VACCINATION BILL. (Hansard, 31 March 1856)

MR. COWPER,
in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that there were at present three Acts in force on the subject of vaccination. The last of these was passed in 1853, and by the existing law gratuitous vaccination was provided throughout the parishes of this country for every one who chose to avail himself of it, and parents were required, under a penalty, to have their children vaccinated. However, there were defects in the Vaccination Laws that required correction, and being unwilling to add a fourth Act to those already in existence, he proposed by the present measure to consolidate, and at the same time amend, the provisions of the existing Acts, which would be repealed by the one now before the House. It was admitted by every medical man whose opinion was worth a moment's consideration, that vaccination was a specific against small-pox; of course he meant where the operation was properly performed. In fact, it was a point decided in the medical world, that vaccination, when properly performed, was a guarantee against small-pox, except in extremely rare cases; and no evidence had been produced to justify the idea that it produced injurious consequences. Statistical returns showed that in proportion as vaccination extended, so had the mortality from small-pox diminished. It appeared that in the year 1838, before the first Vaccination Bill passed, the mortality from small-pox in England alone was about 16,000; that in 1841, which was after the first Act came into operation, the mortality from this cause was reduced to 6,316, and that, taking the average of years, the mortality had since been between 5,000 and 6,000 yearly. Comparing this country with others where vaccination was universally practised, he found that in Austria, out of 1,000 deaths, sixty-seven were attributable to small-pox before the introduction of vaccination, and that that number had afterwards been reduced to six. In Trieste, 141 out of 1,000 deaths were attributable to small- 272 pox before vaccination, and five since. In Bohemia, the mortality from small-pox had been reduced to about two in 1,000; in the Rhenish provinces, to about four; and in Sweden, to about two; whilst in England the number of deaths from small-pox was twenty-two in 1,000; in London, sixteen; in Edinburgh, nineteen; in Glasgow, thirty-six; and in Limerick, forty. He argued, then, that something should be done to make the system of vaccination in England more complete and satisfactory than it now was in comparison with other countries, where it was universally carried out. The Act of 1853 had been, to a certain extent, successful in increasing vaccination. In the year before it came into operation, out of 613,000 children whose births were registered, 201,000 were vaccinated. In the following year, out of 623,000 births, the vaccinations amounted to 428,000. In 1855 there appeared to have been a falling off, for out of 623,000 births, the registered vaccinations were only 321,000. The machinery of the Act in force, however, was not sufficient to effect the purpose of universal vaccination, and the reasons of the failure were obvious. A system of registration existed, by which the registrars, having registered the births, were supposed to register each case of successful vaccination; but the fact was, that they did not actually receive more than a small portion of the cases. Their books were, therefore, incomplete; and they were unable to state what cases had been vaccinated and what had not. He proposed, then, by this Bill to make arrangements under which more generally, though perhaps not universally, the certificates of successful vaