always present, filling the churchyard with corpses, tormenting with constant fears all whom it had not yet stricken, leaving on those whose lives it spared the hideous traces of its power, turning the babe into a changeling at which the mother shuddered, and making the eyes and cheeks of the betrothed maiden objects of horror to the lover. Towards the end of the year 1694, this pestilence was more than usually severe. At length the infection spread to the palace, and reached the young and blooming Queen. She received the intimation of her danger with true greatness of soul. She gave orders that every lady of her bed-chamber, every maid of honour—nay, every menial servant— who had not had the small-pox should instantly leave Kensington House. She locked herself up during a short time in her closet, burned some papers, arranged others, and then calmly awaited her fate.
    During two or three days there were many alternations of hope and fear. The physicians contradicted each other and themselves in a way which sufficiently indicates the state of medical science in that age. The disease was measles; it was scarlet fever; it was spotted fever; it was erysipelas. At one moment some symptoms, which in truth showed that the case was almost hopeless, were hailed as indications of returning health. At length all doubt was over. Radcliffe's opinion proved to be right. It was plain that the Queen was sinking under small-pox of the most malignant type."

Three remarkable men of the Baptist Church exercised considerable influence and power in the moral, spiritual, and intellectual, upbuilding of Leicester, and their memory is imperishable :—

William Carey, who, raising himself from the shoemaker's bench, became a distinguished linguist, and the pioneer missionary   to India; Robert Hall, whose unrivalled oratory and burning eloquence attracted hearers from   London, who actually travelled by coach for the week-end long before the advent of railways; and James Phillippo Mursell, who for half a century championed the cause of the downtrodden and oppressed.

The work of those distinguished men is fittingly commemorated by a tablet, erected in1891, at Harvey Lane Chapel, the scene of their labours, and appropriately inscribed as follows :—

" This place of worship has been sanctified by the deathless ministry of three great men —

WILLIAM  CAREY,
1789-1793.
Expect great things — attempt great things.

ROBERT  HALL,
1807-1826. Mighty in words and in works

JAMES  P.  MURSELL, 
1826-1845.

An ensample to them that believe.
Remember them which spake unto you the Word of God ;
and, considering the issue of their life, imitate their Faith."

From the roll of illustrious men who have helped to mould the social and religious life of Leicester, four members of the Vaughan family (Edward T. Vaughan, and his three sons, Charles J., Edward T., and David J.) must not be omitted. They held in succession — with a brief break of twelve years — the incumbency at St. Martin's Church from 1802 to 1893. Their names will live in the memories of thousands who have benefited from their widely sympathetic and kindly ministrations.    The last of this noble quartet—David J., known as Canon Vaughan— voluntarily undertook the onerous and risky duty of visiting the Infectious Diseases Hospital at the time of the great small-pox epidemic in 1872, and brought spiritual comfort to the unfortunate patients there, without intermission, for the long period of more than thirty years. For that acceptable and self-denying service he is held in very high esteem, and that, of itself, constitutes an undying memorial to his honour.

He also, from his deep sympathy with the working men, and by reason of recognising their lack of educational facilities, in March, 1862, established the "Working Men's College." Many of those who availed themselves of the privileges thus afforded afterwards became leading citizens of the Borough. The founder saw this useful institution flourish, and a scheme propounded for the erection of a noble and imposing building on the site of the old County National School. He did not live to see the work completed, but the institution is most appropriately named after its founder. The memory of this noble and lovable man is perpetuated by the "Vaughan Working Men's College," the jubilee of which was cele­brated this year (1912).

Another Leicester worthy, who by reason of his great and good works deserves to be specially mentioned, was the Rev. William Fry, M.A., better known as Canon Fry. He was born in 1790, and died in 1877. He held successively the Curacies of Markfield (1824), Braunstone (1831), and Kirby Muxloe (1832-47). He was deeply moved by the lamentable and deplorable lack of education, and anxious to provide a remedy. His marriage in 1840 to Miss Isabella Moore—a wealthy lady—who not only sympathised with his ambition, but entered heartily into her husband's self-imposed task, enabled him to devote his time almost exclusively to educational work. He commenced to solve the problem by undertaking the personal training of masters, mistresses, and teachers, at a school erected for the purpose, as well as at his own house—which really became a training college. For many years he was consulted on all matters affecting the education of the young people of the town; indeed, he may be said to have become the Director of Public Education in Leicester. In the "hungry forties," long before we had any national system of education, Canon Fry gave his whole energies to the cause of the education of the children, and he was the principal promoter of the erection of most of the public elementary schools in the town prior to Mr. W. E. Forster's Education Act of 1870. Through his instrumentality the schools of St. John's, St. Matthew's, and those in Ashwell, Deacon, Kent, Knighton, and Laxton Streets were built and equipped. In 1856 a sum of £1,000 was presented to him in recognition of his educational services. He also took a very prominent part in Church extension, by aiding in the building of St. John's (1853), St. Andrew's (1862), St. Matthew's (1867), and St. Luke's. (1868). Most appropriately, Canon Fry was elected a member of the first School Board for Leicester. His devotion and industry were unbounded, and the value and memory of his work will long be cherished by many Leicester men and women, whose only opportunity for learning was provided through Canon Fry's liberality and enlightened regard for the welfare of his fellow-citizens.

Amongst other eminent men associated by ties of birth, family, or residence in Leicester or County are :—George Fox, Robert Herrick, Robert Burton, Samuel Johnson, Lord Byron, Colonel Fred Burnaby, Lord Kitchener, and last but not least, Professor Alfred Russel Wallace. Nor must we forget that the Biggs, Ellis, and Harris families have not only made their mark, and used their beneficial influence on the history of Leicester, but members of each have either represented the Borough or other constituencies in Parliament.

Leicester's growth may be gathered from the appended figures:—Its area in Roman times was about 130 acres; after the extension, in 1835, it covered 3,030 1/2 acres ; by a further extension of the Borough Boundaries, in 1891, it increased to 8,582 1/2 acres.

According to the Census of 1911, Leicester is fifteenth in size as to number of inhabitants amongst the ninety four largest towns of England .and Wales.

There has been a corresponding growth in Rateable Value and in Commerce, whilst the advancement of Science and Education has kept pace with both. Leicester's enterprise is emphasised by its possession of splendid Municipal Offices in a building regarded as one of the finest examples of Tudor architecture in England. Its public Free Libraries; its noble Museum and Art Gallery; its Council Schools, akin to palaces—all indicate its forward aim for educational facilities. It possesses large Markets, fine Public Baths, which, with the Gas, Electric Light, and Water undertakings, prove its endeavour to promote the public weal. It has constructed, at enormous cost, great Flood Works, with extensive Sanitary and Sewerage schemes to secure the better health of the people. Its magnificent Banks and fine modern Railway Stations minister to commerce. Ample provision has also been made for those painful, but unfortunately necessary, concomitants of civilised life—a Mental Hospital, a Workhouse, an Indigent Hospital, the Isolation Hospital, the free—now the Royal—Infirmary, Poor Boys' and Girls' Homes, a Cripples' Guild, and Convalescent Homes for Men and Women.

Its progress may be seen in its abundant open spaces and Public Parks ; its Monuments to men of light and leading ; its widened and improved Streets; its splendid means of communication, both by road and rail; the palatial Mansions of its leading inhabitants, and the colossal Manufactories of which it is able to boast. The numerous and beautiful Churches, Chapels, and Schools are evidence that Religious and Scholastic requirements are well provided for, while the fine buildings which comprise its Technical and Art Schools, combine to prove that Art and Science go hand-in-hand with successful commercial enter­prise.

Happy the people now living under such conditions, and signs of affluence, of health, of happiness, and prosperity!

That this ancient Corporation, strengthened by mutual ties of sympathy and friendship, realising the community of interest of all classes, may henceforth pursue, with firmer step, the various avenues of public usefulness and benefi­cence which continually open up in the path of enlightened Progress, will be the devout wish of ail who are proud to count themselves citizens of the Town of Leicester.

PART 2; LEICESTER'S   AWAKENING.

CHAPTER 17. A NOTABLE REVOLUTION.

THE foregoing all-too-brief historical sketch shows that Leicester has taken not only an important, but often a pre-eminent, part in the national life of the country; from the remote ages of the Ancient Britons; through the long centuries of the Roman occupation ; during the stirring, martial strife of the Saxon, Danish, and Norman periods ; and the no less pregnant struggles for liberty which characterised the Plantagenet, Tudor, Lancastrian, Yorkist, Stuart, and the earlier reigns of the Hanoverian dynasties. It has, however, been reserved for ancient, historic Leicester to renew her youth, eclipse her glorious past, and attain a yet higher position ; to be the Initiator and Prime Mover in achieving an even more notable revolution a revolution mightier and nobler, in the sense that its example does now, and will continue, still more in the future, to powerfully and favourably affect the health and the interests of a much wider circle of the human race than any of the memorable evolutions of its past history.

Leicester has furnished, both by precept and example, irrefutable proof of the capability and influence of Sanitation, not only in combating and controlling, but also in practically banishing infectious diseases from its midst. This affirmation is subject to certain qualifications. The effects of narrow, ill-conditioned streets; of imperfect drainage and improper dwellings; of circumstances of environment; and of inherited physical disability must, and will for a time, continue. These adverse elements are being gradually eliminated. Apart from those drawbacks, a town newly planned on the most up-to-date principles of space and air, and adopting the "Leicester Method " of Sanitation, could bid defiance not to small-pox only, but to other infectious, if not to nearly all zymotic, diseases.

Even for small-pox, not even the merest tyro among Jennerian votaries would now venture to claim, that vaccination could achieve all that sanitation has accomplished. This is self-evident, because even pro-vaccinists, of the most pronounced type, now supplement the Jennerian operation with the "Leicester Method" of dealing with the disease. They dare not, as aforetime, trust solely to vaccination. To do so would, on their part, be culpable, if not in the highest degree criminal, neglect.

CHAPTER  18. VACCINATION AND SMALL-POX,

THE introduction from Turkey, by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, of variolous Inoculation—then called "ingrafting"—in 1721, resulted in, the practice being almost universally adopted, until it became evident that, instead of moderating the prevalence of the disease, small-pox was more widely diffused by the operation.

In the " British Medical Journal," of 9th July, 1881, appeared the following letter:—

Whilst on a visit in the county of Dorset I was surprised to find on a gravestone In the churchyard of Piddletown the following memorial:—"In memory of George Jesty, who departed this life 23rd June, 1845, aged 63 years, youngest son of the late Mr. Benjamin Jesty, of Downshay, Isle of Purbeck, discoverer of the memorable vaccine inoculation." Afterwards I found in the churchyard of Worth Matravers a memorial stone with the following inscription-— ''Sacred to the memory of Benjamin Jesty, of Downshay, who departed this life 16th April, 1816, aged 70 years. He was born at Yetminster, in this county, and was an upright, honest man, particularly noted for having been the first person known that introduced the cow-pox by inoculation, and who, from his great strength of mind, made the experiment from the cow on his wife and two sons in the year 1774."

If this date can be relied upon, Jesty's experiment preceded Jenner's on the boy Phipps by 22 years. I was informed that Mr. B. Jesty was a large dairy farmer.

Yours faithfully,                                                             F. WHITWELL.

Shrewsbury, 20th June, 1881.

According to this, Jesty had practised vaccination in 1774, more than twenty years before Jenner's experiments in 1796. But Jesty used cow-pox, according to the dairymaids' belief that it prevented small-pox. Jenner knew that that idea was an error, and what he recommended was cow-pox produced by horse-grease. Dr. Pearson and others of Jenner's time used cow-pox. But Jenner (although knowing they were wrong) not only did not oppose its use, but allowed them to believe he approved, and appropriated to himself any supposed benefit derived therefrom.

Although over a century has elapsed since Edward Jenner, the Gloucestershire apothecary, obtained from Parliament £30,000 as a reward for his (supposed) discovery, yet from that time onward an ever-widening conflict has raged unceasingly as to the merits or demerits of vaccination.

Notwithstanding the innumerable failures of, and the disasters attributable to vaccination, indubitably proven, the language of the professional, financially-interested, and official supporters and apologists, remains now much the same as ever. Like the Bourbons, these strange protagonists appear to have learned nothing and forgotten 'nothing.

In 1798 Jenner wrote :—

" What renders the cow-pox virus so extremely singular is that the person who has been thus affected is for ever after secure from the infection of the small-pox; neither the exposure to the variolous effluvia nor the insertion of the matter into the skin producing this distemper." ("An Inquiry into the Cause and Effects of the Variolas " Vaccinae.")

Jenner repeated this statement, varying its form only with his frequently changing views, as to cow-pox, horse-grease, horse-grease-cow-pox, and again cow-pox (spurious or genuine), until he died in the greatest perplexity on the subject. Perhaps nothing can show the force of ingrained professional bias more than the astounding fact that as late as 1857 Sir John Simon (then Mr. Simon), as the Government's medical adviser, repeated and emphasised Jenner's absurdly erroneous contention, although not in exactly the same words, in his classic(!) "Papers relating to the History and Practice of Vaccination," on page 51. These were actually issued by the Government to the public, in an official Blue Book, even after the falsity of the statements was fully established!!

The completeness of the change that has come over the "spirit of the dream," in certain quarters, is abundantly shown by the fact that, whereas in Jenner's time re-vaccination was scouted as being ridiculous and superfluous, yet, as recently as 1904, a compulsory Revaccination Bill, originated by the Imperial Vaccination League, passed through its various stages in the House of Lords, but did not become law, as it was never considered by the Commons.

What, again, could more completely illustrate the irony of the present phase of the controversy, than the fact that both the hon. secretary of the Vaccination League (Mrs. Dr. Garrett-Anderson) and the now deceased hon. secretary of the Jenner Society (the late Dr. Francis T. Bond, of Gloucester,) have declared primary infantile vaccination alone to be not only unnecessary, but practically useless? Referring to the Act of 1898, and the increased infantile vaccination which it secured, they say that this:

"has not prevented the occurrence of a large and increasing number of outbreaks of small-pox, 11 chiefly among adults who have not been revaccinated. There were, for instance, recently, in eighteen months, no fewer than 480 separate outbreaks of small-pox in the United Kingdom, every one of which occasioned great expenditure of public money and considerable suffering. .. There is a growing opinion that, in consequence of altered social conditions and improved sanitary administration, it is not absolutely necessary to have infants of a few months old vaccinated, except in the presence of epidemic small-pox." (See letter in the "Times," 25th April, 1906.)

It is most unlikely that either the Imperial Vaccination League or the Jenner Society, both of which were inaugurated with a great flourish of trumpets, will long survive this significant declaration.

CHAPTER 19. PARLIAMENT AND VACCINATION.

AFTER various futile efforts to obtain general voluntary approval and support, Parliament was appealed to, and, following many delays, an Act was passed in 1840 to "encourage" the practice of vaccination. This was succeeded by an "obligatory " Act in 1853; by another Act in 1861; and by still more stringent compulsion in 1867. The latter is known as the principal Vaccination Act. In 1871 and 1874 other Acts followed, making the ring of compulsion close and secure.

Owing partly to agitation against this legislation, and partly to the small-pox pandemic which broke out in 1870, a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry was appointed in 1871. But just as Dr. Johnson, when reporting the debates in Parliament, as he said, "took care not to let the Whig dogs have the best of the argument," so those who appointed this Committee " took care of Vaccination" in a similar respect. The same, indeed, may, to a very large extent, be said of the Royal Commission of 1889-96.

The Parliamentary Committee of 1871 led to nothing, except the abolition of repeated penalties by the House of Commons. But the House of Lords, by eight votes to seven, refused to agree to that ameliorative clause; so that from 1871 to1898 the people of England endured the pain and indignity of being doubly oppressed and plundered by the haphazard vote of one irresponsible legislator!

In the "Anti-Vaccinator" of 2nd September, 1871, Mr. Pitman, the editor, refers to this incident, and quotes from the London correspondent of the "Scotsman" of 21st August, 1871 :—

" The House was so thin that it seemed a farce to divide, but a division was called. The bystanders counted 'noses,' when it was seen that parties were so evenly balanced that a bishop was the arbiter of vaccination in this nation at the present moment. The venerable Bishop of Chichester crossed the floor, and went into the lobby with Lord Redesdale."

It is affirmed that cabs were hurriedly sent in every direction to capture this additional and illustrious voter, but, however that may be, the outcome of the division decreed that this oppres­sive injustice should continue for yet another twenty-seven years.

CHAPTER 20. FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT.

WHEN the Penal Act of 1867 was passed, determined opposition immediately arose in Leicester, but at first this was limited to a very few persons, merely "a little cloud ... no bigger than a man's hand." Penal compulsion, in a matter so closely affecting the tenderest and deepest feelings of parents was regarded as a Poll Tax, of an even more obnoxious character than that which occasioned the uprising of 1381, since its effect was not only to be fell in every household and in every family, but a risky surgical operation was super-added, and ordained by law to be inflicted upon all children born into the world!

The Leicester Anti-Vaccination League was formed in 1869. The stalwart little band of pioneers, numbering less than twenty persons, laboured on, until they grew numerically to such an extent that, whereas in 1867 over 94 per cent. of the children born were vaccinated, in 1897 only 1.3 per cent, of the infants were subjected to the trying ordeal. And that low percentage of vaccinations in the last-mentioned year was arrived at in spite of—and perhaps, to some extent, as the natural outcome of—many thousands of prosecutions against defaulters. These were instituted under the oppressive Act of 1867, and resulted in the infliction of fines, the levying of distress warrants, and the commitment of parents to prison. Obviously, those figures demonstrate that the people of Leicester were following the lead of the Anti-Vaccination League, and that not one class only, but all sections of the townspeople, were equally resolute in their opposition and detestation of the hateful legal enactments.

The experience of the terrible smallpox epidemic of 1871-73, when many thousands of vaccinated persons contracted the disease, and several hundreds died as the result of the alleged "protection" (!) having lamentably failed in its hour of trial, produced in the minds of the thinking people of Leicester pronounced hostility against the blood-polluting quackery, which was found to be more baneful in its ultimate results than the disease it was supposed to prevent.

It may be taken for granted that the Cause of Parental Rights was materially aided by the stringent enforcement of the law. There is nothing which a Britisher resents more deeply than an encroachment upon his personal liberty. In defence of this liberty, and for the protection of the children, innumerable public meetings were constantly held year after year in all parts of the town.

It would occupy far too much space to refer to the early pioneers of the movement outside Leicester, or in detail to all the efforts put forward ; but amongst those who took a leading part in the local struggle, the following names may be mentioned -.—Messrs. Amos Booth, J. Cattell, S. Drinkwater, H. D. Dudgeon, C. Eagle, Wm. P. Fllmore, George Frith, J. Wallis Goddard, H. B. Halse, Elijah Jennings, F. W. Kemp, W. Lakin,  Jas. Leavesley, Joseph Leeson, E. Lester,  H. Matts, Jonathan North, John Potter, G. Saddingtbn, O. B. Stanion, J. T. Stephen, and Joseph Wright.

Active steps were taken in the Police Court to defend defaulters, and protest meetings were held on all occasions when distraint sales took place, or parents were released from prison. Demonstrations against the Acts of Parliament were of frequent occurrence, and full advantage was taken of all opportunities offered by debating societies to discuss the subject.

Mr. Amos Booth's energetic and self-sacrificing efforts are worthy of special mention. The fervid vigour of his speeches aroused considerable and widespread enthusiasm, and, although often criticised for the methods he adopted, his sincerity. and honesty of purpose were unquestioned and unquestionable. He did a work which few others could have accomplished, and that, too, in the early days of the movement, when it excited a great deal of obloquy and undisguised contempt from those of the so-called "superior" class—who had probably never studied the "subject. Mr. Booth's was a familiar figure in police courts up and down the country, he having appeared for the defence in several hundreds of cases, and I regret that his comprehensive knowledge was not placed before the Royal Commission.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION AND ELECTIONS.

In 1881 a very large number of prosecutions took place, 1,154 parents being proceeded against. There were 918 in 1882, and these summonses— totalling to more than 2,000—created a strong feeling in the town, and evidence was not wanting that it would soon make itself effective.

The vaccination question assumed great importance at all elections for public office. One of the earliest municipal contests where the subject was brought into special prominence was in East St. Mary's Ward, in 1882, and the following is a copy of a poster that was placarded all over the Ward :—

EAST   ST.  MARY'S  WARD.

MUNICIPAL   ELECTION,   1882.

The impending contest in the above ward will no doubt be very close, hut if principle guides the action of anti-vaccinators instead of party, the result is not doubtful. In October, 1876, Mr. Hughes, the candidate, speak­ing at a Liberal meeting, acknowledged that he had suffered severely from small-pox, although he had been vaccinated. He said:—" But if a gentleman like Mr. P. A. Taylor had sat day after day on a commission concerning the subject, and could not come to a certain conclusion upon it, he did not see how he could."

Mr. Taylor says, in the " Monthly Review," " that after examining the evidence upon which faith in vaccination was based, much to his own surprise he was led gradually to the conviction that the cherished system of vaccination was a mere delusion—a baseless superstition; that it afforded no protection from small-pox, etc., etc. goes on to say :—"So believing, I should have been a ward to conceal my opinion, but, far beyond this, I felt a special duty to atone for the mistake I had made in signing a report favourable to vaccination" (as a member of the Select Committee of 1871).

Mr Hughes told the same meeting that compulsion was hard to bear, and said :—" If a small fine were imposed they would soon find out who suffered most from small-pox."

On 27th October, 1879, Dr. Lankester said he would not pledge himself, and Mr. Walker declined to pledge himself to oppose compulsory vaccination. Now, in 1882, when Dr. Lankester and Mr. Walker know the anti-vaccinators can unseat them, they moderate their language, and, apparently to catch a few votes, Dr. Lankester says he would support the repeal of the Compulsory Vaccination Acts, not because of their injustice, but because evil follows in certain cases, and so many parents pay the 10s. fine. Evidently, from his language, Mr. Walker thinks anti-vaccinators ought to pay a little, but not quite so much as now. If Dr. Lankester's seat was as safe as the doctor's in West Mary's, he would probably hold the same language as Dr. Franklin; but he bends to the coming storm. There is no political crisis in this contest for the Liberal Party. If they lose the seats, they still retain their great majority in the Council. If ever there was a time when Liberal anti-vaccinators should lay aside party for principle it is now, when, if they do not vote for the Conservative candidates, who are pledged against compulsion, they have the opportunity to abstain from supporting a vaccinating doctor and his colleague, whose alteration of opinion on this question is only dictated by a fear of losing votes.  AN ANTI-VACCINATOR.

In the result, the Compulsionists were defeated by a decisive majority.

Considerable newspaper discussion followed as to the causes of defeat, and on 6th November, 1882,   the   following   letter   appeared,   amongst others, in the "Leicester Daily Post" :-

OUR FIRST FIGHT.

To the Editor.

Sir,—The results of the East St. Mary's voting showed that there is still some power left in bold and open appeals to the people in defence of family rights and parental freedom. Fines, distresses, imprisonment, and all the miserable paraphernalia of our opponents must in future be fought against in the ballot box, and with the votes of determined men. Existing leaders, or place men, who fail to recognise the situation, must be made to give way to truer representatives of the prevalent feeling.

In the choice of Town Councillors we neither want masters to ride rough-shod over us nor nondescripts to sit in meek silence while the child is torn from the mother's breast and vaccinated by force before her eyes, as is now openly threatened by our exasperated antagonists.

We are on our guard. Herbert Spencer's caution has taken effect, and over us the intriguing wire-puller has lost his power. The present victory was the victory of freedom—not freedom as understood by paid speech-makers, but the freedom for which the sons of Britain fought and bled long before our miserable local divisions rendered us a prey to the designing laws of overbearing centralisation.—Yours faithfully,

H. D. DUDGEON. 5th November, 1882.

CHAPTER 21. MR. P- A. TAYLOR, M.P., AND PARLIAMENT.

MR. PETER ALFRED TAYLOR became Member, of Parliament for Leicester in 1862.  At that time Mr. Taylor was a pro-vaccinator, but, owing to the widespread and growing feeling against vaccination among his constituents, he became a Member of the Select Committee on Vaccination, in 1871. He signed the Report of that Committee, but shortly afterwards, finding he had been deceived by the character of the evidence tendered, he looked into the subject for himself, with the result that he not only abandoned compulsory vaccination, but surrendered his faith in the practice itself. On 7th April, 1879, he stated in the House of Commons :—

" My opinion has "been so far modified that I could not now put my name to the Report of the Committee, which at the time was unanimously agreed to." He also said:—"I maintain that all the elements justifying compulsion on the part of the State are wanting in this instance of vaccination."

It is impossible to overrate the great services subsequently rendered by Mr. P. A. Taylor to the anti-vaccination movement. He exerted himself to the utmost to undo what he regarded as a fatal mistake in having signed the 1871 report.

On 19th June, 1883, he took advantage of an opportunity which unexpectedly presented itself, by moving the following resolution in the House of Commons :—

" That in the opinion of this House it is inexpedient and unjust to enforce vaccination under penalties upon those who regard it as unadvisable and dangerous."

To this an amendment was moved by Sir Joseph Pease, to the following effect:—

"That a Select Committee of the House be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether a limitation of the accumulation of penalties for non vaccination can be effected without endangering the practical efficiency of the Vaccination Acts."

This was withdrawn, and Sir Lyon Playfair  then moved :—

"That in the opinion of this House the practice of vaccination has greatly lessened the mortality from small-pox, and that laws relating to it, with such modifications as experience may suggest, are necessary for the prevention and mitigation of this fatal and mutilative disease."

The debate was carried on until a late hour, and when the division took place the result was :—

For Sir Lyon Playfair's amendment   286
Against      ------                              16
Majority -       -       -                      270

The minority of 16  (with tellers,  18)  were as follows :—

Arthur Arnold, Salford.
John Barran, Leeds.
R. P. Blennerhassett, Co. Kerry.
Jacob Bright, Manchester.
Thomas Hurt, Morpeth.
Sir Thomas Chambers, Marylebone.
Arthur Cowen, Southwark.
Joseph Cowen, Newcastle.
William Y. Craig, North Staffordshire.
Robert Ferguson, Carlisle.
John R. Hollond, Brighton.
Charles H. Hopwood, Stockport.
James Howard, Bedfordshire.
Henry Labouchere, Northampton.
Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Carlisle.
Thomas Roe, Derby.
J. E. Thorold Rogers, Southwark.
P. A. Taylor, Leicester.

It is interesting to note that at the time of writing (1912) two of the above named Members of Parliament still retain their seats in the House of Commons—viz., the Right Hon. Thomas Burt and Sir Thomas Roe—and both have been unwavering to the anti-vaccination cause through the long series of years which have passed since the incident just recorded. The last thirty years have wrought many changes in connection with the vaccination question, and those gentlemen may yet live to see the entire repeal of the existing Vaccination Acts.

An analysis of the voting showed that, although the minority were but a thirty-sixth part of the 652 members of the House, they represented one-ninth of the registered electors, and one-twelfth of the population of the United Kingdom.

A  long  correspondence   and   many   interviews between Mr. Taylor and the author ripened an acquaintance into a warm friendship, and it was with deep regret that I learned that circumstances had arisen which led to Mr. Taylor's retirement from Parliament in 1884. He, however, continued his support of the anti-vaccination movement until his decease, in 1891. No more honest politician or valiant defender of principles which he believed to be right ever represented a constituency in Parliament.

CHAPTER  22. WHOLESALE PROSECUTIONS—THEIR EFFECT.

PARLIAMENT having entrusted the administration of the Vaccination Acts to Boards of Guardians, it came to pass that compulsory vaccination formed a burning question, not only at Parliamentary, but at all local, and especially the Guardians', elections in Leicester. After many "skirmishes" and occasional victories, a "general engagement" took place on the subject in April, 1883, and this resulted in the return of a majority of Guardians who were pledged against compulsion. Some of these gentlemen proved false to their promises. After a preliminary encounter, the matter came up for final decision at a meeting of the Board, held on the 2nd October, 1883, when considerable excitement prevailed. The aged chairman was ill at home, but so determined were the pro-vaccinists to carry the day that the old gentleman was literally dragged from a bed of sickness to attend the momentous conclave. When the votes were counted—after a lengthy discussion—sixteen voted for prosecutions, and a similar number against. The chairman was persuaded to give his casting vote in favour of proceedings being taken. He returned home, but never recovered from the dire effects of being present on that agitating, eventful, and significant occasion. That fateful vote led to thousands of prosecutions, and during the period of that Board's existence—viz., from 1883 to 1886—no less than 2,274 summonses were issued.

Notwithstanding this adverse vote, the anti-compulsionists were in no wise discouraged. They first managed to secure a suspension of prosecutions until after the Christmas season of " goodwill to men." Then, on the presentation of the Vac­cination Returns in August, 1884, the occasion was utilised for a further trial of strength.

CHAPTER 23. THE POSITION IN LEICESTER.

AT the meeting of the Leicester Board of Guardians on 26th August, 1884, the Clerk produced a statement on the administration of the Vaccination Acts. (Table C, page 414, Fourth Report, Royal Commission on Vaccination.) The "Vaccination Inquirer," of October, 1884, states the Clerk explained

''that prior to 1873 no statistics were available. So far as 1873 and 1874 are concerned, the figures regarding the number gratuitously vaccinated were probably inaccurate, the fees paid to the medical officers being the only means he had of estimating the number, and those fees included re-vaccinations. For other years the return was Correct.
    Mr. Biggs, referring to the arrears, amounting since October last to 1,138 cases, said that in view of this extraordinary state of affairs they should take what might be called an extraordinary step. On some occasions the Local Government Board had been applied to by Guardians to say what they should do with respect to vaccination prosecutions, and in 1875 there was a person in Evesham who refused to have his child vaccinated. On that occasion the Local  Government Board condescended to forward a letter for the instruction of the Guardians......He thought, therefore, it was time the Local Government Board should give some authoritative opinion as to what was right for the Leicester Board to do. He moved that the Board appoint a Committee to draw up a memorial for presentation to Sir Charles Dilke, showing the state of affairs as regards vaccination in Leicester, and asking the advice of the Local Government Board thereon. Last year they had in Leicester no less than 996, and that evening they had submitted 1,138 arrears. He could not see why any member of the Board should refuse to vote for the resolution.
    Mr. Billings moved as an amendment that the Board direct the vaccination officer to institute and conduct proceedings, and enforce the full fine in all cases which are now or may be hereafter in default.

" Mr. Webb seconded the amendment.

" On division, Mr. Biggs's motion was carried by a majority of one."

The "Leicester Daily Mercury" of 30th August, commenting on this matter, said :—

" The statistics presented to the Guardians prove conclusively that the administration of the Vaccination Acts in this town has absolutely broken down. It is indeed a remarkable fact that whereas in 1873 of 4,446 children born 3,730 were successfully vaccinated, in 1883, when the number born was 4,819, only 1,732 came successfully through the operation. Moreover, in 1874 only seven remained unvaccinated, whilst last year the number was no fewer than 1,906. It may be that under the pressure of the law some of these 1,906 may submit their children to the operation, but this does not materially affect the question, for it is safe to presume that all who have faith in vaccination act up to it without waiting for the authorities to jog their memories.

". : . It is significant that since the last small-pox epidemic in Leicester, at which period the town was well vaccinated, public confidence in the law has diminished, while the trust of the people in the policy of immediate isolation, so successfully pursued by the sanitary authorities, has correspondingly increased."

In the "Leicester Daily Post" of 20th September, 1884, there appeared the following quotation from the "Lancet";-

"The anti-vaccinationists in Leicester now awaiting summonses are said to number three thousand. In view of the magnitude of the necessary legal proceedings, application has been made by the local authorities to the Local Government Board for advice in the matter. In the meantime, smallpox has made its appearance, and it is singular to learn, yet after all natural, and, we may add, creditable to the common sense of the townspeople, that vaccination has been resorted to in order to prevent it spreading. The precaution comes late, but it may be hoped not too late, to interfere with the experiment on a large scale to which so many inhabitants of the town have rashly devoted their children The mildness of the present epidemic and its comparative limitation, results almost exclusively due to efficient vaccination in other parts of the country, have much to do with the immunity hitherto enjoyed by Leicester.... We do not doubt that the Local Government Board will know how to uphold a sanitary measure as right as it is necessary, even while using such consideration as may be due towards offenders who are possibly misled rather than perverse. . . ."

The wishes of the Editor of the " Lancet" appear to be the authorities for his statements. They were thus disposed of in the Leicester Daily Post " :—

" We quote the above from the 'Lancet' in order that both sides in the vaccination controversy may be fairly heard; but it is impossible not to observe the errors into which the medical journal has fallen. In the first place, small-pox is not epidemic in Leicester, and has not been for years. Neither are the mildness of the recent outbreak here alluded to, and its comparative limitation, 'results almost exclusively due to efficient vaccination in other parts of the country,' for the infection was brought to Leicester from London, which enjoys the reputation of being well vaccinated. Moreover, if it be true that the pestilence strikes unvaccinated persons, how is it that the unvaccinated in Leicester have escaped, while the persons who have suffered were both vaccinated ? Were they 'practically unvaccinated,' though vaccinated? " Further, vaccination has not been resorted to in order to prevent the spread of the contagion—at any rate, so far as we are aware. On the contrary, the authorities have with commendable energy isolated the cases as they have occurred, and removed all who have been brought into close contact with the patients into quarantine at the Fever Hospital, which methods have proved successful in this instance, as they have in previous time. We do not say whether vaccination is a good thing or not. We simply point out the mistakes into which our contemporary has fallen."

A writer in the "Midland Free Press," of 20th September, said :—

" I am happy to think that the believers in vaccination—those who consider themselves 'protected' from small-pox by having undergone the operation, but who for all that are among the first to take alarm if small-pox makes its appearance—may now breathe freely. More than a fortnight has elapsed since the second case occurred in Leicester, and no other has been reported. The disease was introduced by a young man who had paid a visit of a few days to London; a boy in the same house sickened, and, although he had been vaccinated, he has suffered most severely, his life for several days being despaired of. Still both are now rapidly recovering, and the disease has again been stamped out. Thus all the evil prognostications indulged in by writers at a distance, as to the awful way in which small-pox would rage if it once appeared in unvaccinated Leicester, have proved unwarrantable."

Meanwhile, the following memorial was drafted and submitted on 2ist October, 1884, in accordance with the resolution:—

"The Guardians of the Leicester Union desire to lay before your honourable Board the extraordinary circumstances which have arisen in regard to the Vaccination Acts in Leicester.

" The paragraph contained in your letter of 4th September, 1883, relating to the Guardians' duties under Art. 16 of the Local Government Board's Order of 31st October, 1874, intimated that proceedings were to be taken so as to enforce conviction in each case of default under the Vaccination Acts.

" On 5th October, 1883, the Guardians, by the casting vote of the chairman only,  authorised their vaccination officer to take   proceedings against 996 persons who were at that time defaulters under the Acts.   The result of these prosecutions was to send 21 parents to prison, the sale of household goods distrained from 86 homes, amidst great disturbance and riot, necessitating the presence of a large police force, under the chief constable, for the maintenance of the public  peace, whilst nearly the whole of the remainder paid the penalties imposed by the  magistrates, only 82 out of the total 996 reluctantly allowing their children to be vaccinated under pressure of the law.

" The Guardians submit that the primary object of the law being the vaccination of children and not the prosecution of parents, that object is not attained by the proceedings which they have taken by your instructions.

" On the other hand, these numerous prosecutions tend to bring the administration of the law into contempt, and by inflicting great hardship they have in many instances excited the sympathy and indignation of the public.

" Some of the Leicester magistrates reluctantly impose penalties and express sympathy with the defaulters.

" The opinion largely prevails in medical and " other circles that a less rigorous administration " of the law would result in an increased number " of vaccinations.

" The Guardians object to be the instruments of carrying out a law which they believe is opposed to the spirit of the age, and they trust that they may be relieved from such duty, pending the probable repeal of the vaccination statutes.

" There is no small-pox in Leicester, and the few isolated cases during the past eleven years have been imported from so-called protected districts.

" The following is an extract from the annual report of the Medical Officer for Health for the borough for 1883 :—

Since 1873 up to the present time, an interval of eleven years, the town has enjoyed an almost complete  immunity from the   inroads of  the disease  (small-pox).   In the last seven years there have been no fewer than seventeen importations of small-pox into the town.     Not­withstanding this large number of importations, the disease has always been stamped out, and the  town thussaved from the distress and mortality which have hitherto accompanied its 'prevalence.'

"The Guardians wish to point out that the distress and mortality here referred to were prior to 1873, when vaccination was in full practice, while the means since resorted to with such uniform success have been isolation of patients, disinfection of their homes, with the adoption of general sanitary precautions, and in no case vaccination.

" They also wish to state that this success been  attained  in  the midst of  an  increasingly unvaccinated population.

" The enclosed return shows that the opposition now embraces more than half the population, only 1,732 being vaccinated out of 4,819 births for the year 1883.

" When   questions   put   upon   the   Vaccination Acts  have  been  submitted  to your  honourable Board, it  has been the   invariable custom  to refer  inquirers  to the letter addressed to the Evesham Board of Guardians in 1875.      The Leicester   Guardians feel that that letter is altogether inadequate to their present  inquiry, as it relates to one individual, whilst in Leicester the prosecutions already carried out since 1873, according  to  the enclosed return, amount to 2,679, and the same return gives 1,906 defaulters for 1883, in addition to the number accumulating, this year, making a probable total of 3,000 in all to be dealt with.

" Under the circumstances enumerated, the Board are of opinion that the intention of the framers of the Acts, as well as the requirements of justice and the public health, would be fully carried out if they instruct their vaccination officer not to proceed beyond the delivery of Notice A, and they respectfully ask that the instructions given them may be modified to that extent.

"The memorial was adopted unanimously."

On  this, the  "Midland. Free Press," of 25th October, observed :—

" We congratulate the Board on the judgment at which they have at length arrived. The case as they put it is clear and unmistakable, and we might say unanswerable. But what steps are the Local Government Board likely to take in the matter? The plain statement of facts contained in the memorial goes to prove the practical immunity of Leicester from small-pox, so long as the disease is not imported from London, Birmingham, and other well-vaccinated centres. In addition, we have the startling assertion that the opposition to vaccination now embraces a very large portion of the child population of Leicester, only 1,732 children having been vaccinated out of 4,819 born last year! The vaccination officer has repeatedly confessed his inability to overtake the arrears of work, to say nothing of the large number of fresh cases constantly added to the list, and as further prosecutions have been suspended for several weeks, pending the decision of the Local Government Board, it will be virtually impossible to up all the defaulters should such a course ordered, We, trust that this memorial will receive the serious consideration of the President of the Local Government Board, and that in this matter   Sir Charles Dilke  will  act upon   the dictates of common sense, and not at the behest of a few medical advisers of the Board.   Let him direct an official  inquiry to be  made  into the facts of the case as set forth by the Leicester Guardians, if he will; better still, let him come and see for himself what course is adopted in Leicester to stamp out small-pox—steps that have succeeded to an extent which has at one and the same time astonished and disappointed our local medical men.  The subject is one of world-wide importance; what has been done in Leicester may possibly be done in other towns—we see no reason to the contrary; and, therefore, we would  again urge that before an order is given—certainly before an order is sent here to recommence a useless system of persecution—a Government inquiry should be held, and a full report be made to the Local Government Board, on the subject."

It need scarcely be added that the Local, Government Board took little or no notice of the memorial,                                                                 

CHAPTER 24. LEICESTER MARTYRS.

It was but fitting that, whenever a Government inquiry respecting vaccination was held, the evidence of a town such as Leicester should be taken. Over 6,000 summonses had been issued against parents, who were brought before the Magistrates; and there had been 64 commitments to prison, including three mothers, all of whom were put in gaol; nearly 200 homes having been sold up under distress warrants, and between £2,000 and £3,000 being paid in fines and costs. It was inevitable that such evidence should occupy considerable time, and become an important factor in the entire case. Some of these imprisonments were for relatively long periods (one for no less than thirty days— ten days for each of three children). Many parents suffered great hardships; for, in addition to the fines imposed, the loss of time meant proportionate loss of wages, causing serious dis­comfort and unhappiness in many homes. One of the men, it is said, being of weakly constitution, had his death accelerated, if not actually caused, by his imprisonment. However this may be it is certain that all those prosecuted were of the most reputable, law-abiding classes.

To succeeding generations it will appear almost as a thing incredible that,  in one town,  in the very centre of England, towards the close of the nineteenth  century—the century of boasted freedom, of enlightenment, of the highest attainment of science,   and of civil and religious  liberty--more   than   6,000   honest,    law-abiding   citizen should have been hauled before the Magistrates mulcted in fines,  distraints, or imprisonments and otherwise ignominiously treated : for what?  Simply for protecting their helpless offspring from blood poisoning ;  from  hideous  contamination from  what  Dr.  Creighton says is a grotesque superstition;  from disease and possibly death.  One might well ask—Can it really be true that all this persecution happened?    Alas! the facts contained in the Summary of Proceedings and List of Imprisonments which follow tell their own sorrowful  tale  of  hardship  and  suffering.     For the sake of my native town, for the sake of our aw-makers, I would that these hideous traces of nineteenth century barbarity could be blotted out of the page of history and remembrance for ever!    The  proceedings  taken  under the  Vaccination Acts in the Borough of Leicester,  from  1868 to 1889, show the extent of the hardships endured by the people of Leicester to secure parental liberty.

SUMMARY.

Number proceeded against                     6,037
Number dismissed                                      997
Orders made (with Costs)                           984
Orders made (without Costs)                      131
Orders made  (total)                                1,115
Number fined,                                          3,651
Number to pay Costs as well as Fine           274
Amount of Costs where Orders were made               £197   2s.
Amount of Fines......£1,922   9s.
Amount of Costs in addition to Fines      -                £192   8s. 0d
Number of Distress Warrants issued, 193,
for Fines amounting to -      -              -                     £92 18s.   0d.
Amount recovered, with Costs      ...                         £76  4s.   0d.
Imprisonments or Commitments in default
                                        of payment ........                                64.
Total amount of Costs on Orders,  Fines,
Costs   with   Fines,   and   Proceeds   of
Distraint Sales......                                                  £2,388  3s. 0d.

[See Table I, page 415, Fourth Report, Royal Commission on Vaccination.]

NAMES OF PERSONS IMPRISONED UNDER THE VACCINATION ACTS IN THE BOROUGH OF LEICESTER. FROM 1869 TO 1884.

In addition to their fines, some of the above named defendants were also ordered to pay the costs.

It will be noticed that three of the number were mothers. All honour to the parents, both men and women, who, rather than submit the health of their children to the risk of the blood poisoners lancet, preferred the prison cell. William Johnson, whose name heads the list, was the first in the Kingdom to be imprisoned under the Vaccination Acts. Also, Henry Matts, the fourth name on the list, suffered the longest term of imprisonment under the old barbarous penal regime—namely, thirty days, being ten days for each of three children. These honours, therefore, belong to Leicester.

Thus was the small flame of resistance fanned by these harsh proceedings into a huge conflagration, which culminated in a demonstration in 1885, when copies of the Vaccination Acts were defiantly burned in public on that never-to-be forgotten occasion! The people of Leicester were thoroughly aroused. They organised what was described as the largest and most impressive demonstration that has ever been witnessed within its boundaries. It took the form of a national outburst against the cruelties attendant upon the, enforcement of compulsory vaccination. Factories' and warehouses were closed, and the townspeople gave themselves up to a general holiday, in order to participate in, and show their sympathy with, the project on hand.

CHAPTER 25.  THE GREAT LEICESTER DEMONSTRATION.

CONSIDERABLE newspaper correspondence preceded the Demonstration, and, amongst other letters, the following was published in the " Daily News," of Monday, 23rd March, 1885:—

VACCINATION.

[To the Editor of the "Daily News."]

Sir,—As you have published several articles reporting the progress of the revolt against compulsory vaccination at Leicester, where the prosecutions of the 5,000 Nonconformists ordered with a light heart by the Local Government Board are now being carried out, I venture to inform you that arrangements are nearly complete for holding, on the 23rd inst, a monster public demonstration as the most fitting mode of declaring unyielding opposition to this intolerable injustice. Already about forty anti-vaccination leagues, and more than fifty towns where the opposition, though widespread, is as yet unorganised, have signified their intention of taking part in the proceedings, and both Ireland and Scotland are to be represented. The large number of letters of sympathy which are every day pouring in from our deeply-injured and much-harassed countrymen, as well as from the Continent and the United States, show that the revolt is much wider than our opponents are willing to allow. Amongst the writers are professors of universities, members of legislative assemblies, jurists, doctors of medicine, statisticians, and eminent publicists, who have made this subject the special object of their investigation, and who, so far from seeing a benefit in Jenner's prescription, find in it only failure, disease, death, and the instrument of an unspeakable tyranny. A distinguishing feature in the communications which have reached our committee is the number of those who certify to have had healthy children injured or killed by what is said to be the benign operation of vaccination. That our fellow-countrymen will assist us in the righteous struggle in which we are engaged is no longer a matter of doubt, and if we can obtain impartial treatment on the part of the press-hitherto too unfairly denied us—we are certain of an early and peaceable victory. I beg to enclose programme. On behalf of the Leicester Demonstration Committee,

J. T. BIGGS, Member of the Leicester Board of Guardians.

A full account of the Demonstration will be found in "The Vaccination Inquirer," for April, 1885, and from this the following extracts are taken :—

"As soon as the Demonstration was projected, offers of assistance were received from all parts; of the United Kingdom, the London Society and the National Anti-Vaccination League cordially co-operating. An attractive programme was prepared, the railway companies were approached on the subject of travelling facilities, a procession was arranged for, and Leicester decided on making holiday on the occasion. Soon it was seen that nothing was wanting save fine weather to make the Demonstration a complete success, and Monday, 23rd March, 1885, memorable in the annals of the town.

"PREPARATIONS.

" The headquarters of the Demonstration were at the Temperance Hall, and long before midday it was a scene of intense activity, most of the banners and flags being fitted up there. Of these there were some 700 large and small!  Many were tastefully designed, and the colours were as various as the inscriptions. Northampton bore witness that 'Compulsory vaccination is a usurpation of unjust power,' and ' Brighton that 'Truth conquers.'  Kent, with its rampant horse and legend Invicta, set ' Parental affection before despotic law,' and demanded 'The repeal of the Vaccination Acts, the curse of our nation,' clenched with the adjuration, 'Men of Kent, defend your liberty of conscience; better a felon's cell than a poisoned babe.'  Kettering pronounced for 'Freedom,' and Halifax that 'Jenner's patent has run out.' Middleton set on high 'The crusade against legalised compulsory medical quackery'; whilst Oldham called ' for ' Health and liberty,' and exhorted beholders to 'Be just and fear not,' assuring them, truly enough, 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.' Finsbury and Banbury united in the advice,  'Stand up for liberty!'  Southwark called for 'Entire repeal and no compromise,' and Barnoldswick for 'Sanitation, not vaccination.  Truro pertinently asked, 'Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?'   Keighley, ever to the fore, said, 'We fight for our homes and freedom.' 'Earlstown asked for 'Pure blood and no adulteration,' and Lincoln averred, 'We protect our offspring.  Eastbourne advised, 'Cease to do evil, learn to do well.' St. Pancras sent 'Cordial greeting and sympathy to the heroic martyrs of Leicester.' There was a well-appointed hearse, with a child's coffin inscribed, 'Another victim of vaccination,' and the observation of Sir Joseph. Pease in the House of Commons, 'The President of the Local Government Board cannot deny that children die under the operation of the Vaccination Acts in a wholesale way.'  A banner bore the prayer, 'From horse-grease, calf-lymph, cowpox, and the Local Government Board, good Lord deliver us.' Another had 'A dead swindle---a vaccination death certificate.'  The origin of cow-pox in horse-grease was illustrated by a mangey horse with bandaged heels and a heifer on a dray. The varieties of virus, indifferently and ignorantly used for vaccination, were represented in six labelled jars, the original Jennerian grease being inscribed, ' Tis grease, but living grease no more.'  Mr. Golding, of Leytonstone, marched with a model of Holloway Prison, wherein he had recently suffered incarceration for saving his child from vaccination. There were numerous banners with piquant local allusions, which would require more or less interpretation outside Leicester. A fine banner from Belgium bore the inscription in French,   'Neither penalties nor prison can prevent vaccine from being a poison and the vaccination laws an infamy.—Dr. Hubert Boens.'  On the other side was a babe in a cradle and a doctor with an ass's head vaccinating it."

The   weather   was   propitious—a   finer   spring day could not have been conceded to order.

One of  the friends present sent to the "Inquirer" this account of

 " THE   PROCESSION.

" From several descriptions kindly sent us, we select the following :—

" Leicester, Monday, 23rd of March, 1885, will be a golden day on the page of memory—a birthday of liberty. It should be known as the " Children's Day.

" After weeks of bitter wind, a beautiful day of  sunshine and calm. After years of grim fighting for freedom, a festival of mustering thousands, come together for mutual encouragement from battles past and for battles yet to come.

" From half the counties of England, from scores of towns and cities, men of all professions, of all trades, bound in close bonds of sympathy, not by tens and twenties, but by hundreds and thousands met. Thank God for such proof that England has a conscience still, and a manhood and womanhood too that cannot and will not be trampled in the dust by the hoof of tyranny.

"Flags everywhere; music everywhere; rosy faces everywhere , happy laughter everywhere— a perfect carnival of common merriment and common sense, all converging toward the great market-place of the fine old stalwart town which is earning the gratitude of the age and the admiration of posterity once again.

" Presently from that fine market-square streams out a vast procession.   And what a procession! A procession of thousands on thousands of 'Law­-breakers,'   without  a  single  policeman in the ranks to keep order; and at the end of the day not even the rumour of a child knocked down or a pocket-handkerchief lost!

"What a procession! we say again. Not a procession of shams, like a Lord Mayor's Show. No pasteboard imitations of Middle-Age heroes, but true warriors of a real and living chivalry ; and, better still, with radiant wives; and, better still, their blooming children—wives who have said 'Good-bye' with streaming eyes when barred doors closed between them—perhaps more than once, or twice, or thrice ; and little children, who have knelt down to 'Pray God bless dear papa,' and then burst out into childish sobs for the dear, absent father—sleeping on 'Cross's plank-bed' in his stony prison cell.

" But all that is forgotten to-day, except that here and there in the great procession a motto on a banner, or a model of a prison-room, with its oakum and other attractions, may be seen.

" We meant to count the flags and banners, expecting to finish the task in an hour or so, but the numbers got mixed after two or three hundreds, and we gave up the task.

"We formed another good resolution—that we would write down all the mottoes—but once again we broke down utterly. Here are some samples, however :—'Those that are whole need not a physician,' 'Keep your children's blood still pure,' 'What you sow you shall also reap,' 'Who would be free themselves must strike the blow,' ' Stand up for liberty,' ' Dare to be a Daniel,' 'Liberty is our birthright, and liberty we demand,' ' Oppressive laws make discontented peoples,' 'Rachels are weeping for their children all over the land,' 'The mothers of England demand repeal,' etc. Then there were the artistic banners, which would require the assistance of art to bring them before 'the eye.  One of the first was a group well known to thousands of our readers, representing a skeleton vaccinating an infant in its mother's lap, while a policeman grips her uplifted hand—the mother's face being full of agony and the babe's face of infantine unconsciousness—while the skeleton and the officer of the law are grinning with horrid expressiveness—a life-size enlargement of a design by Mrs. Hume. Another fine banner was the medical bubbles which have burst one after the other in the past century or two. An immense Irish harp, in gold on a green banner, was conspicuous ; so were oscores we cannot describe ; and so were other scores which bore the names and sometimes the arms of towns and cities throughout the country.

"Perhaps not the least part of the amusement was created by the trollies and carts containing 'tangible things, like diseased cows and horses, showing that a supply of 'lymph' might still be had without dealing with the foreigner—a great comfort to the faculty, this piece of news, no doubt, in case of a possible blockade in these days of rumours of war. Of course, there was an opposition doctor, who sniffed both at horse and heifer, and proudly bestriding his own donkey, offered 'Pure moke lymph' at the figure of 'a guinea a dose.'

Other trollies contained 'furniture seized for blood-money,' showing that the State had effected a compromise, and that somebody was sleeping without a bedstead, and sitting down to dinner (if he had one) without tables and chairs, instead of baby being vaccinated. One trolly appeared to have negotiated the loan of a gallows and scaffold from the county gaol for Dr. Jenner's sole and particular use ; and the execution was carried on without the slightest hitch, about every twenty yards through some miles of streets, amid strong manifestations of popular approval. To recur a moment to the banners, we should mention a fine one from the Scottish National Society, with the thistle and lion, and the motto, 'Nemo me impune lacessit.' Another good banner bore the words, 'Revolt against Bad Laws is a Christian Virtue and a National Duty.' Another on a large scale was inscribed, 'Vaccination tyranny defeated in Jersey four times—1874, 188l, 1884, 1885' ; and another too truly declared, 'It is not small-pox " you are stamping out, but human creatures' lives.

" Doctors riding cows and holding on by the tail, and mothers at upper windows clasping their infants, while policemen were trying to commit a legal burglary at the keyhole in the street below, were also conspicuously enjoyed.

" Then there were waggons and carriages of various kinds, loaded with parents who were fighting or had fought the battle of pure blood against experimental butchery upon their defenceless little ones; and crowding great vans with their bright, happy faces, or riding on ponies, or carried in arms, came large deputations of the five or ten thousand 'infantile law-breakers,' to whose honour the day was devoted, looking so fresh, and wholesome, and free from blemish, that many and many a warm heart must have cursed the horrid tyranny which threatened them with a peril worse than an enemy's siege of Leicester. Well might they hold up banners with 'We will never surrender!' over their darlings' heads.

" Well might the drummers nearly beat in the heads of their drums as the bands filed by—one after the other at necessary intervals—playing  'The March of the Men of Harlech,' or Bruce's address to his army, 'Scots Wha Hae wi' Wallace Bled,' and other fine inspiriting tunes.

" So, with 'banners before them, banners, behind them, banners to right of them, banners to left of them, and banners above them—hung out from topmost windows from side to side of street after street as far as eye could reach in every direction so rode the enviable children of Leicester, waving their own tiny bannerets and cheering with delight—on a day they will cherish the memory of when their rosy faces are wrinkled with another three score years, and their sunny locks are grey—and when 'the great dragon' (whose discomfiture they saw on Monday well painted on a banner of St. George) has long been slain.

"We need not recite the names of the streets and squares through which this wonderful procession passed.  Suffice it to say that its many thousands, after some two hours sturdy marching, marched into the great market-place and grouped themselves'—so far as a rather close squeeze would allow of grouping—around the platform erected for the occasion, beside which Mr. William Tebb, of London (who had taken a leading part in the mustering of delegates from all corners of England, and in other respects assisting in the triumphant success of the day) was seated in a carriage with Mrs. Tebb, Col. Earle, Mr. and Mrs. Gibbs, and other friends."

MEETING IN THE MARKET-PLACE.

After proceeding round the town, the procession assembled in the market-place, and every street and avenue leading thereto was densely packed by seething multitudes of humanity, the number present being variously estimated at from 80,000 to 100,000 people. Even this huge figure would have been considerably increased, but, true to the prejudice which prevailed against anti-vaccinators at that time, the railway companies—although repeated applications were made to them—all refused to run special trains for the occasion. "The Vaccination Inquirer" proceeds :—

"On a platform in front of the Corn Exchange" sat the leading representatives of the movement. Councillor Butcher, of Leicester, was called to the chair, and, addressing the immense audience, said he thought those who were opposed to the Acts might be well satisfied with the Demonstration they had organised. He had seen a good many demonstrations in Leicester, but never one to surpass the present in numbers and intelligence. Many present had been sufferers under the Acts, and all they asked was that in the future they and their children might be let alone. They lived for something else in this world than to be experimented upon for the stamping out of a particular disease. A large and increasing portion of the public were of opinion that the best way to get rid of small­pox and similar diseases was to use plenty of water, eat good food, live in light and airy houses, and see that the Corporation kept the streets clean and the drains in order. If such details were attended to, there was no need to fear small pox, or any of its kindred ; and if they were neglected, neither vaccination nor any other prescription by Act of Parliament could save them. (Cheers.)

" Mr. William Young, secretary of the London Society, then moved—'That the principle of the Compulsory Vaccination Acts is subversive of that personal liberty which is the birthright of every free-born Briton ; that they are destructive of parental rights, tyrannical and unjust in operation, and ought therefore to be resisted by every constitutional means.'This Mr. Joseph Brown, of Dewsbury, seconded, and the resolution was carried with vociferous applause.

"Mr. Ewing moved a resolution empowering the chairman to sign a petition for the repeal of the Compulsory Acts. Mr. Hope Hume, of Torquay, seconded the motion, which was carried by acclamation.

"The vast audience, led by the united bands, then sang 'The Cause that is True,' written for the occasion by Mr. Louis Breeze, jun. Mr. J. T. Biggs produced a copy of the Vaccination Acts, which was suspended from iron bars and burned, and the ashes cast to the winds. Cheers were then given for Messrs. P. A. Taylor, J. A. Picton, A. McArthur, and Amos Booth. The proceedings terminated with the singing of the National Anthem. As the concourse broke up, a few adventurous spirits seized the effigy of Jenner, and tossed it about. Two constables secured it, and threw it down the staircase under the Exchange. Hardly had they turned their backs when the dummy was again produced and tossed afresh. A second time the constables entered the crowd, and, having secured the 'Doctor,' solemnly marched him off to the police station, minus his head, which had disappeared, and could not be found.

"At five o'clock several hundreds of the visitors had tea in the Temperance Hall, which was handsomely decorated for the occasion. Congratulations were universal as to the success of the Demonstration, and the admirable organisation whereby it had been effected ; Mr. J. T. 1 Biggs, treasurer, and Mr. G. H. Ellingworth, secretary, of the Leicester League, being especially commended by those who knew the labour, 'forethought, and skill involved in so great an undertaking.

" Mr.  Israel  Hart,   the  Mayor,  and  the  Chief Constable of Leicester watched the marshalling of the various detachments prior to the starting of   the   procession.    At  the   close   of   the   proceedings, the Chief Constable expressed his satisfaction with the orderly course of the day's proceedings, to which, it is needless to say, his own sagacious arrangements had largely contributed.

"EVENING MEETING.

" In the evening a public meeting was held in the Temperance Hall, under the presidency of the Rev. T. Page Hopps, who was supported on the platform by Mr. Enoch Robinson, M.R.C.S., Dukinfield ; William Tebb ; Colonel Earle ; W. L. Beurle ; Alfred Milnes, M.A. ; William Young ; Jabez Hunns ; George S. Gibbs, Darlington; G. R. Skipworth; Gaistor; T. Cragoe, Truro; H. Brummitt, Lincoln; Dr. Spencer T. Hall, Blackpool;. G. W. Ibbotson, Dewsbury; W. T. Martin, Lewes; H. Weston, Sheffield; B. Thorpe, Middleton ; E. Heywood, Manchester; J. Sheard, Nottingham ; Dr. E. J. Crow, Ripon ; Miss Jessie Craigen, London; Philip Luck, Eastbourne ; C. Pocock and C. J. Harris, Brighton; A. Feltrup, Derby; G. Newman, Gloucester; G. J. Wilson, Boston; Councillor Burgess, Norwich; B. T. Birch, King's Lynn; W. E. Snell, Edinburgh ; Hope Hume, Torquay ; Mr. Jeffery, of the Keighley Guardians (who went to York Castle for one month); Alderman Windley; Councillors Deacon, Butcher, Lennard, and J. Green; Messrs. Deacon, Finn, F. Taylor, W. Carr, W. Baum, J. Allen, J. T. Biggs, J. Spurway, J. Leeson, J. Leavesley, B. Grimes, W. Wells, and J. Boughton (members of the Leicester Board of Guardians) ; Rev. J. Moden, W. Stanyon, T. Wright, W. F. Bramley, Dr. Lakin, J. Ewing, A. Moulds, W. P. Ellmore, Leicester, and many others.

"Proceedings commenced with singing 'The Cause that is True.' The chairman was cordially received, and having addressed the meeting, Mr. W. Stanyon moved—'That the Compulsory Vaccination Acts, which make loving and conscientious parents criminals, subjecting them to fines, loss of goods, and imprisonment, propagate disease and inflict death, and under which five thousand of our fellow-townsmen are now being prosecuted, are a disgrace to the Statute Book, and ought to be abolished forthwith.'

" The Rev. J. Moden seconded.

" In supporting the motion, Mr. Tebb remarked:—Schiller says only great questions arouse the profound depths of humanity, and I venture to say that the question which has called us together this evening belongs to that category. The Demonstration which we have witnessed to-day could only have been aroused by a deep conviction in the justice and righteousness of our cause ; and, if I am not mistaken, it will help forward the work of emancipation wherever this odious and indefensible tyranny exists, and will leave a broad mark in the history of our time. . . . When our victory is won, we may rest assured that we shall have shaken the foundations of other tyrannies besides vaccination ; for injustice and cruelty are linked together in more ways than one, and in the downfall of this superstition we shall feel that we have become a freer, healthier, and happier people.                                                              

" Mr. Alfred Milnes, M.A., also supporting the motion, said :—I can assure you it gives me very geat pleasure to come here and take part in this splendid meeting. Not merely because one seems to breathe a purer atmosphere in coming to this, the head-centre of revolt against what I look on as in every aspect a wicked and intolerable law, but chiefly because here in Leicester a man gets rid at once of all the mass of sophistries with which this matter of compulsory vaccination has been overlaid. Here, at last, one comes face to face with the question in its plain, broad issues. . . We are not met here to-night to ask for any man's toleration. For my own part, toleration is a word I detest; and I wish that some revised version would give us a reading, Who art thou, to tolerate thy brother?  We ask for no man's toleration, and we plead for no man's pity; we are met to-night to demand the birthright of free citizens—equality before the law. (Cheers.) . . . The glorious words, 'Be just and fear not,' will stick in our throats and die still-born upon our lips when, eye to I eye with childhood's innocence and childhood's purity, we try to utter them again as in the days before we sold our conscience at the bidding of the law, and so fell lower than the brutes who love their young. . . . Men of Leicester, will you not stand faithful and determined between the cradles of your little children and the power of such men as Marson? (Loud shouts of 'Yes,' 'We will.') . . .. The day is breaking. Through good report and ill report will you not hold out a little while? (Loud cries of 'We will.') Thanks, I am answered, and in your answering tones I hear the doom of an unrighteous law. (Prolonged cheering.)

"Mr. Enoch Robinson, M.R.C.S., in supporting the motion, said it seemed to him an outrage on common sense that, after all the efforts made to raise the people out of ignorance and superstition, there should be an Act of Parliament to keep their minds down on one point to the level occupied 160 years ago. . . . When the law is repealed we shall witness a marvellous transformation, not only in the disuse of vaccination by the people, but in its repudiation by the intelligence of the medical profession ; for many know, as we do, that vaccination, as a defence against small-pox, is one of the grossest superstitions that ever afflicted the human mind. " (Cheers.)

" The resolution was carried unanimously.

" Mr. Thomas Cragoe, Truro, moved—'That this meeting expresses hearty approval of the action taken by those Leicester Guardians who have opposed the prosecution of parents under the Compulsory Vaccination Acts ; also of those Magistrates who interpret the law reasonably and humanely; and hereby records the determination to support only those candidates at Parliamentary and other elections who pledge themselves to vote for the repeal of the Compulsory Vaccination Acts.' (Applause.)

" I come from a remote corner of the Kingdom, where the great arteries of politics hardly reach, but there the popular feeling is decidedly adverse to the Vaccination Acts. . . . Bishop Temple, speaking at Derby a few weeks ago before the Purity Society, observed :-'If ever there was a movement born of the people, fostered by the people, and spread by the people, this temperance movement was one. Speaking of purity, it was a pity the. Bishop did not raise his voice against pollution by law—that pollution against which Leicester has this day spoken in unmistakable fashion

"With many sturdy clouts and whacks,
Leicester at last will beat the quacks."

" Mr. George S. Gibbs, of Darlington, in seconding the motion, observed :—Vaccination is taken as established and unquestionable, and silence is the rule for its defence. ... If the sacred mystery of vaccination be exposed, what may not follow? We have broken that silence today, and now is the time to take advantage of open ears to show how flimsy is the base on "which this poisonous superstition exists.

" The motion was put and carried unanimously. "The proceedings closed with singing the hymn written by Mrs. Giant for the occasion :—

"Brothers in heart united
Raise we our voice to-day,
Now let our vow be plighted
To sweep this law away."

''The hymn was sung to a fine organ-accompaniment to the tune, 'Wait till the clouds roll by.'

"CONFERENCE OF  DELEGATES.

"On Tuesday morning a conference of delegates was held in Waterloo Hall. Mr. F. D. Askey, of Highgate, was called to the chair. There were from seventy to eighty delegates present.  A general discussion on the movement, in which the chairman; Mr. Jeffery, Keighley; Councillor Burgess, Norwich ; Mr. Snell, Edinburgh ; Messrs. G. Newman, Gloucester ; Stapley, Gledhill, Kenworthy, G. B. Skipwortn, Heywood, Alfrey, Miss Craigen, and others took part, and the appended resolution was passed unanimously :—

"That this representative meeting of delegates from the Metropolis and from over fifty leagues instituted for obtaining the repeal of the laws which enforce the practice of vaccination under penalties of fine and imprisonment, pledges itself to use every legal and constitutional means to attain the end for which these societies were formed, and to persevere in this agitation until that object has been achieved. We would strongly urge upon Parliament and our several representatives in the House of Commons the total and immediate repeal of these unwise and oppressive laws, futile for all good, and fertile of much evil; which violate the rights of conscience, and unwarrantably interfere with the sacred rights, duties, and responsibilities of parents in protecting the health of their own children ; and which weaken in the mind of the community that loyalty to our institutions, and that respect for the law of the land, which it was once the special duty of the Legislature to confirm and strengthen. We also hereby express our sympathy with, and our determination to support, those conscientious persons who are or may become the victims of these harsh and cruel laws. We call upon all Boards of Guardians, in the exercise of that discretion which the law gives them, to abstain from prosecutions which inflame popular passions, and create a wide and ever-widening sympathy with those whose conscience compels them either to evade the law or openly to revolt against it. We appeal to our fellow-countrymen and countrywomen everywhere to countenance and aid us in this righteous struggle for the disestablishment and disendowment of a practice which is not only no security against small-pox, but which, as many of us know by bitter experience, poisons the blood of our children, and implants in their constitution the fatal seeds of disease and death, and violates that right of self-control over the person which " is one of the ancient rights of the English citizen.

"' We invite the press throughout the land to give publicity to this resolution, and to open their columns to the free and fair discussion of this pressing and momentous question.'

"Great satisfaction was expressed on all sides over the splendid success of the Demonstration, and an earnest desire that it might be repeated "elsewhere. Dr. Spencer T. Hall, of Blackpool, aged seventy-three and infirm, was overcome with emotion when speaking of the events of the preceding day. His tears, he said, were tears of joy and gratitude in having lived to see the vaccination question attain its present position. He had been vaccinated at two years of age, and very seriously injured ; but at fourteen he had a severe attack of small-pox, which was followed by improved health. Far rather would he have small-pox than be vaccinated. He had paid fines  for all his children. In his long and wide experience he had never seen such evil results from small-pox as he had seen from vaccination.

" Councillor Burgess proposed a vote of thanks ; to Mr. Biggs and other Leicester friends.

" Mr. Biggs, in response, said the thanks he coveted was imitation. Let them return to their respective towns and convert them to the condition of Leicester."

Numerous letters and telegrams were received from all parts of the world, the senders includ­ing :—P. A. Taylor, Brighton ; G. H. Hopwood, Q.C., M.P., London ; J. Allanson Picton, M.P., London ; The Hon. Auberon Herbert, Welwyn ; H. D. Dudgeon, Quorn ; J. J. Garth Wilkinson, M.D., London; Prof. Alex. Wilder, M.D., New Jersey, U.S.A.; J. Pondey, M.D., Philadelphia; H. Bergh, New York ; Prof. J. Emery Corderre, Montreal; Dr. P. A. Siljestrom, M.P., Stockholm ; Dr. C. Sandborg, Christiana; Dr. Scheuermann, Basle; Th. Bruckner, M.D., ex-President of the Anti-Vaccination Societies of Switzerland, Basle; Dr. Ch. Pigeon, Nievre ; M. Eugene de Masquard, St. Cerain ; Dr. E. Weber, Cologne ; Herr Augustus Zoppritz, Stuttgart; T. L. Nichols, M.D., London ; Prof. Mayor, Cambridge ; Dr. A. Vogt, Professor of Hygiene, Berne ; Prof. Kuyper, Rector of Free .University, Amsterdam ; Dr. Oidtmann and Count ;Hompesch, Berlin, Member of Reichstag; Theodore Poppe, Artern, Saxony; Carl Griebel, Meran, jTyrol; Jos. Ed. Schmid, Annathal, Bohemia; Fr. Konig, Artern, Saxony ; Dr. Bilfinger, Stuttgart; Gustavi. Weidner, Cologne; P. Butterdrodt, Hildesheim ; Gustavus Parthenay, Saxe-Coburg (in the name of the National Health Association).

Accounts of the proceedings in connection with the Demonstration were published all over the country, but I need only refer to two. In a leading article, extending to more than a column, in its issue of Tuesday, 24th March, 1885, the " Leicester Daily Post" said :—

"The most striking feature of yesterday's demonstration in Leicester was undoubtedly its numbers. It is necessarily difficult to form a thoroughly reliable estimate of the tens, or rather scores, of thousands who yesterday either crowded the market-place during the dinner hour, or attempted to gain admission without success. Nor is it by any means easy to compute the enormous number who thronged the square a couple of hours later during the meeting.  However wide may be the guesses at truth on this subject, upon one thing all must be practically agreed. Yesterday's demonstration was certainly, in every respect, one of the largest ever witnessed in the Borough of Leicester. . . . The extraordinary display of yesterday afternoon must be regarded as by far the greatest and most representative demonstration against  the Vaccination Acts ever witnessed in this country. . . Nor can there be a doubt as to the meaning: of both the procession and the gatherings. Whatever else they may or may not do, they supply one more proof that the opposition to compulsion is steadily, though silently, gathering force in Leicester—that the already formidable dead-weight of passive resistance is gradually becoming overpowering. Many causes have unquestionably combined to create this revolt against the law. But the principal are not far to seek. Probably the most powerful of all is the growing local conviction that in Leicester, at all events, vaccination is now the greater (not the lesser) of two alternative evils. . . . Until the Local Government Board devotes as much attention to improving the hygienic conditions as it now does to the unpopular protective of vaccination, it is impossible that one of the most infectious and hideous of the zymotic diseases can become extinct."

The "Times" of the same date contained the following statement:—

"The widespread opposition to the enforcement of the compulsory clauses of the Vaccination Acts which exists in Leicester culminated yesterday in a great demonstration, which was carried out very successfully. The position which the inhabitants of the town have assumed with regard to this question is due to a variety of causes. At the present moment there are over 5,000 persons being summoned for refusing to comply with the law. The total number of the summonses issued in the year 1884 only reached seven, or a little over one summons in every two months, while at the present moment forty-five summonses are being heard and disposed of every week. But even the disposal of forty-five defendants every week is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the case, and the defaulters and the objectors increase faster than the cases can be dealt with. The last decade has witnessed an extraordinary decrease in vaccination, but, nevertheless, the town has enjoyed an almost entire immunity from small-pox, there never  having been more than two or three cases in the town at one time. A new method for which great practical utility is claimed has been enforced by the sanitary committee of the Corporation for the stamping out of small-pox, and the chairman of the Committee has gone so far as to declare that small-pox is one of the least troublesome diseases with which they have to deal. The method of treatment, in a word, is this:—As soon as small-pox breaks out, the medical man and the householder are compelled under penalty to at once report the outbreak to the Corporation. The small-pox van is at once ordered by telephone to proceed to the house in question the hospital authorities are also instructed by telephone to make all arrangements, and thus, within a few hours, the sufferer is safely in the hospital. The family and inmates of the house are placed in quarantine in comfortable quarters, and the house thoroughly disinfected. The result is that in every instance the disease has been promptly and completely stamped out at a paltry expense. Under such a system the Corporation have expressed their opinion that vaccination is unnecessary, as they claim to deal with the disease in a more direct and much more efficacious manner. This, and a widespread belief that death and disease have resulted from the operation of vaccination, may be said to be the foundation upon which the existing opposition the Acts rests."

The result of this Demonstration was momentous! At the next triennial election of Guardians, in 1886, the traitors were dismissed, an over­whelming majority of members being returned pledged to vote in opposition to compulsion.

The subject was very soon introduced to the newly-elected Board, and on 4th May, 1886, after a debate, the compulsionists were routed by twenty-seven votes to eight. And thus ended the tyranny initiated by the previous Board, but which, doubtless, in the end did more to defeat than to establish compliance with the law.

Since 1886 the Guardians chosen have been uniformly antagonistic to compulsory vaccination. On 30th April, 1889, the policy of non-compulsion was once more affirmed by thirty-one votes against three.

The Guardians sent up a number of petitions against compulsory vaccination, they carried on a lengthy correspondence, and pursued an unflagging struggle with the Local Government Board. There is no need to give details of these occurrences, as they are all forcibly summarised in the principal memorial, presented by the Guardians to the Royal Commission.

PART    3.  PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY  INQUIRY.

CHAPTER 26.  MR.  J.  A.   PlCTON,  M.P.,   AND  THE   GOVERNMENT.

AT various interviews with the late Mr. James Allanson Picton, then M.P. for Leicester, I pressed upon him the desirability of moving in the House of Commons for a Royal Commission. Others joined with me in the representations made, and eventually, having recognised the justice of the request, Mr. Picton consented to the proposal. On 5th April, 1889, he moved the following in Parliament: —"That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Vaccination Acts, also into the condition, as regards the prevalence of small­pox or otherwise of any towns or districts in which the Guardians have for two years or more failed to prosecute for refusal to vaccinate, and likewise into the system of compulsory notification, isolation, and quarantine, as carried out in Leicester and elsewhere ; to take evidence as to the present state of scientific and medical opinion on the effects of vaccination ; to inquire into the nature and causes of popular objections to vaccination, where such exist; and to report whether any change in the law, and, if so, what change, is, in their judgment, desirable."

Mr. Picton gave the House an exhaustive review of events which had occurred since the last inquiry, that of 1871, and referred to the severe epidemic of that year, notwithstanding the assurance of witnesses who appeared before that Committee, that the administration of vaccination was almost perfect throughout the land. He alluded to England, Scotland, and Ireland, and also to the rejection by the House of Lords of the clause to abolish repeated prosecutions ; and, further, he dealt with the Sheffield epidemic, and Dr. Creighton's article on "Vaccination" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The Member for Leicester proceeded :—

"Dr. Lawson Tait was not an anti-vaccinist, but, in a paper read at Birmingham in 1882, he said that zymotic diseases were absolutely preventable by securing fresh air, pure water, and abundant light. Many towns had shown what might be done by sanitation to drive away the disease of small-pox. In Leicester for nearly seventeen years they had found that sanitation, compulsory notification of contagious diseases, quarantine, and disinfection were sufficient to guard the town against disease. In 1872 they had a great deal of vaccination in Leicester and a great deal of small-pox, while in 1888-89 they had scarcely any vaccination and absolutely no small-pox.    All his constituents asked was that impartial and experienced men should go down to Leicester and judge for themselves.

"In conclusion, Mr. Picton said that he had shown that the Committee of 1871 had its most important  recommendation  rejected  in  another place ; that the Committee of that date was not alive to the startling-proofs which were afforded by the repeated failures of vaccination to protect society as distinct from individuals ; that popular uneasiness; was growing; and that to a large extent  it  was  justified  by the  facts  and  the official statistics ; that prosecutions were becoming a scandal; that the Leicester experiment of seventeen years, up to the present time successful, showed  that  freedom from small-pox did not ; depend upon, vaccination ; and that medical men were not agreed upon the safety of the operation ;  and he therefore moved  for an  inquiry by a body impartially constituted—perhaps legal minds would be best able to weigh the evidence —not with the object of registering any foregone conclusion,  but  to  collate   and  weigh   all  the evidence bearing upon the question.

" Dr. Farquharson said that, although an uncompromising advocate for vaccination, he seconded the motion for a Commission of Inquiry, which might well be presided over by one of Her Majesty's judges. Inquiry would promote the cause of truth, and he did hope it would reach the stage of finality, and so get rid of agitation.

"Mr. Ritchie, President of the Local Government Board, said Mr. Picton had always taken an  intelligent interest in  the vaccination question,  and if the arguments against vaccination were always as temperately put forward as those of the hon. member,  he should have no reason to complain.   But he knew it was not so, and that the mind of the country, and especially of the working classes, was excited by a mass of literature and an immense number of statements which contained false propositions, which perverted facts in the most barefaced manner,and drew a picture of the effects of vaccination, which,  in his opinion,  fully accounted for the fact that the vaccination laws were perhaps regarded in many quarters with a very considerable amount of dissatisfaction."

After speaking upon the invaccination of syphilis, vindictive prosecutions, Hayward's case, and repeated penalties, Mr. Ritchie eulogised the report of Dr. Barry, on the Sheffield epidemic, by saying :—

"A more able and exhaustive report was never laid before the House. He recited at length the summary of the report supplied by Dr. Buchanan, ending with the assertion that the figures from Sheffield were of the most conclusive character, and that vaccination as a protection against small-pox was never more completely vindicated. The demand of the hon.  member for Leicester was for an inquiry. To grant an inquiry would no doubt seem to imply to some extent that there was a doubt as to the efficacy of vaccination. As far as the authorities at the Local Government Board were concerned, no such doubt existed. Every inquiry had demonstrated that vaccination was one of the greatest blessings ever vouchsafed to mankind.  Still he could not shut his eyes to the fact that, in consequence of the strenuous efforts of the anti-vaccinators to distort and misrepresent facts, and the undoubted impression they were making on the public mind, it might perhaps be desirable to grant an inquiry. Certain questions connected with the operation of vaccination might be usefully inquired into by a body of gentlemen who could not be suspected of being tainted with the prejudices of the Local Government Board. Other questions connected with the supply of lymph, and the manner in which public vaccination was conducted, Would likewise be proper subjects of investigation. The Government had, therefore, determined to appoint a Royal Commission, which, among other things, would carefully consider how far sanitary precautions might take the place of vaccination. The Government could not accept the terms of the resolution, but hoped that the terms of  reference to the Royal Commission would be sufficiently comprehensive to satisfy the hon. gentleman The Commission would be composed of men whose opinions would carry great weight in all quarters.  The Government had come to this decision not because they had the slightest doubt of the efficacy of vaccination, but because the state of public opinion required that a thorough investigation should be made into the whole question. He trusted that the conclusion at which the Government had arrived would be satisfactory, not only to the member for Leicester, but also to those who, not agreeing with that hon. member, still thought there was ground for inquiry."

Sir Lyon Playfair followed with a characteristic speech. He said the inquiry of 1871 was thorough arid impartial. He alluded to the "Leicester Method," and compared Leicester with Leipzig. After touching upon vaccination in Germany and other countries, he remarked that he had said enough to show that vaccination had a splendid influence over this cruel and mutilating disease. He contended that there was no justification for inquiry arising from any failure of vaccination, but he agreed it was better to have an inquiry because the truth would come out."

Sir W. Guyer Hunter, Mr. Thomas Robinson, the Right Hon. James Stansfield, Sir J. Pease, Dr. Cameron, Mr. A. O'Connor, Mr. Cremer, Mr. F. Charming (now Lord Charming), and Mr. T. Fry took part in the debate.

"Dr. Cameron said there was one reason for granting an inquiry which had not been mentioned, and which amply justified the course adopted by the right hon. gentleman, and that was the enormous strides which science had made since the passing of the Vaccination Acts."

The above digest of the proceedings in the House of Commons, on 5th April, 1889, is taken from the report which appeared in the "Times" of the following day.

Although all parties were satisfied that an inquiry should be held, the Government would not accept the terms of the resolution. But that did not matter. It was evident from Mr. Ritchie's speech that the supposed favourable nature of Dr. Barry's report on the Sheffield epidemic had largely influenced the Local Government Board, and through them the Government. It is passing strange that this famous Sheffield Report has now been utterly discarded and cast aside. Like the mythical deaths of the Frenchmen and Germans in the Franco-German war—a story which had no foundation in fact—so the bolstered-up figures in this precious report have been found to be unreliable. As a prop to vaccination, it is veritably of an unsubstantial character, and, in fact, as I shall show later on, rotten to its very core. The speeches of pro-vaccinists during the debate under notice prove that they, too, were confident—as well as Mr. Ritchie and the Local Government Board—that vaccination was to be vindicated at last! It is only another example of how near to the edge of a precipice people may live, and yet remain oblivious of their danger. Whatever else may be said of the Royal Commission, its appointment undoubtedly sealed the fate of vaccination, although, like all superstitions, the practice may be a long time expiring, but pass away it assuredly will.

OPINIONS OF  THE  LEADING MEDICAL ORGANS.

Commenting on the decision of the Government, the "Lancet" said, in its issue of 13th April, 1889, inter alia :—

"It is about as rational to investigate the merits and value of vaccination as a security against small-pox as it would be to question the utility of lifeboats, or Davy-lamps, or fire brigades. A few accidents and drawbacks mar the glory of every discovery and device for the mitigation of human calamity, but the benefits remain, and make history a very much more cheerful and creditable thing than it would otherwise be. ... The rarity of small-pox, the large protection so far of anti-vaccinationists and their families by the very operation which they disparage, make it easy for them to be misled and prejudiced against vaccination. . . . Those who cannot see the overpowering argument in favour of vaccination in the common facts of everyday experience, in the diminished mortality from small-pox in the community generally since vaccination was established by law, . . . and who have no regard to the extreme slightness of any drawbacks to this amazing achievement, will not be readily convinced by a few more or less vivid illustrations or dogmatic conclusions of a new Royal Commission. . . . We must not heap Pelion on Ossa in the shape of argument against prejudice, but will conclude with the hope that the Government will be exceedingly careful in the selection of persons to constitute the Commission. We entirely agree with Mr. Picton and Dr. Farquharson that there should be a legal and judicial element in the Commission—a judge for president—to secure that the evidence shall be real evidence; but with this qualification the Commission should be representative. By all means let the anti-vaccinationists be well represented ; but at the same time they must not have all their own way. . . . We are in many respects only now at the very threshold " uf some of the most important questions of "human liberty in civilised communities."

The "British Medical Journal," of the same date, remarked :—

"As far as vaccination itself is concerned, the evidence which will be given before the Commission can only result in establishing the practice on a firmer basis than " before. Since the issue of the Report of the Select Committee in 1871, such a mass of accurate and reliable statistics has accumulated, both in this country and abroad, . . . that the report, comprising, as it must do, all the most recent data, and the opinions of many of the most able authorities and experts, will, we anticipate, form a most valuable work on the subject. For these reasons, the decision of the Government deserves to be commended. . . . In conclusion, we may express the hope that as an inquiry has been decided upon, the whole question will be thoroughly threshed out and definitely settled, so that an agitation which greatly unsettles the mind of the people, and leads them into severe danger, may receive a quietus from the irresistible logic of ascertained facts. We cordially agree with Sir Lyon Playfair 'that if it were not for popular prejudices it would not be necessary to have an inquiry,' but, under existing circumstances, we wholly approve of the step taken."

CHAPTER 27. THE   ROYAL   COMMISSION   ON   VACCINATIONS---IT APPOINTMENT, CONSTITUTION, AND REFERENCE.

THE appointment of the Royal Commission in 1889 was in reality forced upon the Government of the day by the stern necessities of the case. Popular feeling in some important centres was growing into a dangerous intensity, owing largely to numerous injuries and deaths which the upholders of vaccination were compelled to admit had been caused by the practice, and the still larger number of instances in which the parents and relatives of deceased or mutilated victims laid the blame at the door of vaccination. It was almost inevitable under these circumstances that a Commission should be appointed, for, despite a brutal law, very frequently savagely administered, resistance to and abstentions from allowing the operation to be performed were so common, that vaccination itself then bade fair to become, at no distant date, to all intents and purposes obsolete. It was hoped—and, indeed, believed—that the Royal Commission would soon reinstate vaccination in public favour, but the opposite turned out to be the case.. Had the evidence been so strongly in favour of vaccination as expected, who can believe that the final Report of the Royal Commission would have been delayed until its deliberations had covered the long period of over seven years?

It has, of course, been commonly assumed that the Commission appointed by Queen Victoria was impartially constituted. But of its original fifteen members not one was recognised as an avowed anti-vaccinist, and only four of the members were surmised to be opposed to compulsion. Had strict impartiality been the intention of the Government, seven of the strongest representatives on each side would have been selected, under the presidency of a disinterested chairman.. For a considerable time, in consequence of its strongly biased composition, the anti-vaccinists hesitated as to whether they should, or should not, actually altogether ignore the Commission.

The following were the terms of reference to the Commission :—To inquire and report as to—

(1)    The effect of vaccination in reducing the prevalence of, and mortality from, small-pox.

(2)    What means, other than vaccination, can be used for diminishing the prevalence of small­pox ; and how far such means could be relied on in place of vaccination.

(3)    The objections made to vaccination on the ground of injurious effects alleged to result there from ; and the nature and extent of any injurious effects which do, in fact, so result.

(4)    Whether  any,   and,   if  so,   what,   means should be adopted for preventing or lessening the ill   effects,   if   any,   resulting   from   vaccination; and whether, and, if so, by what means, vaccination with animal vaccine should be further facilitated as a part of public vaccination.

(5) Whether any alterations should be made in the arrangements and proceedings for securing the performance of vaccination, and, in particular, in the provisions of the Vaccination Acts with respect to prosecutions for non-compliance with the law.

CHAPTER 28. LEICESTER AND THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

THE appointment of the Royal Commission1 was successively brought to the notice of the three public authorities of Leicester—the Town Council, the Board of Guardians, and the School Board---each of which passed resolutions and appointed deputations to appear before the Royal Commission.

The Town Council led off, on 28th January, 1890, with the appended resolution :—"That in the opinion of this Council it is inexpedient and unjust to enforce vaccination under penalties upon those who regard it as unadvisable and dangerous."

At the next meeting, on 25th February, 1890, a further resolution was passed :—

"That the Mayor, with members of the Council who, as past Mayors, have had experience of the working of the vaccination laws, be appointed a deputation to appear before the Royal Commission to present the resolution adopted by the Council at the last meeting in reference to compulsory vaccination ; also that the names of Mr. Biggs, Alderman Windley, and the Town Clerk be added to the deputation."

The deputation appointed attended accordingly, and presented these resolutions on 4th February, 1891.     (Fourth  Report,   Royal  Commission,  page 150.)

The Guardians followed suit, and on 4th February, 1890, unanimously adopted a compre­hensive and dignified memorial, and passed a resolution appointing a deputation to present it to the Royal Commission. It was duly presented on 4th February, 1891, and, on account of its importance, is given in extenso in the next chapter.

The School Board completed the business by adopting a resolution on 3rd March, 1890, and appointing the chairman, James Ellis, Esq., M.P., to present it, which he did on 4th February, 1891. The School Board resolution read as follows :— "That in the opinion of this Board it is inexpedient and unjust to enforce vaccination under penalties upon those who regard it as unadvisable and dangerous, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Royal Commission." (Fourth Report, Royal Commission, page 156.)

Brief as was the examination of the chairman of the School Board, it was sufficiently long to show the Commission the great and growing difficulty in obtaining locally sufficient pupil teachers, owing to the stringent regulations of the Education Department insisting on their vaccination.

After the examination of Mr. James Ellis was over, the Guardians' deputation was received.

CHAPTER 29. LEICESTER GUARDIANS AND ROYAL COMMISSION.

ON 4th February, 1891, Messrs. Joseph Leeson, John Thomas Biggs, and Lionel Percy Chamberlain attended before the Royal Commission — Lord Herschell in the chair— and the following account of the proceeding is taken from the Fourth Report, pp. 162-5:—

"13,290. Chairman : You, gentlemen, are respectively ex-chairman, a former member of, and clerk to the Leicester Board of Guardians?

" Mr. Leeson : Yes.

"13,291. You present to the Commission the resolutions adopted by the Board of Guardians?—

"Yes ; I have here an abstract of correspondence and resolutions of the Guardians of the Leicester Union relating to the administration of the Vaccination Acts for the period from 1868 to 1889, and it was the wish of the Guardians, if it pleased your Lordship and the Commission, that the clerk should read the introduction to the Commission

"Mr. Chamberlain : The first resolution I will read is as follows :—

'On 4th February, 1890, at a meeting of the Guardians, Mr. Councillor Biggs attended, and having presented the extracts and papers prepared from the records and minute books of the Board, the Board unanimously resolved that they should be presented to the Royal Commission by a deputation.

"The history of the subject in Leicester is as " follows :—

"The Guardians of the Leicester Union respectfully present to the Royal Commission on Vaccination the records of their administration of the Vaccination Acts in the Borough of Leicester. In doing this they would observe that it is no exaggeration to say that the name of Leicester is more prominently associated with the agitation against compulsory vaccination than that of any other town in the United Kingdom, or probably in the world. It would, however, be an error to assume from this circumstance that the enforcement or practice of vaccination had to any great extent been omitted or neglected until recent years. In no other town has the Board of Guardians, as the vaccinating authority, more fully responded to the successive requests of the Poor Law Board, or subsequently yielded a more implicit obedience to the expressed wishes of the Local Government Board, in promoting the encouragement or enforcement of the Vaccination Laws.

"It is true that Dr. Buck, the first Medical Officer of Health, in his report on the sanitary condition of the Borough in 1851, ascribes an epidemic of small-pox which occurred in 1845 to the neglect of the Board of Guardians in carrying out the first Vaccination Act which was passed in 1840. After referring to the remarkable and general agreement of 'medical and scientific persons' as to the power of the 'happy discovery' of vaccination by the 'immortal Jenner' to prevent small-pox, and the obstacles thrown in the way of the successful working of the Vaccination Acts, he writes at page 5 of the Health Report for 1851 thus :—

'When the Legislature declared that the blessing of this sanitary enactment should be made operative in every Union in the Kingdom, we find that in 1842, considerably more than two years after the passing of the Act, the Board of Guardians, after frequent deliberations, came to the conclusion that it was inexpedient to carry out the provisions of the Vaccination Act in Leicester; and as a not unnatural consequence of thus dealing with the Vaccination Act, we find that in the year 1845 small-pox appeared as an epidemic in the town, and in six months proved fatal to no less than forty-one individuals.'

[Here follow copies of letters which passed between the Poor Law Board and the Clerk to the Leicester Board of Guardians in the year 1845, showing the steps which had been taken by the Guardians for the administration of the Act of 1840, and the concluding remark of which, in a letter from the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, was :—"I am instructed by the Commissioners to thank you for your communication, and to express the satisfaction of the Commissioners with the steps taken by the Guardians."]

"It was not until 1853 that an Act was passed making vaccination compulsory.

" This Act of 1853 was further amended by an Act in 1861 to facilitate prosecutions, but there are no records to show whether prosecutions actually commenced (in Leicester) until after the passing of the Act of 1867. This Act (1867), which is now cited as the 'principal Act,' not only amended but consolidated all the preceding Acts. Yet it failed to fully realise the expectations of its promoters. It was discovered that the appointment of vaccination officers was optional and not obligatory. To remedy this defect in the Act and more rigorously enforce vaccination, an amending Act was passed in 1871, the year of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Vaccination.

"The transfer of the duties of the Poor Law Board to the Local Government Board necessitated a further Act of Parliament to explain the Act of 1871. Under this Act of 1871, which referred to the Poor Law Board as executive authority, it was possible for Boards of Guardians to evade their responsibility to the Local Government Board, which had succeeded to the authority of the Poor Law Board. Hence the Act of 1874, which established the authority of the Local Government Board in vaccinal matters over Boards of Guardians.

"Notwithstanding the permissive character of the Act of 1867, the Leicester Board of Guardians, with a ready complaisance, appointed Mr. Maskell as Vaccination Officer on 28th July, 1868. His appointment was renewed annually until 1872, when he was permanently appointed, and such appointment confirmed by the Local Government Board.

" The  effect  of  this  appointment in  securing infantile vaccination is apparent on comparing Table A with Table B.  These tables may be further compared with Table C, which shows the great decline of vaccination in recent years. These important returns  (Table C)  were first presented to the Board of Guardians in 1884, and they have since been moved for and supplied in each succeeding year until 1888, when the last return was published.   (The tables were handed in.   See Appendix 2., Table A, B, and C) There has been a subsequent return since this was issued, which is included in Table C.

"Following closely upon the appointment of the Vaccination Officer in July, 1868, a spirit of opposition to compulsion was manifested in the town, and prosecutions commenced even at this early date. This appears from the fact that at a meeting of the Guardians on the 3rd November, 1868, on the application of Mr. Maskell, the Vaccination Officer, the Board resolved that he 'be empowered to take the necessary steps to procure a compliance with the provisions of the law.'

" On the 23rd November, John Garner, and on the 4th and 8th December, 1868, George Saddington, were summoned before the Magistrates. These two cases were dismissed, owing to the uncertainty of the Magistrates as to the meaning of the law. On the 15th January, 1869, Selina Allsop was summoned, and her case was dismissed.  But William Johnson was, on the same date, fined 20s. or fourteen days imprisonment, and he went to prison. On 15th March, 1869, three others were summoned before the Magistrates. One case was dismissed, one paid a fine of 20s. which was imposed, and the other, Joseph Smart, went to prison for fourteen days.

"Strong feelings of indignation were expressed in the town when these first prosecutions and imprisonments took place. It was these prosecutions that led to the formation of a League in Leicester in opposition to the compulsory law.

"The conflict thus started proceeded with varying degrees of intensity, until in 1881 and 1882 the elections to the Board of Guardians began to turn on the question of compulsory vaccination. During the years 1882-83 the question was very much agitated, and in 1883, at the election of the first triennial Board of Guardians, it became the most important question of the hour. Meanwhile the prosecutions had grown from two only in 1868 to 1,154 in 1881, and several opponents of compulsory vaccination had gained seats on the Board. On the 9th January, 1883, the Board had declined by fourteen votes against eight to authorise the Vaccination Officer to apply for distress warrants against seventeen defaulters.

"After the election in April, 1883, the first occasion for testing the feeling of the newly-elected Board occurred in June, 1883, when, in consequence of the defeat of Mr. P. A. Taylor's motion against compulsory vaccination in the House of Commons, one of the members of the Board gave notice to renew the prosecutions which had remained in abeyance since the vote of 9th January, 1883.

"The resolution to renew prosecutions was moved by Mr. A. Panter on the 10th July, 1883; but an amendment, moved by Mr. J. T. Biggs, was carried by eighteen votes against fourteen, being a majority of four against the renewal of prosecutions. On the 2nd October, 1883, another resolution authorising prosecutions was moved by Mr. G. K. Billings, and this resolution was carried, after an exciting debate, by the casting vote of the chairman, the number voting on each side being equal—that is, sixteen against sixteen.  The fate of nearly a thousand defaulters was thus decided merely by a casting vote. This decision was soon challenged. On the 27th November of the same year, the question was again discussed., and the renewal of prosecutions once more affirmed by nineteen votes against seventeen, being a majority of two. Notwithstanding this decision, prosecutions were not immediately resumed. Owing to the nearness of the Christmas holidays and the stagnation of trade usual at this season, a tacit understanding  was arrived at for the temporary suspension of proceedings.

"During the existence of this Board, from 1883 to 1886 prosecutions from various causes remained in abeyance during a period of about half the duration of the Board's term of office.  But during the other half of the period, no fewer than 2,274 proceedings were taken before the Magistrates As may well be imagined, this enormous number of prosecutions, including 185 distraints and 24 imprisonments, produced great excitement in the town, and led to a large number of meetings protesting against the action of the Guardians. These protestations culminated in a national demonstration at Leicester against the compulsory Vaccination Acts and the conduct of the Guardians, which was held on the 23rd March, 1885."

(At this stage the proceedings were adjourned.)

Messrs. Leeson, Biggs, and Chamberlain again attended before the Royal Commission on Wednesday, 11th February, 1891. After a few questions, the Chairman (Lord Herschell) said to Mr. Chamberlain :—Would you continue the historical summary of the facts which is presented by the Guardians in the document you were proceeding to read when we broke off on the last occasion?

Mr.  Chamberlain then proceeded :—

"Subsequent events proved that this demonstration practically settled the question of compulsion in Leicester. At the election of Guardians in 1886, the principal question before the electors was that of enforcing vaccination. A large majority of the candidates expressed themselves against the principle of compulsion, and with few exceptions these were returned. The votes cast for the opponents of compulsion rose from about 41,000 in 1883 to nearly 48,000 in 1886, while the votes for the advocates of prosecutions fell from about 31,000 in 1883 to about 20,000 in 1886. The result of the election was seen in the fact that at the first meeting of the newly-elected Board notice was given to rescind the order for prosecutions. On 4th May, 1886, this order was rescinded, on the motion of Mr. J. T. Biggs, after a long debate, by twenty-seven votes against eight. Since this decisive vote, no attempt has been made to reverse the decision then arrived at, and on the completion of the prosecutions then in progress, prosecutions entirely ceased.

"At the third triennial election of the Guardians in 1889, the vaccination question once again monopolised attention. Such was the force of public opinion evidenced by the falling off in vaccinations from 3,730 in 1873 to 332 in 1887, that almost all the candidates voluntarily pledged themselves against compulsion. The votes for candidates opposed to compulsion still further increased from 48,000 in 1886 to over 66,000 in 1889, while those cast for the few advocates of compulsion declined to about 4,500 from 20,000 in 1886.

"In every contested parish excepting one, the opponent of compulsion carried their candidate at the head of the poll ; and in all parishes excepting two, where more than one member was required, they carried the whole of the seats.  At the first meeting of the new Board, notice of  motion was given to endorse the previous non-prosecutions policy of the retiring Board. On 30th April, 1889, on the motion of Mr. J. W. Goddard, this policy was once more emphasised by the significant majority of thirty-one votes against three. A number of deputations of ratepayers and others have at various times waited upon the Board, and their representations as to the administration of the law have received the careful consideration of the Guardians.

"Such is the position of the question in Leicester at the present day. In presenting these papers to the Royal Commission, the Leicester Board of Guardians wish respectfully but emphatically to declare that, in their deliberate judgment, the law of compulsory vaccination can never again be enforced in Leicester."

After the reading of this Memorial, a brief examination of the deputation followed. Since that date (1891), no change has taken place in the policy of the Board ; but in 1898 (nine years after the appointment of the Royal Commission) the Local Government Board authoritatively pronounced that the Vaccination Officer was independent of the Guardians, and could pro­secute defaulters either on his own authority or that of the Local Government Board, the Guardians being treated in this matter as a quantite negligible.

The setting up of this claim not only led to a further strenuous struggle, recorded further on, between the Leicester Guardians and the Local Government. Board, but caused considerable difficulty and friction with Boards of Guardians all over the country.

CHAPTER 30.  ROYAL COMMISSION WITNESSES.

EVER since the penal enforcement of vaccination, under the Act of 1867, Leicester has been in the forefront of the opposition to this sinister fad of the medical profession. On the appointment of the Royal Commission, it became necessary that such evidence as Leicester could present should be pre­pared without delay. Many of her most prominent citizens proffered to appear before the Commission, including the Mayor, several ex-Mayors, a number of Magistrates, Aldermen, Councillors, Guardians, and Members of the School Board. The chairmen of all the three authorities mentioned attended, as well as the Town Clerk and the Clerk to the Board of Guardians; also a number of parents testified as to injuries their children had suffered from vaccination,- such injuries in many cases having terminated in death. Indeed, the testimony from Leicester occupied most of the time of the Commission during the year 1891.

LIST  OF  LEICESTER  WITNESSES,   AND  A  SYNOPSIS OF  THEIR TESTIMONY.

Some idea of the character of the witnesses who attended from Leicester before the Royal Commission, and of the evidence they gave, may be formed from the appended synopsis, which is arranged alphabetically, and abstracted from the Fourth Report:—

BALL, WILLIAM (Shoe Riveter).—Believed his brother's death, and other cases of injury which had come under his notice, were caused by vaccination. Had been fined, and suffered imprisonment for refusing to pay. Answered 36 questions.

BANBURY, JOHN (Whitesmith).—Was opposed to vaccination, and had been fined for each of three children. His daughter, after training to become a pupil teacher, and passing all examinations, was very unjustly treated, and defrauded of the usual grant, on account of not having been vaccinated. Answered 23 questions.

BARFOOT, WILLIAM (Merchant).—Was a Magistrate, Member of the Town Council, Alderman, and had been Guardian and Mayor of the Borough. Considered that vaccination should not be compulsory, and that a reasonable excuse ought to be accepted in lieu of the imposition of a fine by the Justices. Answered 24 questions.

BIGGS, JOHN THOMAS (Sanitary Engineer).— Member of the Town Council, Alderman, Magistrate, and Member of the Derwent Valley Water Board. For many years a Member of the Leicester and Barrow-on-Soar Boards of Guardians. Was selected as one of the deputation to present the Leicester Town Council resolutions to the Commission. Also appointed by the Leicester Board of Guardians as one of the deputation to present their Memorial and Statistical Tables. Opposed compulsion from the outset of looking into the subject on the broad ground of its infringement upon, and invasion of, personal liberty. During the small-pox epidemic of 1871-73 closely studied the outbreak, and the causes which led up to the prolongation and severity of the visitation, and became convinced of the inefficacy of vaccination to prevent the disease or mitigate its type. One of his brothers also suffered through vaccination. He withstood several prosecutions, and had three distress warrants issued, and his household goods were sold by the instructions of the Board of Guardians of which he was a member. Answered over 3,000 questions. For twenty-three years Mr. Biggs was a Member of the Leicester Sanitary Committee.

(These particulars concerning the author of this volume are contributed by one who knows and keenly appreciates Mr. Biggs's work for the anti-vaccination movement.)

BRUCE, HENRY BAILEY (Elastic Web Manufacturer) .—Believed his third child died from the effects of vaccination. It expired very suddenly fourteen days after the operation, and the verdict of the jury stated that the cause of death was convulsions, but Mr. Bruce replied :—'Yes ; but the convulsions were brought on by the foul and filthy matter put into the child's system.' Upon being fined subsequently, Mr, Bruce told the Magistrates:—"If I were to have forty more children, not one of them should ever be vaccinated," and he told the Commission of this circumstance. Was only asked 3 questions. Perhaps the Commissioners did not desire to hear too much of the testimony he was able to give! (Has since been a Member of the Town Council and Mayor of the Borough, and is a Magistrate.)

CAVEN, REV. ROBERT (Baptist Minister).—His experience convinced him that vaccination was useless as a preventive of small-pox, and that it was often followed by serious consequences. Had been fined several times at both Southampton and Leicester. Answered 50 questions.

CHAMBERLAIN, LIONEL PERCY (Solicitor, and Clerk to the Guardians).—Prepared and presented, by order of the Board of Guardians, official tables relating to the number of vaccinations, with a statement of the procedure of the Board upon the subject, and correspondence in 1845 with the Poor Law Commission. Answered 130 questions.

CHAMBERS, HENRY THOMAS (Retired Builder).— Had held office as Member of the Guardians, Councillor, Alderman, Magistrate, and Mayor of the Borough. Was one of the deputation selected by the Council to present a copy of its resolutions to the Commission. Was against compulsion, and in favour of exemption being granted. Answered 37 questions.

DUNS, JAMES (Chief Constable).—Attended in his official capacity, and verified the list of over 6,000 prosecutions, 193 distress warrants, and 64 commitments to prison, and referred to the exceptionally strong feeling against compulsory vaccination. He informed the Commission that, otherwise, Leicester was a very orderly town. Answered 23 questions.

EAGLE, CHARLES (Shoe Laster).—One of his children suffered seriously through vaccination, and he refused to have subsequent children vaccinated. Fined several times, and twice imprisoned. Answered 22 questions.

ELLIS, JAMES (Merchant). — Chairman of the School Board, and Member of Parliament for the Bosworth Division of the County. Officially presented resolution passed by the School Board against compulsory vaccination, and testified to the great and growing difficulty of obtaining pupil teachers, owing to the regulations of the Board of Education making vaccination imperative. Answered 16 questions.

ELLMORE, WILLIAM PAULGRAVE (Basket Manufacturer and Willow Grower).—Member of Barrow-on-Soar Board of Guardians. Had seen and was aware of many cases of ill-effects from vaccination, and in consequence refused to allow the operation to be performed upon his own children. Fined several times. Answered 50 questions.

EMMS, ALFRED WILSON, M.R.C.S, (Public Vaccinator for the Belgrave District, then a suburb, and now a part of Leicester).—Was a thorough believer in vaccination, and attended to contradict the statement of a parent who alleged her child's illness and death had been caused by the operation which he performed. Had seen a few instances of erysipelas and inflammation through vaccination, but never a really bad arm or serious consequences, and said that the fatality under notice was unconnected with vaccination. Answered 162 questions. (Now a Magistrate for the County.)

FRITH, GEORGE (Marine Store Dealer).—Had been fined several times, and imprisoned because of his opposition to vaccination. Answered 14 questions.

HACKETT, HARRY (Newspaper Editor).—One of his children suffered seriously from eczema through vaccination. He had observed illness and death in a number of other instances from the same cause, so declined to have any more children vaccinated. Spoke of the strong feeling in the town against vaccination. Answered 45 questions.

HART, ISRAEL (Merchant).—Member of the Town Council, Alderman, Magistrate, and four times Mayor of the Borough, subsequently receiving the honour of Knighthood. Had adjudicated at the hearing of many summonses against vaccination defaulters, but disliked doing so on account of the highly respectable class of parents and their evident sincerity. Had heard of many cases of injury from vaccination, and it was such occurrences as those which had poisoned the minds of the people against the practice. He was strongly averse to compulsion, Answered 79 questions.

HART, MRS. KATE.— Gave evidence of the vaccination and consequent illness and death of her child. Refused to have others vaccinated. Answered 48 questions.

HODGSON ROBERT (Cabinetmaker). — Mentioned several cases where illness had been caused by vaccination, and would not, therefore, have his own children operated upon. Fined twice, and suffered imprisonment. Answered 13 question.

HOPPS, REV. JOHN PAGE (Unitarian Minister and Author) -Testified to the pronounced feeling against vaccination in Leicester. All classes — including Guardians, Councillors, and Magistrates were opposed to compulsion. It was physically impossible to enforce the law. Soldiers from London would be required to do that, as the soldiers in the town would favour the anti-vaccinists. He knew doctors antagonistic to compulsion. Answered 19 question.

IRONS, EDWARD HOLLIS. — One of his children suffered severely from the effects of vaccination, and he had also seen other examples where illness and death had followed as the result of vaccination. He would not permit any more children to be vaccinated, and had been repeatedly fined. Answered 37 questions.

JARROM, ANTHONY. — Gave details of the fatal illness of his son, Edward, due to vaccination, and refused to allow the operation to be performed on any more, Answered 45 questions.

KEELING, WILLIAM (Summoning Officer and Sergeant of the Borough Police Force).—Was responsible (when the law was set in motion by the Vaccination Officer) for the issuing of the summonses against defaulters, the execution of the distress warrants when fines and costs were not paid, and of commitments when persons went to gaol. Spoke of the deep-rooted antipathy of the townspeople to vaccination. Believed that one of his own children suffered seven years in consequence of the operation, and, accordingly, would not have his two younger children vaccinated. Had himself been summoned, and paid fines. Answered 33 questions.

KEMPSON, WILLIAM (Merchant and Manufacturer). Member of the Town Council, Alderman, Magistrate, and twice Mayor. Had judicially dealt with many of the vaccination prosecutions in the Borough Police Court, and alluded to the powerful antagonism to vaccination, which, in his opinion, ought not to be compulsorily enforced. Answered 35 questions.

LANKESTER, HENRY, M.R.C.S.—One of the deputation appointed by the Town Council to present its resolutions. In addition to being a Member of the Town Council, was a Magistrate, and Mayor in 1889, when the resolutions were passed. Believed in vaccination, but was not in favour of compulsion, because he respected the conscientious objections of parents, and said he "wished to do unto others as he would be done unto," Had seen erysipelas result from vaccination. If an attempt were made to rigorously enforce the Acts, "it would not be tolerated for a moment; there would be an uprising of the town against it." Answered 85 questions.

LEAVESLEY, JAMES (Boot and Shoe Manufacturer). US-Member of the Town Council, and of the Boards of Guardians of Barrow-on-Soar and of Leicester, being Chairman of the latter body in 1887. Believed that vaccination does not prevent small-pox, and is itself capable of communicating disease. Accordingly refused to have some of his children vaccinated. Fined several times. Cited a good many instances where injury and death had been the outcome of vaccination. Answered 64 questions.

(Note by the Author. — Words inadequately express my obligation to Mr. Leavesley for his helpful encouragement during the long time I gave evidence before the Royal Commission. But for his unfailing inspiration it would have been difficult for me to have sustained the trying ordeal, and I take this opportunity of placing my deep appreciation on record.)

LEESON, JOSEPH (Boot and Shoe Manufacturer). own Councillor, and appointed by the Tis to present their resolution, memo­rial, and statistical tables to the Royal Commission. Chairman of the Board of Guardian* in 1889. In his opinion, the illness and subsequent death of one of his children was due to vaccination, and after that occur­rence he took an active part in opposition to the practice, Answered 45 questions.

LUNN, CHARLES (Hosiery Manufacturer).—Through vaccination two of his children suffered from sore eyes; and accordingly he declined to let others run a similar risk. His father and uncle both had severe attacks of small-pox, despite having been inoculated. Read extracts from letters written to him by Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. ; Mr. A. M'Arthur, M.P. ; and Mr. John Bright, M.P. Answered 29 questions.

MASKELL, WILLIAM HENRY (Vaccination Officer for the Leicester Union since 1868).—Was called by the Commissioners to verify the vaccination returns, a clerical error having unduly increased the stated number of vaccinations by 900 in a single year. Answered 95 questions.

MATTS, HENRY (Retired Plumber and Glazier).— Objected to vaccination as an unnatural process, and refused, from the first, to have any of his nine children vaccinated. Was proceeded against for three, but would not pay the fines and costs imposed. Sent to gaol for ten days in default in each case, making thirty days—probably the longest imprisonment at one time. Was treated abominably and illegally whilst under detention, and the Governor was afterwards compelled to apologise for his conduct. Indignation meetings were held to protest against the action of the authorities. Answered 21 questions.

NEALE, JOHN HEADLEY, M.B., M.R.C.P. (one of the Physicians to the Leicester Infirmary).— Called by the Commissioners respecting the statement by Mrs. Hart that he said her child was suffering from blood poisoning when taken for treatment to the Infirmary. This he denied, and said the child was dying of Bright's disease. Had only seen one case of blood poisoning from vaccination. Answered 97 questions.

PAYNE, JOHN THOMAS (Shoe Riveter).—Two eldest children suffered through vaccination, and he had accordingly refused to have others vaccinated. Fined several times, and imprisoned twice Answered 26 questions.

PEARSON MRS. MARY ANN (Silk Winder).—Child ill after vaccination from the same lymph that Mrs. Hart's child died from. Another child, vaccinated at the same time, also succumbed, but its mother had passed away as well. Answered 54 questions.

PRATT THOMAS (Master Painter and House Decorator) —After reading Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson's cases of vaccino-syphilis, decided not to have his children vaccinated. Fined several times, and furniture sold under distress warrant. Brought an action against the constables for excessive distraint. Verdict in his favour for £7. The County Court judge, in deciding, said he could not see any justification for taking goods worth £13, or even £3, to cover a fine and costs of only 12s. Answered 32 questions.

SADDINGTON GEORGE (Framework Knitter).— Objected to vaccination because it was a violation of Nature's laws, and not a preventive of small-pox. Assisted in organising a committee to oppose the law. Fined several times, and imprisoned once. Answered 30 questions.

SMITH, REV. ALBERT (Church of England Clergy­man).—A younger brother suffered from vaccination, and he had also seen other cases in which vaccination had caused ill-effects. Only one of his children out of a family of ten had been vaccinated, and that was at the time of witness's ordination, with which any prosecution would have interfered. But the operation was only allowed to be performed in one place, and his wife removed the lymph by rubbing it off. Was afterwards several times prosecuted. Answered 36 questions.

SMITH, WILLIAM (Shoe Riveter).—Attributed ill­ness of one of his children to vaccination, so refused to submit others. Pined twice, and once imprisoned in default of payment. Answered 35 questions.

STAFFORD, JOHN (Merchant).—One of the deputation appointed by the Town Council to present their resolutions. Member of the Town Council, Alderman, Chairman of the Board of Guardians in 1857-59, Magistrate, and twice Mayor of the Borough. Adjudicated in more vaccination cases than any other Justice of the Peace. Was impressed by the character of the defendants. "They were really thinking people ; the better class of working people, who really thought for themselves, and had very strong conscientious convictions on the subject." Had allowed exemption from penalty for reasonable excuse on several occasions, and was against compulsion. Answered 78 questions.

STAFFORD, JOSIAH (Farmer).—Sister suffered from convulsions and epileptic fits; a brother also suffered, and he believed both illnesses were caused by vaccination. Owing to this would not have his own children vaccinated. Answered 15 questions.

STOREY, V, JOHN (Solicitor, and Town Clerk of Leicester).—Attended with the deputation by request of the Council to present their resolutions. (Since appointed on the Commission of the Peace for the Borough.)

STRETTON, CLEMENT (Solicitor).—Member of the Town Council, Alderman, Magistrate, and twice Mayor. Adjudicated on many vaccination cases, and was of opinion the law should not be obligatory. The defaulters who came before him were of the better class, who opposed vaccination conscientiously, and whose opposition was very largely formed in consequence of injuries resulting from vaccination which they had seen. Answered 24 questions.

THORNTON, THOMAS WILLIAM (Farmer).—From his own experience had come to the conclusion that vaccination was useless as a preventive of small-pox. Mentioned cases where vaccination had produced injurious effects. Refused vaccination for his own children, and twice fined. Answered 10 questions.

TOLPUTT, MRS. HANNAH.—Gave particulars of her own child's illness, and had daily seen the child of Mrs. Hart during the illness which terminated in death. Answered 39 questions.

WARD, JOSEPH (Commercial Traveller, etc.).— Believed the illnesses of three of his children due to vaccination. Refused to have others operated upon, though one was done later on without his knowledge and consent. His brother-in-law died of small-pox in spite of having been "properly" (!) vaccinated. Fined a number of times, and twice imprisoned. Answered 40 questions.

WARDLE, MRS. EMMA (Widow Lady).—Gave particulars of illness and death of her son, Thomas, from vaccination. She refused to have other children vaccinated. Husband was prosecuted four times.

WINDLEY, THOMAS (Newspaper Proprietor).— Member of the deputation appointed by Town Council to present their resolutions. Member of the Town Council, Alderman, Magistrate, twice Mayor of the Borough, and Chairman of the Sanitary Committee for very many years. Explained to the Royal Commission at great length the "Leicester Method" of dealing with small-pox—notification, prompt removal to hospital, disinfection, isolation, quarantine, etc. The "Leicester Method" was instituted by Dr. Johnston, the Medical Officer of Health, in 1877. Told the Commission that "Isolation and other sanitary measures that we have adopted have secured us hitherto, and I do not see any reason to fear their not having the same beneficial effects hereafter. I would rather trust it than any other system." The feeling against compulsion was universal. Did not think "any authorities—even a regiment of soldiers—would bring about vaccination by compulsion again in Leicester." It was intolerable to sell a man's goods, or put him in prison and subject him to hard labour. Told the Commission :—"I have seen men come out of prison with their hands lacerated with the hard labour they have been exposed to." Answered 67 questions. (Ald. Windley is still (1912) the Chairman of the Leicester Sanitary Committee, having occupied that position for no less than thirty-five years.)

WOOD, MRS. FANNY.—Gave particulars of her child's illness and death occurring after vaccination, and concerning which a Local Government Board inquiry was conducted by Dr. E. Ballard. Answered 67 questions.

WRIGHT, THOMAS (Solicitor).—Member of the Town Council, Alderman, Magistrate, twice Mayor of the Borough, and afterwards Knighted. President of the Leicester Anti-Vaccination League in 1883. Owing to cessation of prosecutions by the Guardians had never adjudicated on vaccination cases, but had previously undertaken the defence of several defaulters, and introduced a deputation to the Mayor and Magistrates, asking them to reduce the penalties inflicted when they felt convinced that the defendants were actuated by con­scientious convictions. Had been largely influenced in his opposition to vaccination by a distressing case in the family of a Northampton coachbuilder, named Davies, whose daughter had died a horrible death from vaccine-syphilis, after several years of fearful suffering. Answered 34 questions.

PART   4. STATISTICAL  EVIDENCE.

CHAPTER 31. A LENGTHY EXAMINATION.

MY personal share in the presentation of the Leicester evidence was not inconsiderable. I had to appear more times, and to answer more questions (over 3,000 in all), than any other witness The Commission kept me at full pressure. Consequently, the strain was tremendous, both physically and mentally. Possibly it was expected that the breakdown of my testimony would mean the collapse of the Leicester case. Fortunately, this did not occur, I produced, before the Commission, no fewer than fifty-one statistical tables and fifteen graphs, upon which I had to bear a searching, rigorous, and critical examination by leading medical and scientific experts Although I did my best to oblige the Commission in every possible way, sparing neither time nor labour in order to comply with their requests, they never appeared quite satisfied. I often thought it was a difficult task for them, to give the impression of being as impartial as their high position and responsibilities required.

In any event, the mass of evidence presented from Leicester alone was sufficient to have secured the absolute and entire repeal of the law. It would undoubtedly have done so before an unbiased Commission. Another inquiry, before an altogether differently constituted tribunal, is, therefore, loudly called for, and ought (in common justice and equity) to be granted ere long.

Over 1,000 questions were addressed to me on account of an error in the official figures for Leicester vaccinations. No doubt it was hoped to prove the error was mine, but the officials who furnished the figures to me were sent for, and it was found to be their error in casting up. The investigation disclosed a more accurate method of computation than the official one, so eventually I asked the Commission which set of figures they wished me to use. However, they would not commit themselves, but left the decision to me. I therefore abandoned the official set—which were proved to be wrong, in many respects—and adopted the much fairer plan, especially to the opposite side, of taking all vaccinations registered in each year, irrespective of age. This necessitated the rectification of many thousands of figures, and practically the reprinting of the whole of my evidence. Some idea may be gathered of the labour this involved by the fact that the revision of proofs caused by the introduction of this new (and more accurate) set of figures occupied nearly two years after my evidence before the Royal Commission had been completed.

CHAPTER 32. VACCINAL INJURIES AND DEATHS AT LEICESTER.

I PRESENTED a table (pages 417-433, Fourth Report, Royal Commission) of 109 deaths, 186 cases of injury (many of them permanent), and two of small-pox, following on vaccination, being a total of 297 cases in Leicester and neighbourhood, with the names, addresses, and details, each case being vouched for by the parents themselves. It is a harrowing, heart-rending catalogue. This gruesome testimony caused considerable questioning by the Commissioners, who, however, hesitated to accept such personal statements, unless supported by expert medical opinion! The evidence of careful, loving mothers, who had unintermittently tended their suffering little ones, was, it seems, not deemed trustworthy without being thus peculiarly confirmed! Was it likely that medical men would convict either themselves or their brethren? Manifestly, those parents (who had "accepted" vaccination) must have been in its favour, rather than against it. Otherwise their children would certainly not have been vaccinated.

But who can fully realise what a dreadful amount of trouble, of loss, of pain, and of sorrow and suffering those 297 cases meant to the parents and families—as well as to other relatives—of the unfortunate victims? These people had been anxious to comply with the requirements of a cruel law, and such compliance had resulted in life-long injury to many of their children, and death to others. Now the dreaded arm-to-arm vaccination to which they objected, and through which their children suffered, is officially condemned. What justification could be found for enforcing so dangerous and risky an operation? Need anyone feel surprised that there should be strenuous opposition to so repulsive a legal enactment?

It should be borne in mind that particulars of many of these cases could only be obtained with the greatest difficulty, owing to the strong desire for reticence, and to avoid publicity, on the part of parents and friends. Personally, I always avoid speaking to others about vaccination. But the subject is often introduced voluntarily by those who know my opinions, and nearly all those who speak to me give instances of injury, or death, either in their own families or in those of their friends. Especially has this been the case with medical men, who usually know of some injuries occurring to the patients of other practitioners!

It is obvious, therefore, that the injuries and deaths which are made public are not a tithe of those which actually occur. Even if a single case of injury or death could be proved, it condemns the law which enforces the operation even more than the pernicious practice itself.

Unfortunately, the evidence of Leicester does not stand alone in respect to injuries and death following, and being attributable to, vaccination. Many terrible disasters, of permanent injury, disease, and death, are recorded in the annals of the evidence given to the Royal Commission, and in innumerable accounts elsewhere. I refer to these later on.

CHAPTER  33.  ERYSIPELAS AND VACCINATION;

SOON after my first appearance before the Commission, the subject of erysipelas came up. When it was found I had not prepared any tables on this point, it seemed to be assumed there was something to hide, and I was requested to go into the matter, and prepare a table for the next meeting—a request with which I willingly complied. But the time allowed was too short to enable me to tabulate returns for more than sixteen years—viz., 1874 to 1889. This table was divided into periods of four years each, and has now been continued in the same form to 1909, as follows :—

TABLE 1. See Graph A,.

Being table 2, page 416, Fourth Report, Royal Commission continued to 1909.

Table showing for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, for each of the periods 1874-77, 1878-81, 1882-85, 1886-89, 1890-93, 1894-97, 1898-1901, 1902-05, and 1906-09, the average annual death-rate from erysipelas, of children under one year of age per 10,000 births, of children under five years of age per 100,000 living at that age, and at all ages per 100,000 of the population; with the average annual percentage of Vaccinations to births* during each period.

* For the actual number of annual vaccinations, see Table 50.

GRAPH  A.

ILLUSTRAT1NG   TABLE  1.

ERYSIPELAS.      LEICESTER.
IN GROUPS OF FOUR YEARS.  1874—1909.

Lower Solid Curve—Average annual death-rate from Erysipelas under 1 per 10,000 births.
Upper Solid Curve—Average annual death-rate from Erysipelas under 5 per 100,000 living at that age.
Dotted  Curve—Average annual death-rate from Erysipelas at all ages per 100,000 population.
Red Curve—Average annual percentage of registered vaccinations to the total births.

The most striking points in Table 1 are:—

(1)    That the highest death-rates from erysipelas, both under one year,  under five years, and at all ages, are concurrent with the highest years of vaccination ; and

(2)    That each death-rate practically touches its  lowest point coincidentally  with  the  lowest percentage of vaccination.

By no stretch of the imagination, nor by any subterfuge, can these facts be made to tell in favour of vaccination. On the other hand, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that the practice operated most fatally.

Another feature of this table is that a rise in the death-rate from erysipelas, shown in 1898-1905, for infants under one year, is concurrent with an increase of vaccination in the same periods, caused principally by the more rigid pressure of the law, just before, during, and after the passing of the Vaccination Act of 1898. In this year—under an Order of the Local Government Board—stational vaccination was superseded by the domiciliary visits of the Public Vaccinators, whose services were also then remunerated with enormously increased fees. It is, however, satisfactory to notice that the decline in this death-rate of infants is resumed, doubtless to some extent because of the enhanced vitality, and, therefore, increased power of resistance, which children born of unvaccinated parents are enabled to offer to attacks from this disease.

It is suggestive that, after such conclusive proofs condemning vaccination, further evidence on this aspect was not asked for by the Commission. Its introduction, however, involved a reference to, and the embodying of several official reports in the published evidence, which are of such supreme importance that I now make a brief reference to each of them. These reports are published in full at pages 466-494, Fourth Report, Royal Commission.

CHAPTER  34.  OFFICIALLY AUTHENTICATED DEATHS FROM VACCINATION.

VACCINAL DEATHS AT MISTERTON.

FIRST, there was the report, in 1876, to the Local Government Board by Mr. J. H. Radcliffe (one of the Board's Inspectors), on certain fatal cases of erysipelas in the Misterton District of the Gainsborough Union, Lincolnshire. That inquiry showed that erysipelas, admittedly caused by vaccination, had resulted there in at least six deaths — and probably more. In his report the Inspector referred to "the use of dirty lancets," or "dirty points," "erysipelatous or septic mischief," "glandular irritation," and to "a peculiar tenderly to the spread of erysipelas" existing in the district. (See Commission's Fourth Report, page 466.)

In passing, it is significant to note that this official inquiry elicited the fact that these six little victims of vaccination had all been buried under misleading death certificates, no word as to vaccination appearing on any of those documents. That practice of "preserving vaccination from reproach " is believed to be common, and if the suspicion be well founded, it shows how our national vital statistics are considerably vitiated and the public deceived.

VACCINAL  DEATHS AT NORWICH.

Another Local Government Board Inquiry of the same kind was held at Norwich, in 1882, by Mr. J. J. Henley and Dr. Airy. This was due to a complaint made by Mr. Lee Bliss, of Norwich, "that eight cases of death and injury had resulted" in that city after vaccination by the local Public Vaccinator. As in the other inquiry, the lymph was made to appear blameless! The Inspectors condemned the "crowded" vaccination station, and, curiously enough, while stating "that no blame was proved to attach to the Public Vaccinator" in the performance of his duties, forthwith reprimanded him for "using again and again the same ivory points." They said :—"We consider that it was an error of judgment on his part" to continue vaccination while in attendance on erysipelatous cases. (See page 478, Fourth Report, Royal Commission.)

It may be here observed that, in this Norwich Disaster, there were four deaths, three of which were misleadingly certified, no mention of vaccination appearing on any of those death certificates. These, so to speak, accidental revelations as to falsely certifying, occurring as they do in different parts of the country, are eloquent in their suggestiveness as to the widespread prevalence of the discreditable "hushing-up" business.

VACCINAL  DEATH  AT  DERBY.

A similar Local Government Board Inquiry was held, in 1882, at Derby, by Dr. P. W. Barry, owing to the death of a child following vaccination. In this instance the Public Vaccinator did not even hold a certificate of "proficiency in vaccination "! It was found that he had used a lancet "without a point, rusty and dirty ; the vesicle opener also rusty and dirty." One of the tubes was coated inside with "albuminous matter" ; others contained " opaque lymph," and one "a little blood." Some tubes were not even sealed, but contained "opaque lymph, slightly bloody." It was reported that the "septic infection" was inoculated into the child "from some dirty appliance" used by this model (!) Public Vaccinator. He was further censured for "erroneous entries in the Register." (See page 484, Fourth Report, Royal Commission.)

VACCINAL DEATH AT LEICESTER.

Still another inquiry was held, at Leicester, in 1888, respecting the death of a child at New Humberstone from "diffuse cellulitis" (a euphemism for vaccinal poisoning of the cellular tissues). Dr. Barry, who held this inquiry, described the term as a "euphemism," but carefully avoided blaming vaccination. He censured the Public Vaccinator, the Rural Sanitary Authority, some inoffensive poultry, piggeries, etc. He severely blamed the parents, but considerately (!) abstained in his report from censuring either the bereaved parents or their deceased child. The erysipelas, he said, was "traumatic." (See page 494, Fourth Report, Royal Commission.)

It will be noted that, in all these important public inquiries, only the few victims discovered by laymen were the subjects of official investigation and, all through, only the operators, or their methods, were denounced, while little or no blame was attributed to vaccination—the root cause of all the disasters.

These Public Vaccinators are the sort of men to whom parents are compelled by statute to submit their healthy children for the deliberate inoculation of virus from the foul cattle disease of cow-pox! What makes matters worse, it is to the pecuniary benefit of these Public Vaccinators to carry out such dangerous and objectionable " processes" of law.

CHAPTER 35. THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S GHASTLY STORY

FINALLY, there is that ghastly catalogue of vaccinal deaths, compiled from the Registrar-General's own return. Such has been the damning evidence of this official record that, in 1902, the Registrar-General discontinued his former nomenclature. Although the phrase, "effects of vaccination," appears in his annual reports, the heading in the weekly returns is deaths from "Cow-Pox" only. The limiting tendency of this alteration is thus apparently effecting a considerable, but illusory, reduction in this "cloud of witnesses" against vaccination Even this distinction has since disappeared from the weekly returns. In a foot­note, it is stated that—"Commencing with 1911 considerable modifications were made in the form of this return."  Explanations of these modifications are given, but no mention is made of the transfer to another classification of the deaths from "Cow-Pox or Other Effects of Vaccination." These deaths from cow-pox and other effects of vaccination may, or may not, be included under the heading, "Other Epidemic Diseases." Apparently they are now to be buried beyond recognition, to save vaccination with "glycerinated calf lymp" from reproach.

TABLE 2.

Being Table 3, page 416, Fourth Report, Royal Commission, continued to 1910

Table showing, for ENGLAND AND WALES, for each of the years 1859-80, the number of deaths registered from "Erysipelas after Vaccination," and for each of the years 1881-1909, the deaths registered from "Cow-pox and other effects of Vaccination"; also for each of the years 1898-1909, the deaths registered from "Cow-pox," "Effects of Vaccination," etc., after the passing of the " Conscience Clause" by Parliament, and the "limiting" alteration of nomenclature by the Registrar-General.

Extracted from the Annual Returns of the Registrar-General.

 Total number of deaths registered from "Erysipela after Vaccination," and from "Cow Pox and other effects of Vaccination," 1859 to 1910 : 1,530.

The Registrar-General, in his Report for 1897, referring to the 36 deaths for that year in the above table, says :—

"The 36 deaths ascribed to effects of vaccination include not only the deaths that were directly referred to vaccination, but also those that were stated in the medical certificates, or were found on inquiry to have been caused by the entrance of any noxious material whatever at the site of vaccination."

Obviously, the foregoing table is a mere "indicator," rather than a full and complete record, of the fatal effects of vaccination, to say nothing of permanent or other serious injuries inflicted.

The appended is a notable example of the latter state of affairs :—

In June, 1902, Dr. W. J. J. Stewart presented to the Hospitals Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board his report on the vaccination of certain workmen who were engaged on the extension works at Gore Farm Lower Hospital. Singular to relate, this important and remarkable document does not appear to have been published along with the other usual weekly reports. The particulars are most sensational, and that may account for the exceptional treatment of this report.

Of 587 men vaccinated, no fewer than 166, or more than 28 per cent., actually went on the sick list as the result of vaccination. They received sick-pay at the public expense, the contractors also being compensated for loss of their services. To overcome the natural reluctance of the men, a bribe of 5s. was offered to each one of them, as an inducement to be vaccinated. "Every precaution" was taken, and all the Local Government Board regulations were most rigidly observed. The "lymph" was of the purest and most approved blend, and was obtained from Faulkners Vaccine Institution, Endell Street, London, W.C., and the Association for the Supply of Pure Vaccine Lymph, Pall Mall, London, W.

The men were of the strongest possible physical type. Notwithstanding all those advantages, consequent, upon the operations, 35 men were off duty with fever, an average of 5.5 days each ; 125 men were off duty with septic inflammation, an average of 6.8 days each ; 3 men were off duty with abscesses, an average of 34.6 days each; 3 men were off duty with general pustular eczema., an average of 23,0 days each—giving a total of 166 strong men on sick-pay for an average of 7.4 days each.

That " preventive" process was carried out at a cost of £2 15s. 9d. for each of the 166 patients, and a grand total expenditure was incurred of no less than £1,029 10s. 2d.

If such is the " benign" (?) effect of carefully prepared glycerinated calf lymph, scientifically administered to the strongest and most able-bodied workmen, what must be the possibilities of its effects on tender infants, or persons of weakly constitutions?

If these facts were placed before parents, there are very few who would venture to submit either themselves or their children to the "propitious" influence of such "carefully prepared glycerinated calf lymph."   

Moreover, who can tell what permanent impairment of health has been inflicted upon the 166 men who suffered so severely ? Certainly not those gentlemen who performed the operation.

CHAPTER 36. SMALL-POX IN LEICESTER.

THE history of small-pox in Leicester forms an important and striking chapter in its municipal life. Situated in a water-logged valley, through which runs the River Soar—probably the most sluggish in its flow of any of the rivers in Great Britain—with a population growing too rapidly for its sanitary arrangements, its consequent over­crowding, indifferent drainage, flooding, and other circumstances, the town deteriorated so much that it is again and again referred to in the Registrar-General's earlier reports as one of the most unhealthy in the country. In his eighth and ninth annual reports, for 1847-48, page 43, that official remarks:—" Leicester is an unhealthy district; the average mortality is high."

Like London and other large cities and towns which had neglected sanitation, Leicester suffered from a recurrence of epidemics—small-pox, fevers, and plague following each other in rapid and grim succession. Until a comparatively recent date, small-pox was regarded as an assured and constant visitor every few years. Small-pox inoculation, in its day, was as rife in Leicester as anywhere. The practice of vaccination followed, but there are no reliable official records obtainable as to the precise amount of vaccination earlier than 1849. At that date, the registers show that over 74 per cent, of the children born were vaccinated, consequently there must have been a considerable volume of vaccination before that time. This increased to nearly 93 per cent, in 1854, and, although varying in amount, kept at a fairly high level, reaching an unusual figure in 1863, and its maximum in 1872, both being times of exceptionally severe smallpox epidemics, especially that of 1872.

It is futile, therefore, for anyone to allege that, in the great pandemic years of 1871-73, Leicester was an unvaccinated—or, to use the modern medical term, an "unprotected"—community. Whatever " protection " vaccination could afford as a preventive of small-pox, Leicester undoubtedly enjoyed at that time. But in those dreadful and fateful years, several thousands of our "protected" (?) people were mercilessly attacked by small-pox, until the fruitless attempt to count the numbers was abandoned in despair, and the required information entirely lost. The fearful death roll of 360 victims formed the only basis upon which any sort of calculation could be made as to the approximate number of small-pox cases which then occurred in the town.

Need anyone wonder that the belief in the prophylactic virtues of vaccination rapidly dwindled? Particularly so, because with the decline of vaccination came a diminution not only of small-pox, but also of all kindred zymotic diseases.      Small-pox is at the time of writing (1912) almost a thing of the past.

Tables 11 and 12, presented to the Royal Commission, now embodied in one table, No. 3, and their explanatory diagrams, prove that :—

(1)    There was an enormous rise in small-pox mortality after more than a quarter of a century of continuous vaccination prior to 1872, at which date occurred the greatest and most fatal small­pox epidemic ever known or recorded in Leicester for over half a century.

(2)    That from 1872 a rapid decline of vaccintion took place, and that such decline is coincident with the lowest small-pox mortality known until that time.

(3)    That with the practical  abandonment of vaccination, and the introduction and perfecting of the " Leicester Method " of Notification, Sanitation, Isolation, Quarantine, Disinfection, Observation, etc., small-pox mortality has become, to all intents and purposes, extinct.

TABLE 3.

Being Tables 11 and 12, Fourth Report, Royal Commission on Vaccination, continued to 1910.

Table showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, during the years 1838-1910, in quinquennial periods—(1) the total number of small-pox deaths; (2) the average annual small­pox death-rate per 1,000,000 living; (3) the average annual registered vaccinations per 1,000 births; (4) the average annual vaccinations per 25,000 population; (5) the accumulated vaccinations per 100,000 population for five years, ending with the last year of each period; and (6) the average annual number of Sanitary Orders served for the abatement of nuisances.

*The vaccination returns do not embrace 1848, being "not known " prior to 1849.
**For the actual number of annual vaccinations and the extra vaccinations, 1863-64, see Table 50.

CHAPTER 337. LEICESTER SMALL-POX EPIDEMICS COMPARED.

IT is true that since 1872 there have been outbreaks of small-pox in Leicester, but, in each instance, the disease has not only been imported from well "protected" localities, but, as usually happens, these outbreaks ; started with well vaccinated or revaccinated cases. Two of those invasions—viz., in 1892-94 and 1902-04—resulted in what were termed "epidemics." Notwithstanding the fact that well vaccinated communities were also attacked, and suffered to a far worse degree than Leicester, the strong and definite attitude it has taken against vaccination made the town once more the target of innumerable venomous shafts from the provaccinists.

They appeared to have overlooked the fact that in 1871-73, with nominally all the inhabitants vaccinated, 360 small-pox deaths occurred in a population of about 98,000, being a death-rate of 3,673 per million living. Whereas, in " unprotected " Leicester, in 1892-94, there were only 21 small-pox deaths in a population of about 182,000, being only 115 per million living ; and in 1902-04 there were only 30 small-pox deaths in a popula­tion of about 220,000, or only 136 per million living.

The table below gives these figures, for pur­poses of comparison, in graphic sequence; also the percentage of vaccinations to births at each period, and the proportions of vaccinations to population

TABLE 4. THREE EPIDEMICS OF SMALL-POX IN LEICESTER COMPARED.

* This was before the "Leicester Method" was known, and the authorities, mainly relying on vaccination, were so overwhelmed and disorganised by the outbreak that all efforts to ascertain the number of cases proved unavailing.

The number of small-pox cases in this and subsequent Tables accord with the revised figures in Dr. C. K. Millard's Health Report for 1912.

What if these figures could be reversed? For example, suppose the small-pox death-rate in the "protected'' period of 1871-73 had been only 115 or 136 per million living, and the small-pox death-rate in the "unprotected" periods of 1892-94 and 1902-04 had been 3,673 per million living, would not pro-vaccinists have claimed it as a great triumph for vaccination? There can be little doubt that they would have deemed themselves perfectly warranted in so doing. Why, then, do they hesitate to admit, in the opposite direction, the only logical conclusion which can be deduced from such convincing facts as have been given to the world by the experience of Leicester?

It must be borne in mind that the epidemic of 1871-73 found a fully vaccinated population in Leicester, both infantile and adult, whilst those of 1892-94 and 1902-04 occurred in populations essentially unvaccinated. A yet more striking feature is that in 1892-94 there were, approximately, 50,000 unvaccinated children in the town ; and in 1902-04 there would not be fewer than 70,000 unvaccinated children in Leicester, nearly all of whom passed through these epidemics entirely unscathed. Only very few children, indeed, were attacked.

Who, then, can blame Leicester people for giving up the nostrum of vaccination? With such an object-lesson before their very eyes, it would indeed have been strange had they done otherwise! Yet the medical journals have continued to denounce Leicester for taking up an attitude against vaccination, which not only entirely accords with reason and common sense, but is justified to the full by its own unimpeachable experience.

CHAPTER 38. IMPORTATIONS OF SMALL-POX.

IT must not be supposed that Leicester owes its immunity from small-pox for so many years to the absence of the disease from its midst. On the contrary, many invasions and importations of the infection have occurred. It is an impressive and remarkable fact, that these importations of small-pox were by vaccinated persons coming from towns and districts where vaccination had been efficiently carried out, well up to the approved Local Government Board standard.

The following table gives not only the importations of small-pox from 1874 to 1889, the last year included in my evidence before the Royal Commission, but also those which have since taken place down to the end of the year 1910, with the number of small-pox cases and deaths, the fatality rate, and the average annual registered vaccina­tions to births :—

TABLE 5.

(See Graph D, Fourth Report, Royal Commission on Vaccination.)   

During the first period of sixteen years (from 1874 to 1889 inclusive), we had no fewer than 33 importations, resulting in 116 cases of small-pox and 18 deaths, giving a fatality rate of 15.5 per cent.

Since 1889 there have been 41 importations of small-pox, up to 1910 inclusive, resulting in 1,111 cases and 51 deaths, or a fatality-rate of only 4.6 per cent. The whole of this large number of recurring introductions of the disease were successfully and completely stamped out by the "Leicester Method," and the town saved from the further spread of the pestilence, with its potential ravages, without recourse to general vaccination.

Pro-vaccinists regarded it as a thing impossible and incredible that unvaccinated Leicester could, for even one year, much less for so long a period of years, successfully resist repeated and numerous attacks of small-pox. But such is now a stubborn, unimpeachable, and accomplished fact. Indeed, no other manufacturing town can show a better or cleaner record with respect to small-pox, and I question whether there is another large town, manufacturing or otherwise, at all comparable with Leicester, in the whole of the United Kingdom, which, with all the advantages that are claimed for vaccination, can equal, or even approach, the conspicuous success which stands to the credit of Leicester in this category.

There is still another aspect which also redounds to the good sense of the people of Leicester. Whenever an outbreak of small-pox occurs, there is an entire absence of "panic" (excepting in the "protected" circles) such as usually occurs in efficiently vaccinated towns. No flaming posters are placed upon the walls to create alarm and excitement. The Sanitary authorities go about their work in a quiet, unostentatious (but, withal, thorough) manner, and this inspires confidence in the minds of the people, and at the same time allays their fears. Whatever stir or attempted scare occurs is outside the Borough, usually in medical publications, whose business, for many years, has been to fruitlessly endeavour to detract from the splendid results in dealing with small-pox which have been achieved by Leicester.

CHAPTER 39. ERRORS OF DIAGNOSIS.

IN addition to the danger arising from the foregoing 75 importations of small-pox, two of which resulted in epidemics—one in 1892 and the other in 1902—there has been the even greater danger occasioned through lack of knowledge on the part of medical men. Errors of diagnosis are plentiful everywhere, and are estimated at not less than 5 to 10 per cent. In London, in 1900, these errors were 32 per cent., and in 1901, 13.3 per cent, of the small-pox cases. The extraordinary instances which occurred here will suffice to show the danger which at one time threatened to engulf Leicester through this cause.

At the beginning of the outbreak in 1892, an error in diagnosis by the then Medical Officer of Health led to no less than 13 of the scarlet fever cases under treatment at the Hospital becoming infected with small-pox. Four of those patients died. That disaster was bad enough, but a worse blunder, almost amounting to a crime, followed. The 145 scarlet fever sufferers, all of whom had been exposed to small-pox, were actually hurried off out of the Fever Hospital, irrespective of their condition, direct to their homes. If the object of those responsible for this diabolical act had been to disseminate small-pox throughout the length and breadth of the town, no more effectual means could well have been devised.

Yet, notwithstanding this risky, unparalleled, and unpardonable action, and the fact that the patients were distributed amongst the, at least, 50,000 unvaccinated children in all parts of the Borough, small-pox refused to spread, nor did it "ignite" the large mass of so-called "inflammable material "

There were, indeed, only a few more cases, all told, than the actual number of deaths which were recorded in the epidemic of 1871-73 (when the people were nearly all vaccinated), and only 21 deaths occurred in all.

The Medical Officer of that day (1892-94), himself a "thorough-paced" vaccinator, does not blame the absence of vaccination, but admits that errors of diagnosis were amongst the principal and most potent causes of the spread of the disease. Well might he say so, for, when he enumerates these cases, we find there are not only a number of instances where one, two, or three persons were infected by a wrongly diagnosed case, but also where no fewer than five, six, seven, and even eight persons were stricken down—in each instance through a single medical error. Again, as many as thirteen, and in another instance even seventeen, persons were infected through a mistaken diagnosis.

It is also recorded that three vaccinated cases actually infected eleven, fourteen, and twenty-six other persons .respectively, and one revaccinated person conveyed the disease, to, no fewer than nine other people. In fact, the enormous proportion of no less than 312 out of a total of 362 cases in the Leicester epidemic of 1892-94 were finally traced to these sources.

This only left 50 cases, and quite that number were accounted for by infection from the Hospital area itself. None of the cases, therefore, could by any possibility be charged against the unvaccinated. Indeed, not a single case of small­pox could be directly traced as due to infection by the unvaccinated during the whole of this epidemic. Consequently, it was the unvaccinated who required "protecting" against infection from the vaccinated and the revaccinated, and especially did they require "protecting" from those medical men whose intimate knowledge of, and strong belief in, vaccination, did not enable them even to recognise small-pox when they saw it.

There was a great pother in the Press, about the fate of Leicester, during the epidemic of 1892-94. It was not only believed, but hoped, that the impending day of doom of the anti-vaccination "Mecca"—so often predicted—had come at last. That terrible word "decimation" was more freely used than it had ever been before.

Dr. Biddle, writing in the "Times," 17th November, 1892, said:—" They trust there to notification, to the exclusion of vaccination—or rather, I should say, 'they trusted'—for smallpox has broken out in their midst, and the vaccinators are beginning to have a brisk time of it, applications being made right and left. We have all been looking for this, and our only hope is that Leicester has prepared a scourge for its own back only."

An eminent medical official of the Local Government Board, whose name and fame are not unknown in Leicester, having heard there were 16 cases of small-pox in the town, piously(!) exclaimed "I wish to God there were 1,600!" Even our own Medical Officer of Health, and others at Leicester, confidently affirmed that at last we were "in for it."

The "Lancet," of 20th January, 1894, followed its usual role in an absurdly extravagant article, headed,

" FATE OF UNVACCINATED CHILDREN AT LEICESTER."

Commenting on Leicester, towards the close of the outbreak, it observed :—"The price of defiance to vaccination and vaccination laws is being paid heavily at Leicester." ... It proceeded to ask the Local Government Board not to "connive and become a party by acquiescence," and, amongst other persiflage, used the ominous words, "Coroner" and "manslaughter," and "responsibility of the Sanitary Committee for "nine deaths among" the unvaccinated children. "If the President of the Local Government Board" failed to act, then, the "Lancet" asked, was it "too much to hope that the Home Secretary will think it a case justifying his interference? Death and disease on such a scale from lead poison or phosphorous would certainly not fail to excite his efforts to find a remedy, and in this case he has a  remedy  at  hand, and one that is absolutely reliable."

The "Lancet" must have been grossly misinformed as to facts, but, even if its information had been correct, how little this trashy rhodomontade was believed in by leading authorities on the question, may be inferred from the final recommendations of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, which were all in favour of anti-vaccinators.

CHAPTER 40.  SMALL-POX AND FEVERS.

THE age incidence of small-pox and fevers forms another phase of the question equally destructive of pro-vaccinist pretensions. The argument advanced that the diminution of the children's share in the total mortality from small-pox is due to vaccination, and to that alone, is rudely shattered by the facts relating to fevers. In Leicester we have so little small-pox that it is exceedingly difficult to find the requisite material for purposes of comparison. Another difficulty in the same direction has also arisen. The ages are now (1912), and for many years past have been, taken "Under 5" and "under 20," instead of "under 5" and "under 15," so that, while the whole of the periods from No. I. to No. VIII. in Table 6 deal with ages "under 5" and "under 15," the remaining periods from, and including, No. IX. deal with ages "under 5" and "under 20." This alteration by the Medical Officers, therefore, tends to lessen the full effect of the very decisive decline, which, notwithstanding this alteration, is still emphatically observable,                   

TABLE 6.            

Being Table 47, Fourth Report, Royal Commission on Vaccination, continued to 1910.

Table showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER during the years 1849-1910, in quinquennial periods, the total number of deaths, from small-pox and from fevers, of children under 5 and under 15 (or 20) years of age, and of persons at all ages, and the proportion of such deaths under 5 and under 15 (or 20) years, per cent, of the deaths from these diseases at all ages, with the average annual percentage of registered vaccinations to births.'

* For the actual number of annual vaccinations and the extra vaccinations, 1893-64, see Table 50.

FOOTNOTE To COLUMN 5.—Since 1887 it has been impossible to obtain the figures for deaths from Fevers, under 15 years ; and from that date onwards it has, therefore, been necessary to raise the age from "under 15" to "under 20," which accounts for the rise observable after that date in the second column relating to Fevers.

This subject is further illustrated and confirmed by tables compiled by Mr. Alfred Milnes, M.A., P.S.S., in a most able article, on "Statistics of Small-Pox and Vaccination," with special reference to age incidence, and published by the Royal Statistical Society in their " Journal," Vol. LX., Part III. (September, 1897). The following is Mr. Milnes' Table 16. at page 30 :—

TABLE 7.

Children's share of the mortality from small-pox, typhus, and typhoid respectively—corrected for chicken-pox and remittent fever—in quinquennia. Percentage of deaths under 5 to deaths at all ages for four successive quinquennia.

Extracted from the Registrar-General's Annual Reports, "England:  Causes of Death."

Percentage Diminution of Percentage (i.e., decrease per cent, of children's share), comparing First with Fourth Quinquennium.

This table covers a vastly wider field than the Leicester figures provide, and its interest is intensified by giving typhus and typhoid separately. It is singular that while the first three periods show a gradual decline of the children's share of small-pox fatality, from 31.3 per cent, to 27.2 per cent., the last period shows an upward curve, from 27.2 per cent, to 35.3 per cent., or an actual increase from the first to the last period of 12.7 in the percentage share of children's small-pox deaths.

When we turn to the typhus and typhoid figure we find a steady and continuous decline in the children's share, through all four periods, in both diseases. Typhus gives a decline of 46.8 per cent. and typhoid of 51.7 per cent. One would like to know how pro-vaccinists account for these remarkable, but interesting, phenomena. These tables destroy another idol of the advocates of the Jennerian fable! They will not, I suppose, argue that vaccination accounts for the decline in the children's share of the death-rate, from typhus and typhoid, as well as that from small-pox?

CHAPTER 41. ZYMOTIC DISEASES.

THE seven principal zymotic diseases are Small-Pox, Measles, Scarlet Fever, Diphtheria, Whooping Cough, Simple Fevers, and Diarrhoea. Just as there was considerably less small-pox in Leicester when vaccination had been abandoned, so with all these other zymotic diseases. Table 43 (see Appendix) gives, for Leicester, these diseases in quinquennial groups over the long period of more than 70 years. No unprejudiced mind can examine the facts here presented without recognising that, as between the earlier groups of high vaccination years in the table, and the later groups of years— when vaccination had become a merely nominal factor—some exciting cause must have produced the high mortality so very noticeable in the earlier periods. If vaccination was not that cause, it is for the advocates of vaccination to cite another. This they will find to be a somewhat difficult, if not an impossible, task. Also, they might suggest what accounts for the enormous decline in the death-rate if it is not the abandonment of vaccination, coupled with the increased activity of our Sanitary authorities.

Table 43 and Graph H (see Appendix) show with almost unvarying regularity the rise and fall of the death-rate to synchronise with the amount of vaccination. Indeed, the zymotic death-rate was already falling when the more stringent enforcement of vaccination, in and about 1864, apparently caused a substantial rise in the mortality. It increased from 4,616 per million living in 1858-62 to 5,210 in 1863-67, and that at a time when, owing to improving sanitation and conditions of life, there should naturally have been an appreciable and continuous fall.

But it was reserved for the years 1868-72, when vaccination was at its highest point, to accentuate the death-rate from these seven diseases. With vaccinations over 90 per cent, of the births, the zymotic death-rate rose to the enormous figure of 6,852 per million! There is but little vaccination in Leicester now, no small-pox, and the death-rate from these seven principal zymotics has fallen in 1908-10 to the almost incredibly low figure of only 1,153 per million!!! What has achieved this astounding revolution? Certainly not vaccination. It is the direct outcome of active, persistent, and solid progress in sanitation, which, in its broadest sense, covers the entire exclusion of the absolutely insanitary and disease-diffusing practice of cow-poxing.

These figures mean that, when nearly every­body was vaccinated, seven persons in every thousand living in Leicester died from zymotic disease each year, one of the seven being from small-pox.  If that rate prevailed in our present population, there would be no fewer than 1,650 persons die each year from these diseases in Leicester, compared with about 280, as is now actually the case. In other words, our improved sanitation, and rejection of vaccination, are saving nearly 1,400 lives annually from the zymotic group of diseases alone!        

CHAPTER 42. INCIDENCE OF ZYMOTIC DISEASES,

BEFORE leaving the subject of Zymotic Diseases, a few words may be devoted to the incidence of those diseases, or their relative position to each other. Nothing could show the important change which has taken place in Leicester more significantly than the relative position of small-pox in the group known as the seven principal zymotic diseases. 

Notwithstanding the grossly exaggerated statements as to its ravages in former ages, small-pox has never caused more than a relatively small proportion of the zymotic mortality. From this point, of view, it has always appeared singular that so much "fuss" should have been made about, it, when other sanitarily preventable diseases have produced a very much larger percentage of deaths.

When gave my evidence before the Royal Commission, I presented a table, as below:—

TABLE 8.

Being Table 17, Royal Commission, Fourth Report. Table showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, for the years 1838-89, the total number of deaths from each of the seven principal zymotic diseases, with the percentage of the deaths from each of those diseases to the total deaths from all of them.

I have since prepared a further table, bringing these figures up to date—i.e., for the period of twenty-one years, from 1890 to 1910, inclusive :—

TABLE 9.

Table showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, for the years 1890-1910, inclusive, the total number of deaths from each of the seven principal zymotic diseases, with the percentage of the deaths from each of those diseases to the total deaths from all of them.

In the first of these tables, the proportion of small-pox is 5.01 per cent, of the whole number of deaths, and in the second table it only represents 0.5 per cent. Another notable factor in these tables is the relative position of fevers, being 13.24 per cent, in the first table, and only 4.6 per cent, in the second. Now, next to small­pox, the collective group, under the name of fevers, would be most likely to be influenced by vaccination, and, in inverse ratio, by sanitation. When (we place these figures side by side with the vaccination rate, we get a most remarkable and indicative object-lesson :—

TABLE 10

The figures in this table need little or no comment. They give their own emphatic testimony with no uncertain sound.

The fall in both these diseases, being concurrent, with the decline in vaccination, is most indicative. The decrease in small-pox is 93.4 per cent. ; in fevers, 58.6 per cent. ; and in vaccination, 40.5 per cent.

It will be seen that small-pox has now become a negligible factor, whilst fevers have diminished to such an extent that they are second lowest on the list, being only 4.6 per cent, of the whole group. With the increased share borne by diphtheria, I will deal later on.

The incidence of small-pox in zymotic diseases, therefore, falls into line with all the other Leicester evidence in proving that with less vaccination we have had less small-pox.

CHAPTER 43. POCK-MARKED FACES.

WHEN visiting Birmingham and Sheffield, I have often noticed how many persons were pitted with small-pox, How is this, when both are well vaccinated cities? We have very few such cases in Leicester.

Many of my friends in Leicester, in past years, have told me that in their youth almost every other individual whom they met was deeply pitted or disfigured with small-pox, and that this was due to neglect of vaccination. No doubt others have heard similar stories. Indeed, the disappearance of pock-marked faces is one of the favourite arguments in support of vaccination. It is very singular that this claim was actually put forward ninety years ago, when probably not more than five--or at most ten — per cent, of the people were

The annual report of the National Vaccine Establishment for 1822, printed by order of the House of Commons, contains this passage : —

"As a proof of the protecting influence of vaccination, we appeal confidently to all who frequent, theatres and crowded assemblies to admit that they do not discover in the rising generation any longer that disfigurement of the human face which was obvious everywhere some years since."

Also, in the annual report of the same National Vaccine Establishment, for 1825, we read :—

"What argument more powerful can be urged in favour of vaccination than the daily remark which the least observant must make, that in our churches, our theatres, and in every large assemblage of the people, to see a young person bearing the marks of small-pox is now of extremely rare occurrence?"

Coming down to 1831, we find Dr. Epps, director of the Royal Jennerian Society, writing:—

"Seldom are persons now seen blind from small-pox. Seldom is the pitted and disfigured face now beheld, but seldom do mankind inquire for the cause. It is vaccination. It is vaccination which preserves the soft and rounded cheeks of innocence, and the still more captivating form of female loveliness."

Now, it must be apparent that if only five or ten per cent. of vaccinations caused the disappearance of pock-marked faces from the whole community ninety years ago, there could not have been many left after fifty years of continuous, compulsory, or universal vaccination. Yet the "Lancet," of 29th June, 1872, lamented:-

"the growing frequency with which we meet persons in the street disfigured for life with the pitting of small-pox. Young men, and, still worse, young women, are to be seen daily whose comeliness is quite compromised by this dreadful disease."

This was written at a time when the highest known vaccinal "protection" prevailed!  Surely this is sufficient to show the claim to be a preposterous, irrational, and complete delusion. The human race is, however, fond of delusions, otherwise so many of them would not bear the charmed life they appear to do. Dr. Johnson was well aware of this predilection when he wrote :—

"I would undertake to write an epic on the story of Robin Hood, and half England, to whom the names and places I should mention are familiar, would believe and declare they had heard it from their earliest years."

Pock-marked faces depend, not upon vaccinal condition, but upon the treatment of the patients, and their occurrence after small-pox is a proof of inefficient medical knowledge and improper nursing, or both combined. The less, therefore, said about the absence of pock-marked faces being due to, and an argument in favour of, vaccination, the better. The facts entirely refute the validity of such a claim.

CHAPTER 44. THE  "PROTECTION"  THEORY.

MUCH has been said, and written, about the "protection" supposed to be afforded by vaccination, both individually and collectively.

"Protection" has, in fact, taken the place of "vaccination" in the medical vocabulary on this subject.

Like everything else relating to vaccination in the past, "protection" has been shadowy, uncertain, and elusive. Since Jenner proclaimed "protection for ever," and Dr. Epps, in 1831, averred that pock-marked faces had disappeared as the result of only five to ten per cent, of the population being vaccinated, the "protection" period has been a receding and vanishing quantity. It has grown "smaller by degrees and beautifully less."

Modern medical opinion has completely renounced the life-long vaccinal protection, as set up by Jenner and his disciples. Thousands of failures have made that position utterly untenable. Limited "protection" has now replaced the once loudly-vaunted assertion which secured Jenner £30,000 of the public money—in the shape of two grants from Parliament of £10,000 and £20,000. The limit now assigned to the duration of "protection" from small-pox, assumed to be conferred by   vaccination,   varies according  to individual fancy.  

Some doctors affect to believe that protection lasts in a more or less degree for life, others limit it to fifteen, or even only ten, years; but the majority now seldom venture to claim more than a five years' "protection," whilst many reduce the time even much shorter than that.

The Royal Commission, in their conclusions, give a very lame and halting opinion on the "protective" power of vaccination. After their statement, that "the question we are now discussing must, of course, be argued on the hypothesis that vaccination affords protection against small­pox," it was inevitable that something should be said on this point. But they are not at all sure, and, indeed, are unable to make any definite statement. All they can say is (page 99, Final Report):---

"We think that the protection it (vaccination) affords against attacks of disease is greatest during the years immediately succeeding the operation of vaccination. It is impossible to fix with precision the length of this period of highest protection. Though not in all cases the same, if a period is to be fixed, it might, we think, be fairly said to cover in general a period of nine or ten years."

That is all such ardent believers in vaccination could say after several years scientific investigation of a subject upon which their minds were made up and their belief was sure before their investigation began!  It would indeed have been singular if the "protection," supposing it existed at all, had not been greatest immediately after vaccination was first performed. The question is—Did the inquiry strengthen or weaken their original belief in vaccination?  If it strengthened it, and that conclusion represented their final belief, then their original faith must have been of a weak and lukewarm character. If, on the other hand, the inquiry weakened their original belief, and that conclusion represented the measure of their faith at the close of the inquiry, their conclusion was a continuously diminishing quantity, and consequently worthless. From Jenner's high pedestal of "life protection" to the "village stocks" (ten years dubious protection) of the Royal Commission is a tremendous drop, the depth of which has only yet been measured by anti-vaccinators.

The appended table affords at one glance the "protected" and "unprotected" numbers of Leicester people at each of the "protection" periods of five, ten, and fifteen years respectively. This table was prepared for the Royal Commission, with the view of ascertaining how the imaginary theory of "protection" worked out in actual practice. It has been continued to the end of 1910.

 TABLE  11.

Being Table No. 15, Fourth Report, Royal Commission on Vaccination, continued to 1910.

Table showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, during the years 1849-1910, in quinquennial periods, the number of persons registered as vaccinated, with the balance of the population

This table bears out the uniform course of the other facts relating to Leicester, and does not afford many crumbs of comfort to the pro-vaccinist. The highest "protection" for the five years claim was in the fatal small-pox period of 1868-72, when 17,728 persons, or 18 per cent, of the population of Leicester, were "protected," and 80,523, or 82 per cent, of the population, were "unprotected." On the ten and fifteen years claims, the highest "protection" is in 1873-77, but in 1868-72 there was, on the ten years basis, 30.5 per cent, of "protection," and on the fifteen years basis, 38.9 per cent.

In the light of recent recantation of former belief in long period "protection" from small-pox by vaccination, and as even the authoritative Royal Commission only "think" it may reach to nine or ten years, anything exceeding five years "protection" may now be disregarded.  From 1888 to 1910, the average annual "protection " on a five years basis is shown to be barely one per cent. of the population.

Now, comparing the small-pox epidemic of 1868-72 in Leicester, when the "protection" was 18 per cent, on the professional five years basis, with the epidemics of 1892-94 and 1902-04, when the "protection" was less than one per cent., what do we find? That, reckoning the difference in population, in the first of those epidemics, with eighteen times the amount of vaccinal "protection," Leicester had nearly thirty times as much fatal small-pox as in the second and third epidemics. So much for the highly vaunted "protection" theory,  worked out on a scientific period basis!

Even from the small percentage of vaccinations which are supposed to remain effective on the five years basis, it is necessary to deduct all classed by medical men as "doubtful, " bad," "imperfect" "poor," "indifferent," "moderate," "imperfectly foveated," and the "imperfectly performed" vaccinations. Also, that "imperfect" vaccination which has been described as "in some ways worse than none at all," the "scanty," "unsatisfactory," "very defective," "very inefficient," and that which is "wanting in essential characters." Further, we must deduct that which Dr. Buchanan describes, in the reprinted "Extracts from his Annual Report for 1884," page 15, as "bastard operations," and that which he further describes as a "form of private vaccination that offers itself in competition with public vaccination and which parades its inefficiency as a reason for its acceptance by ignorant people.'' In addition to this, we have what is styled " semi-efficient" vaccination, and "semi-successful " and vaccination of a "spurious character.

After all the foregoing, further deductions must be made, according to Dr. Ballard, who, in his book on "Vaccination: Its Value and Alleged Dangers," says, at page 93 :—

" Vaccination is not a thing to be trifled with, or to be made light of; it is not to be undertaken thoughtlessly or without due consideration of the condition of the patient, his mode of life, and the circumstances of season and of place. Surgeon and patient should both carry in their minds the regulating thought that the one is engaged in communicating, the other receiving into his system a real disease, as truly a disease as small-pox or measles; a disease which, mild and gentle as its progress may usually be, yet nevertheless now and then, like every other exanthematous malady, asserts its character by an unusual exhibition of virulence."

Now, no infants, and very few adults, realise this. So, assuming Dr. Ballard's statement to be correct, that, to secure "effective" vaccination, all these conditions must be complied with, then all infantile vaccination, and much of that of persons under adult age, must be eliminated from the sum total of "effective " vaccination. When this is done, and when all the other " spurious" and "very defective" vaccination has also been deducted, the remaining "protection" cannot be very great, and the protection " theory is reduced to a ludicrous farce.

CHAPTER 45.  "PROTECTION" BY "MARKS" THEORY.

FOR many years one of the pet theories of the pro-vaccinist was, that vaccinated persons were "protected" from an attack of small-pox in proportion to the number and area of their vaccination marks. Marson brought this idea into prominence, but his own figures—as Dr. W. Scott Tebb, in " A Century of Vaccination," pages 204 and 205, and General Phelps, in the "Chatham News," 8th March, 1902, have shown—as well as the figures of the Leicester epidemic of 1892-94, all refute that contention. Of 207 Leicester small-pox patients in 1892-94, the vaccination marks were distributed thus :-

Number of marks -1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10
Number of cases - 8  48  72   51  16   7    3    0    1      1

The remarkable features about these figures are that the patients with six marks and upwards, all of whom would have been revaccinated, are 50 per cent. more than those with only one mark ; those with three marks and upwards are nearly three times as numerous as those with only one or two ; in fact, those bearing three to ten marks are nearly 75 per cent, of the whole number. Whatever would Jenner have said to that? He believed absolute protection for ever was effected by one mark only. He, therefore, derided and scorned the very idea of revaccination being necessary at all. Yet the revaccinated small-pox cases numbered 31, or about 15 per cent, of the "protected" class. Five of these revaccinated patients were confluent cases, and one died.

This large proportion of revaccinated cases, with a high number of marks, was a striking point in connection with the 1892-94 outbreak, so much so, in fact, that, adopting Dr. Buchanan's formula in the Sheffield report, if our whole population had been revaccinated and suffered a proportional fatality, it would have given a death-rate of over 32,000 per million.

Jenner was not the only one who disbelieved in and discredited revaccination. Dr. F. Thorpe Porter, M.R.C.S., Superintendent of the Dublin Small-Pox Hospital, says :—

" With reference to revaccination, I have no faith in it. Not one of the thirty-six attendants at the South Dublin Union Sheds has taken small-pox. Only seven of the number were revaccinated, and as the remaining twenty-nine enjoy the same immunity, wherein is the necessity of the operation ?" ("Medical Press and Circular," 27th March, 1872.)

Our revaccinated army is constantly cited as a proof of the efficacy of a large number of marks, but at page 278 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission, in the evidence of Brigade-Surgeon Nash, we find that 3,953 revaccinated soldiers in the British Army suffered from small-pox from 1860-88, of whom 391 died of the disease. Again adopting Dr. Buchanan's formula, this means a small-pox death-rate of nearly 99,000 per million among the strongest, healthiest, and specially selected revaccinated adult male population. What a contrast these appalling death-rates of 32,000 and 99,000 per million of the "efficiently vaccinated" and " revaccinated," or "doubly protected" with many marks, afford, compared with the death-rate in the Leicester epidemic under review of only 89 per million amongst our mixed, and, for the most part, "unprotected" civilian population !

We may, therefore, well agree with Dr. Porter, and ask, "Wherein is the necessity of the operation?"

If such is the meagre "protection" afforded by revaccination, what "protection" is there in primary vaccination? Let Dr. Gayton, one of the principal Government witnesses called to bolster up the practice, answer. He told the Royal Commission, at Questions 1,758-9:—"I think primary vaccination is a very fleeting protection indeed. As to the time that primary vaccination lasts, I do not know, but I think it is a very short time. . . . My table shows that it is not absolutely protective up to any age whatever " ! ! !

If that did not give away the whole argument for vaccination, it is hard to conceive what would!

The small-pox epidemic, in 1897-98, at Middlesbrough, adds further proof to the absurdity of the "marks" protection theory. Dr. Dingle, the Medical Officer of Health, published an article in "Public Health," of December, 1898, on the epidemic, and in his Table G he gives the number of marks of each of the 1,213 vaccinated persons attacked. Singularly enough, this was intended to prove his contention, that much of the bad repute into which vaccination had fallen, was due, as he said, "to the very inefficient manner in which it has been performed in the past. Many medical men seem to think that a vaccination of two small places is quite sufficient protection. This is quite erroneous, and most harmful in practice, as it destroys the belief in the value of vaccination as a protection by reason of those who are thus inefficiently vaccinated contracting small-pox." The doctor could not have sufficiently or seriously studied his own tables, or he would never have written to that effect. His Table C is an over­whelming contradiction of this hypothesis.

In my pamphlet on "Small-Pox at Middlesbrough," I deal fully with the whole subject. It is sufficient for my present purpose to briefly state that nearly half of the 1,213 cases at Middlesbrough had three or four marks, and over 80 per cent, had "good" marks—whatever that may mean.

This theory of "protection" according to the number of marks, is an entire departure from Jenner's original single-mark "protection." But in this, as in all other phases of the vaccination question, there is no unanimity. There are those who advocate one mark, others believe in two, three, four, five, and even six. Dr. Dixon ("Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Advertiser," 14th May, 1881) thinks there should be as many marks as there are in a case of modified small-pox, but omits to state the number, Some pro-vaccinist experts(!) consider the marks should be small, others large. Some doctors would have them deep, and others large in area. The Royal Commission "think" there should be "three or four marks," with an area of half an inch for each of them. But the Royal Commission assign no rational reason for "thinking" thus. If "protection" is afforded by the number of marks, why stop at three or four? Pro-vaccinists ought to advocate as many as are necessary to secure absolute "protection." The truth is, that the "protection by marks" theory is on a par with all else relating to vaccination. It is a theory only without any conceivable basis in fact.

CHAPTER 46.  THE ROYAL COMMISSION AND. THE "MARKS" THEORY.

THE Royal Commission regarded the "marks" theory of "protection as so important that they devoted twenty-seven paragraphs (272-298) of their Final Report to its consideration, and that is why I have alluded to this subject at such length. They start with Dr. Barry's Report for Sheffield. In the first place, they distribute and deal with 825 vaccinated cases treated in Winter Street Hospital. Of these 825 patients 60 died, or a case fatality-rate of 7.27 per cent., being very little less than the fatality-rate of the whole epidemic. They, however, omit 39 cases, with 11 deaths, in which the "records were incomplete." Why did Dr. Barry—whose genius has been so much extolled by pro-vaccinists —include them in this class, and, if he found sufficient reason to so include them, why did the Royal Commission exclude them? Was it because the fatality-rate of these 39 vaccinated cases worked out at 28.2 per cent? What they appear to lose sight of is, that these 864 vaccinated cases, with 71 deaths, are so many proofs of the utter failure of vaccination either to protect from small­pox or mitigate the type of an attack.

Not being  able  to  find  much  comfort  from Dr. Barry's figures, they turn to Dr. Coupland's statistics for Dewsbury. Here, however, they are worse off. I will quote their own figures, from

paragraph. 276 :—

"Of the 461 persons whose marks were recorded,
"With 4 or more marks 42, of whom 1 died, or 2.3 per cent.
"With 3 marks 210, of whom none died.
"With 2 marks 475, of whom 10 died, or 5.7 per cent.
"With 1 mark 34, of whom none died."

So that we find those with one mark are, on their own showing, infinitely better off than those with four. Again, the Royal Commission lose sight of the fact that the 627 vaccinated small-pox cases at Dewsbury (the total number of deaths riot be ins given) furnish 627 indisputable proofs of the failure of vaccination to protect.

From Dewsbury, the Royal Commission turns to Leicester. Of 198 selected vaccinated cases, there are six with one cicatrix, 42 with two cicatrices, 64 with three cicatrices, and 70 with four or more cicatrices ; whilst 16 cases are, for some reason, altogether omitted, reducing the number to 182. If these 16 cases had been included, the figures would give about 75 per cent, of cases with three or more cicatrices. The Commission go on to show the severity or mildness of the attack. Even here they do not score much for the benefit derived from vaccination, for those with only one cicatrix show 50 per cent. of mild attacks; those with two cicatrices show 47.6 per cent. ; and those with three cicatrices 46.6 per cent.     Grouping the severer and milder forms, these results are obtained;:-—

TABLE 12.

Number of Cicatrices.               One.      Two.     Three.     Four, or more

Confluent and Coherent----
per cent, of cases -    -              32.2       86.0        23.4            11.3

Discrete and Mild—per
cent, of cases -   -   -                 66.6       73.8        76.6             88.5

When we consider that all this elaborate calculation is based on only six cases having one cicatrix, and that two more cases, or an accidental transference of two cases (an error which might easily occur), would bring those with one cicatrix to the level of those with four or more; and, also, when we remember how the Commission detested the very idea of drawing conclusions from small figures, we may reasonably dismiss these from the category of facts worth recording.

What the Commission studiously avoid all through their elaborate tergiversations is the unpalatable, but manifest, deduction that all these vaccinated cases are proofs of the inefficacy of the operation. This is a much more momentous factor than the greater or lesser degree of " protection" in cases where vaccination has entirely failed to "protect." I have already shown that at Leicester, in 1892-94, the vaccinated failures, with from three to ten marks, constituted nearly 75 per cent, of the whole number, and even the revaccinated reached no less than 15 per cent, of the total.

The Commission proceed to deal in a similar manner with the London and Warrington epidemics, with Dr. Gayton's analysis at the Homerton Hospital, Mr. Sweeting's figures at the Fulham Hospital, and Mr. Marson's exploded calculations. In reviewing these statistics of over 20,000 cases, they significantly proceed, first of all, to omit the whole of Mr. Marson's figures, and thus reduce the number, to 6,839. Next they eliminate Dr. Gayton's cases, because of his untrustworthy methods (Questions 1,704-6, Second Report), and thereby further diminish the number to 4,754 cases. These are thus tabulated :—

1  mark,     828 cases, with 63 deaths, or     7.6  per cent!
2     „      1,322         „          93        „               7.0        „   
3     „      1,479          „          63         „              4.2        „          
4     „      1,125          „          28         „             2.4*      „
                            * Should be 2.5.

Even with these attenuated figures, the Commission observe (paragraph 293) :—"There is no doubt some room for error. It may be that the number of scars was, by accident, incorrectly recorded, or even that some which existed had ceased to be apparent."

So that, after casting aside as worthless over 75 per cent, of the 20,000 cases they themselves chose to enumerate, and having specifically selected a number of cases—in which "there is no doubt some room for error"—upon which to base their final result, we then have left 4,754 vaccinated and revaccinated cases, or vaccination failures, with 247 deaths, yielding a case fatality-rate of 5.2 per cent. Compare this with the case fatality-rate of vaccinated and unvaccinated together in the Leicester epidemic of 1892-94 of 5.8 per cent., and also with the Leicester epidemic of 1902-04, with its case fatality-rate of only 3.49 per cent., or, taking the epidemic of 1904 alone, a case fatality-rate of only 1.24 per cent.  In other words, the case fatality-rate (2.48 per cent.) of the 1,125 cases with four vaccination marks, specially selected by the Royal Commission, was exactly double that of unvaccinated Leicester (1.24 per cent.) in the small-pox epidemic of 1904. Wherein, we may ask, is the benefit of either vaccination or revaccination? How much more serviceable to humanity would it have been, had the Royal Commission devoted half of this futile ingenuity to the important Leicester evidence in favour of sanitation, as compared with and opposed to vaccination!

How oblivious the Royal Commissioners were to the teaching of the figures with which they were dealing is shown in paragraph 295, where they say:—"The particulars given in the Sheffield, Leicester, and London reports afford an indication that the disease varies in its severity inversely as the number of the vaccination marks." How ludicrous all this appears, when compared with the astounding and marvellous achievements Jenner professed to have accomplished with only "one" mark!! And what hypocrisy and mockery it all is, to profess to require marks of deep foveation and large area, when pro-vaccinists know full well that practically no marks worth the name are being produced by present-day operations with the precious glycerinated calf lymph.

The death-blow to the "marks" theory is dealt by the following question and answer :—

On 18th May, 1905, Sir John Rolleston, M.P., asked the President of the Local Government Board—

Whether he is aware that the recently published opinions of Dr. S. Monckton Copeman and of the commissioners appointed by the "Lancet" in 1900 and 1902 to examine the various lymphs on sale in this country, support the view that large marks are not an evidence of efficient vaccination ; and that the same authorities have shown that, in consequence of the modern methods of vaccination, it is possible to produce the Board's stipulated area of vesiculation—viz., not less than half a square inch—without leaving anything like a corresponding area of marks ; and whether he proposes to take any steps to amend the Board's Vaccination Order of 1898, so as to make it more consistent with the latest medical evidence on these points.

Mr. Gerald Balfour's printed answer was as follows :—

Dr. Copeman informs me that, in his opinion, large scars are not necessarily evidence of efficient vaccination, and small scars are not, in them­selves, evidence of inefficient vaccination, but that usually the area of the scar corresponds fairly closely with that of the vesicle which preceded it. These opinions do not, as I am advised, render it necessary or desirable to amend the Vaccination Order, 1898, which does not make the area of the scar a criterion of successful vaccination.

CHAPTER 47. LEICESTER'S INFANTILE DEATH-RATE.

ONE of the most crucial tests of the healthiness of any locality is its infantile death-rate. Leicester, in former times, had an unenviable notoriety in this respect, chiefly owing to the recurring prevalence of summer diarrhoea. The death-rate from this disease—which is principally infantile— was especially emphasised during the high vaccination period, and has fallen enormously as vaccination has declined. This is very clearly shown by my Tables 27 to 39 and Graphs M and N, pages 445 to 455, Fourth Report, Royal Commission.

The following figures, bringing the statistical proof up to date, are unmistakable in their significance :—

TABLE 13.

* For the actual number of annual vaccinations  and   the extra vaccinations, 1863-64, see Table 50.

From Table 13 it will be seen how, as official pressure became more intense to secure the vaccination of infants, so the death-rate from diarrhoea increased. In the four periods when the percentage of vaccinations to births exceeded 75 per cent., the death-rate from diarrhoea was considerably over 2,000 per million, while in the one fateful period when the vaccinations were forced up to over 90 per cent, of births, the diarrhoea death-rate was actually over 3,000 per million! Contrast that with the six latest periods giving a lower percentage of vaccinations, being less than 30 per cent, of the births. The highest of these periods gives a diarrhoeal death-rate of only 1,734 per million, and the lowest only 405 per million. Even here, in this last comparison, the highest death-rate is found side by side with the highest vaccination rate. Perhaps it may be objected that it is unfair to take the death-rate of the last period, which is incomplete, being only three years, as the remaining two years might effect a material alteration. For my part, I am quite content to compare the last complete period—viz., 1903-07—with its diarrhoeal death-rate of only 848 per million, and a vaccination percentage of 23.5, against 1868-72, with its diarrhoeal death-rate of 3,161 per million, and a vaccination percentage of 91.7. These show that with about four times the amount of vaccination, we had about four times the number of deaths from diarrhoea.

How far this awful fatality from diarrhoea increased our infantile mortality may be seen from the figures in Table 13. For the eight years, 1868-75, when vaccination was not only rigorously enforced, but kept at over 80 per cent, of the births, the death-rate from diarrhoea reached an annual average of over 3,000 per million.

Exactly twenty years later, with more, and better, sanitation, and less vaccination, for the eight years, 1888-95, when the vaccinations averaged only 3.1 per cent, of the births, the death-rate from diarrhoea had fallen to an annual average of only 1,397 per million. These figures tell so striking a story that they are worth even more vividly depicting side by side:—

TABLE 14.

This is a most important transformation in the death-rate. If it is contended by pro-vaccinists that the result is due to sanitation, and not to vaccination, well and good! This would "give away" the whole case for vaccination. If sanitation so far influences the effect of one zymotic disease, why not of all, even including small-pox?

I do not, for one moment, contend that vaccination has been the sole cause of increased infantile mortality; but I do most emphatically maintain that when vaccination was enforced upon very young infants, it was one of the principal agents contributing to "the Massacre of the Innocents." The proofs are in the figures, which set out indisputable facts. There are, of course, numerous contributory causes to a death-rate, but that vaccination is one, and at tender ages one of the most powerful, should be realised by pro-vaccinists and anti-vaccinists alike. It is sufficient proof to know that the Local Government Board— who admit little or nothing that tells against vaccination.—have so far acknowledged this, that when diarrhoea or erysipelas are prevalent in a district, they recommend the suspension of public vaccinations

The fall in the death-rate from diarrhoea means to Leicester an annual saving of not less than 630 lives—a not inconsiderable number. There is one point in Table 13 which opponents might assume I wished not to refer to. It is that the two last periods show an increase of vaccinations and a decrease in the diarrhoeal death-rate. I am very glad to deal with this, because it so happens that it emphasises all that has gone before.

The increased vaccination was largely due to the furore worked up by interested persons, on the importation of vaccinated small-pox cases, in 1902. I need only give one instance to show that the increase was unreal and abnormal, and was not (in any sense) due to a natural return to vaccination.

The Medical Officer of Health, in a paper on the "Leicester Method," etc., published in "Public Health," for July, 1904, page 628, speaking of his belief in the "temporary protection" of vaccination against small-pox, says that he induced nearly 800 persons to submit to vaccination, but found it "a heavy and thankless task." Now, this artificial "forcing" of vaccination accounts very largely for the increased percentage of vaccinations in the period 1903-07, but it must be remembered that these included many persons of adult age.

The enormously decreased death-rate from diarrhoea was undoubtedly due to three principal causes—(1) The comparatively small amount of vaccination, compared with 1868-72 and following years; (2) the greatly improved sanitary conditions in the town; and (3) the improved physical stamina and virility of unvaccinated parents, who are now contributing a considerable quota of the total births. Whatever advantage our opponents imagine they can extract from this part of Table l3, they are perfectly welcome to. For myself, I am content with the vindication of our anti-vaccination principles, as shown by the saving of 630 lives annually.

CHAPTER 48. SAVING THE CHILDREN'S LIVES.

Now, what is the logical and actual outcome of the teaching of the figures just considered? We know that one of the principal claims put forward in favour of vaccination has been that it not only saves the children from a loathsome, disfiguring disease, but that it also saves many of them from a premature death by small-pox. If there was any truth in these claims, it would be unwise to the last degree not to pay earnest heed to them. Indeed, it does credit to human nature to know that such feelings of sympathy have prompted, in no small measure, the support given to the practice of vaccination. Unfortunately for those who believe in, and press, these claims, experience not only shows their utter fallacy and complete failure, but it proves exactly the opposite result.

We have only to examine Table 49, and Graph J, illustrating this table (see Appendix), to see this most clearly.

This diagram shows—
(1) That the decline of the mortality at all ages (which had set in with the introduction of sanitary measures in the earlier periods 1848-62) was checked, and that the mortality rapidly rises (particularly in the younger ages) concurrently with the increased enforcement of vaccination.

(2)   That the highest death-rate of children under 5, under 10, and under 15 years  (up to which ages more especially  it has been assumed that vaccination saves life)  was coincident with the highest rate of  infantile vaccination, 1868-72.

(3)    That the above-mentioned increase of mortality under 5, 10, and 15 years (the death-rates above 15 meanwhile declining)   raised the all-age and all-cause death-rate to the highest point (1868-72) attained during a period of forty years from 1849, when vaccination became more generally practised in Leicester.

(4)   That a notable and continuous decline in the mortality of children, more particularly in the younger ages under 5 years, with a proportionate decline under the ages of 10 and 15 years, coincides with the rapid fall and general abandonment of vaccination.

(5). That Leicester (which was formerly classed by the Registrar-General amongst the most unhealthy towns of the country) had an average annual death-rate in 1868-72 of 26.82 per 1,000 total population, when the percentage of vaccinations was 91.7 to the total births; and that subsequently, when vaccinations had fallen to 2.1 per cent, to the total births, the average annual death-rate from all causes for 1893-97 had fallen to only 17.31 per 1,000 living, and has since gone down to 12.30. (This is a remarkably low death-rate for a manufacturing town like Leicester, especially considering its geology and geographical position. It is now, therefore, grouped by the Registrar-General with towns having the lowest rate of mortality.)

The lesson of this table (49) is that when we pinned our faith to the prophylactic and saving virtues of vaccination—from 1868 to 1872—no fewer than an annual average of 239 out of every 1,000 infants born died within twelve months of their birth. Now, having seen the error of our ways, and discarded the nostrum, instead of 239 deaths, there is only an annual average of 128 deaths per 1,000 births, or a decrease of 111 per thousand, being a saving of 46 per cent. These figures represent an annual saving of over 600 infant lives each year in Leicester.

In other words, instead of 1,315 infants dying within twelve months of their birth each year, as in 1868-12, there are now only 702 such deaths. Even these are too many, but, fortunately, the trend is still in the right direction.

The saving of children's lives under five years of age is on the same lines of progress. Whereas in the high vaccination period of 1866-72 there were 107 deaths per thousand living at that age, now there are only 34 per thousand, being a decrease of 73 per thousand, or a saving of 68 per cent. This represents a saving of over 2,200 lives each year of children living under five.

In other words, if the death-rate under this heading had continued as in 1868-72, no less than 3,109 children under five years of age would have died within each year, instead of only 890. These remarkable results show us where the saving of life has been effected by our sanitary work, minus vaccination.

The  preservation  of life  under  15 is  equally remarkable, but as this age is now merged in that of twenty years, which is practically an adult age, it is unnecessary to deal with it in this chapter.   I, therefore, relegate it to that on the general death-rate of Leicester.

CHAPTER 49. THE GENERAL DEATH-RATE OF LEICESTER.

WE may now merge the details of the several tables already given into the general death-rate, or, more correctly, the death-rate of Leicester from all causes and at all ages. These results are equally as significant as those of a more detailed character. From 1868 to 1872, when the percentage of vaccination reached high-water mark, the average annual death-rate of Leicester was 27 per thousand of the population per annum, or nearly five per thousand above the annual average death-rate of England and Wales.

Had the death-rate of Leicester continued in 1908-10 at the same alarming figure as in the high vaccination period of 1868-72, the deaths each year would have reached an annual average of about 6,400, instead of being only 3,026, and thus showing an annual saving of nearly 3,400 lives.

Fortunately, owing to its sanitary advancement, the death-rate of Leicester in 1908-10 was nearly two per thousand below that of England and Wales, or a gain on the death-rate of the whole country, as compared, with 1868-72, of exactly 6.4 per thousand. Had the death-rate of Leicester even only remained in the same relative position to England and Wales as in 1868-72, there would have been, in each of the three years named, about 2,540 more deaths than actually occurred. In other words, instead of an average annual death-rate of 3,026. there would have been no less than 5,560 deaths in each of these years. On this basis an annual saving of 2,534 lives has resulted. Whether we take the annual saving at nearly 3,400 lives, or over 2,500, it is an achievement to be proud of, and proves the enormous benefits Leicester has derived from its progressive sanitary policy and work.

TABLE 15.    (See Graph  B.)

Being Table 24, Royal Commission, Fourth Report, abbreviated by omitting the actual numbers, but continued to 1910.

Table showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER during the years 1838-1910, in quinquennial periods, the average annual rate per 1,000 living of persons married, of births, and of deaths; with the average annual registered vaccinations per 100,000 living.*

 * For the actual number of annual vaccinations and extra vaccinations for 1863-64, see Table 50.

GRAPH  B.

ILLUSTRATING  TABLE   15.

LEICESTER.

MARRIAGES,    BIRTHS.   AND     DEATHS, PER 1000 POPULATION,  1838—1910.

Upper   Dotted   Curve—Average   annual   birth-rate   per   1000 population Solid Blank Curve—Average annual death-rate from all causes per 1000 population.

Lower  Dotted  Curve—Average   annual   number   of   persons married per 1000 population.

Red Curve---Average annual vaccinations per 100,000 population. (One-fiftieth only shown to suit compass of diagram.)

PART   5.  STATISTICAL   COMPARISONS   WITH LEICESTER.

CHAPTER  50. LEICESTER COMPARED WITH OTHER TOWNS.

WHY should medical gentlemen and influential medical organs be so anxious about Leicester on the appearance of small-pox? Have they forgotten the impressive lessons of other towns which are so well vaccinated? In the epidemic of 1871-73, in Leicester, when nearly the whole of the children were vaccinated, no fewer than 193 deaths occurred from small-pox of children under 10 years of age. Let opponents compare this terrible death roll with the total of only 13 deaths of children under 10 years during the whole epidemic of 1892-94, which so greatly exercised the "Lancet" and other medical authorities, and when the average of vaccinations to births was less than three per cent. Also, let it never be forgotten that in efficiently vaccinated Sheffield, during the notorious and terrible epidemic of 1887-88, no fewer than 339 of the cases were children under 10 years, each having three or more vaccination cicatrices, of whom 14 died.

The " British Medical Journal," of 21st April, 1894, gives some particulars of small-pox out­breaks, which the critics of Leicester—if their vision is not too obscured by prejudice—might study with much advantage to themselves. Although for some of the towns the whole of the cases are not included, and, in some instances, the epidemic spreads over more than one year, the manifest deduction is not affected. The only town approaching Leicester for a low small-pox fatality-rate is the salubrious, sparsely populated, and residential suburban district of Aston Manor.

TABLE 16.

From this table of eleven towns, including Leicester, chosen by the "British Medical Journal," we find the average fatality-rate to be 8.6 per cent., while that of Leicester is only 5.7 per cent.

These figures show a gain to Leicester of 2.9 per cent., but if we calculate the relative difference between the death-rate of 5.7 per cent, and that of 8.6, they mean a percentage gain to Leicester of nearly 32 per cent. We may ask the "British Medical Journal" wherein is the benefit of vaccination?

It would be much more dignified for those people who constantly revile Leicester to remove the beam from their own eye. It would then enable them to see clearly that Leicester has set both them and the whole country a bright and illustrious example, which they might do .worse than follow.

CHAPTER   51. LEICESTER COMPARED WITH LONDON.

LONDON has very little vaccination default, and, as the organisation under the Metropolitan Asylums Board is the largest of its kind in the world, and its resources (both financially and otherwise) are second to none, it cannot be considered inappropriate or unfair to compare it with Leicester. Whatever difference may exist should rather tell against Leicester than in its favour.

The small-pox epidemic in London, in 1901-02, came after several years of comparative freedom from the disease. The usual laudations of the beneficent effects of vaccine prophylaxy were well to the fore, but, as on many previous occasions, the "protection" failed when the trial came, and before 1901 had closed, there were 1,743 cases and 257 deaths.

On 10th January, 1902, the Metropolitan Asylums Board issued a special report of its Statistical Committee, on "Small-Pox and Vaccination," during the epidemic in London in 1901. That outbreak was considered to be so very favourable to vaccination they could not resist the temptation, and the Committee unduly hastened to place before the public the results (as they called them) to the end of the year 1901, although at that time the epidemic was not over, nor were the results complete. The first paragraph of this report reads as follows :—

"Instead of waiting until the issue some months hence of our usual annual report on the statistics obtainable from the whole of the Board's various institutions, we take the earliest opportunity of submitting this special report upon the statistics concerning small-pox in the Metropolis during the year 1901. In doing this, we believe we are meeting the wishes of the Managers and the public. It must be understood that this document is in the nature of an interim report, and is not in substitution for the later and fuller one."

What a philanthropic object! I do not suppose the public had any feeling in the matter of publication, and I should imagine the Managers themselves now wish this report had never been issued. Apart from age subdivisions, the main feature of the report is to classify the cases as:—(1) "Vaccinated," (2) "Unvaccinated," (3) "Doubtful." The table gives 760 vaccinated cases with 108 deaths, a case fatality-rate of 14.21 per cent. ; 194 unvaccinated cases with 98 deaths, a case fatality-rate of 50.52 per cent. ; and 63 doubtful cases with 41 deaths, a case fatality-rate of 65.08 per cent. So, according to the showing of these extremely astute statisticians, the chances of recovering from small-pox were far greater if the patient was really and indisputably unvaccinated, than if there was some doubt as to whether the operation had been undergone or not!  What a remarkably powerful argument in favour of vaccination, to be sure!! Does it not, in reality, show up conclusively the shallowness of the whole Jennerian case?

In all, the report only deals with 1,017 cases and 247 deaths, yielding an over-all case fatality-rate of 24.29 per cent. It is not my intention now to gibbet the numerous fallacies underlying the whole report, as I did this in an article at the time it was issued. I wish to deal with the broad statistical features of the whole outbreak, and not a part of it only. We can then compare them with pre-vaccination and post-vaccination times, and also with Leicester.

The first point that the table affords, is undeniable evidence that vaccination does not protect from small-pox, as testified by the 760 vaccinated cases. It also failed to modify the attack, as proved by the 108 deaths amongst the vaccinated.

The second point that pro-vaccinists should remember is that all doubtful cases are vaccinated—that is, there is prima facie evidence of some vaccination—beyond all doubt, otherwise they would at once be classed as unvaccinated. The effect of this consideration is that the vaccinated and doubtful together give 823 cases, with 149 deaths, or a case fatality-rate raised to 18.1 per cent.

The third point is, that at least seven vaccinated infants—all of whom died—recorded in the Registrar-General's returns as vaccinated, are either included by the Statistical Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in the unvaccinated cases, without one word of explanation, or are omitted altogether. These, at least, if not others, should be transferred to the vaccinated class. This brings the case fatality-rate of the vaccinated to 18.7 per cent., and reduces the case fatality-rate of the unvaccinated accordingly.

Even assuming their figures are correct, it is for our opponents to tell us how it happens that the unvaccinated case fatality-rate in well-vaccinated London is over 48 per cent., while at unvaccinated Leicester, according to the reports of the Medical Officer of Health for 1902-04, the fatality-rate of the unvaccinated is only 4.87— a difference of 43.52 per cent, in favour of Leicester. Perhaps they will kindly explain how this difference arises !

Volume I. of the Annual Report of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, for 1901, contains some curious examples of logic, especially when we remember that the writers are full-fledged believers in vaccination as a preventive of small­pox. On page 136 we read :—

"We alluded in our Annual Report for 1900 to the erratic behaviour of small-pox. . . . In reporting to the Board on the subject, we said (5th October) :—

"The outbreak of small-pox with which the Board have to deal at this moment has come at a time when it might reasonably   have been expected least.   We are in the middle of the seasonal rise of fever and diphtheria, and never before in the history of the Board has such an outbreak of small-pox commenced in the midst of that period. The rise in fever and diphtheria admissions has, as a general rule, coincided with the lowest point touched by small-pox."

From this it would appear that small-pox was not expected, and when it came, would be erratic and beyond control. But, if we turn to another part of the report, at pages 8 and 9, Vol. I., 1901, we read :—

"The work of the Board as the infectious hospital authority for London claims the largest share of their attention, and during the year 1901 special importance has been given to this branch of the work by the outbreak of small-pox in the autumn.

" For some little time past an outbreak of some dimensions had been more or less confidently predicted. Some authorities held that with the widespread disregard of vaccination and the consequently increasing number of susceptible persons in the huge population of London, a serious epidemic must sooner or later occur should the disease succeed in invading and taking root amongst the people. Others pointed to the fact that epidemics have hitherto recurred in something like uniform cycles, and that, looking to the history of small-pox in the past, another outburst might be expected about this time.

" Dr. Ricketts, the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital Ships, in his annual report for the year 1898, after quoting the numbers of small-pox cases for a series of years, says :—

"I think these facts justify the expectation that in the next few years small-pox will be more rife in London than it has been recently ; and if past experience is to be a guide in preparing for the future, they suggest that the Managers should be prepared to deal with a considerable visitation of small-pox in three years' time or earlier.

"In August, the appearance of cases in various parts of London gave reality to these fears, and it soon became apparent that there were in the Metropolis the seeds of what might prove a serious outbreak, the daily returns indicating upwards of twenty different centres of infection.  The progress of an epidemic of small-pox can never be foretold with any approach to accuracy. This will be readily appreciated when it is considered that a single person in an infective condition, but in whom the disease has not yet been recognised as small-pox, may move about freely amongst a large number of his fellows, and quite unconsciously and innocently spread the disease broadcast, and that this same process might be happening in a dozen or more different parts of London at the same time."

These extracts prove that an epidemic was not only due, but expected, especially as the disease was still to come in cycles, as of yore. In the light of these statements, what becomes of the boasted protection alleged to be conferred by vaccination ?

The chairman of the Hospitals Committee was on more solid ground when he submitted a memorandum on the small-pox outlook, and said, page 137 :—

"Stress is often laid on the improved general and sanitary condition of the population and on the vigilance and efficiency of the Health Officers of the Metropolis as materially curtailing the risk of extended epidemic. Admitting to the full the force of these considerations, I would remind the Committee that all the exertions of the local authorities in dealing with small-pox must avail nothing, and their best precautions must be futile, in the absence of sufficient isolation accommodation."

The Board complain of the criticism by anti-vaccinators of their preliminary report. On page 12, Vol. I., 1901, they write :—

" The occurrence of a small-pox epidemic not unnaturally gave rise to a certain amount of alarm amongst the population generally, and it was evident on all hands that recourse was being had, in a very large measure, to vaccination and  revaccination, and, as might have been expected, the vaccination controversy itself gained a certain amount of new life. The Board, believing most thoroughly in the protective powers of vaccination and revaccination with their experience of its value in the case of their own staff, and feeling that the public would be glad to be furnished at the earliest possible date with statistics concerning the cases actually treated during this outbreak, published a report soon after the close of the year dealing with 1,017 cases treated to completion (i.e., to death or discharge on recovery) during the year 1901. These figures are very striking, and prove conclusively—as, indeed, has often been proved before—that efficient vaccination is for a number of years a protection against small-pox, and that where it ceases to be an actual protection it very materially modifies the character and effects of the disease. These statistics are more fully dealt with in the statistical volume which accompanies this report. The Board do not exist to promote or to oppose vaccination, but when they have a large amount of statistical information which they believe to be of value on a subject concerning the health of the community, they think it right that they should publish such information. Yet the issue of these statistics in January, 1902, was assailed by anti-vaccinationists, and the accuracy of the figures, and even the bona fides of the Boards' officers in compiling them, were impugned."

On page 136 of the same report (Vol. I., of 1901) there appears :—

"No history of permanent value can be compiled of the present small-pox epidemic until its final abatement."

Then why, if their object was not to promote vaccination, did they hasten to issue the erroneous report referred to? Why did they allow the valuable time of their staff, and a considerable proportion of their annual reports, to be occupied with useless vaccination details? If this was not intended to promote vaccination, it is difficult to divine the cause. They must not object to criticism while they stoop to these practices. It would have been much more dignified to have waited until the outbreak ended, and then have given a complete report on the whole of the cases and deaths. Their simulated indignation at the impugning of the wonderful illusory statistics which brought about a " vaccination epidemic" in London, and put fabulous sums into the pockets of members of the medical profession in the shape of vaccination fees, may be estimated at its true worth when, we consider that the unreliability of the classification was indisputably demonstrated by the official records of the Registrar-General himself. The Board may think that they ought to enjoy the unquestioned confidence of the public, but, with their vast experience of the manner in which vaccination has always been bolstered up, it cannot be wondered at that anti-vaccinators accepted the interim report of the Board cum grano salis.

Owing to the difficulty I experienced in endeavouring to ascertain the vaccinal condition of the patients in hospital, during my investigation of the small-pox epidemic at Middlesbrough, 1897-98, I suggested to Mr. Alex. M'Arthur, M.P. for Leicester, the desirability of obtaining legal authority for inspecting the registers of cases treated in small-pox hospitals. Mr. M'Arthur thereupon secured the insertion of Section 8 in the Vaccination Act of 1898, which grants facilities for such inspection to be carried out.

So the Metropolitan Asylums Board not only issued premature and inaccurate small-pox statistics—which appear to the uninitiated to favour vaccination—but, by refusing to allow inspection of their registers, they actually became law-breakers, and thus defeated the object Parliament had in view. The less, therefore, they profess that it is no part of their function either "to promote or to oppose vaccination," the better for their reputation—should they desire to pose as disinterested and fair. If the vaccinal condition of the patients (as entered in the official registers) is a truthful record, the Metropolitan Asylums Board ought rather to court inquiry than to burke it, no matter whether an Act of Parliament has been passed for their guidance or not. Secrecy can only excite suspicion.

In addition to the inaccurate and premature special report on small-pox already alluded to, the careless manner in which the statistics of the Metropolitan Asylums Board are prepared and perpetuated, is further exemplified in Table 22, on page 175 of their report for 1902. In this table the small-pox fatality-rate is given as 18.51, whereas it should be only 14.74, while that for 1902 is set out as being 16.60, and should be 16.89. In the summary of "Statistical Items, issued annually, the small-pox fatality-rate for 1901-02 is given as 16.8 per cent., although the rate was only 16.5. The following table shows these errors :-

TABLE 17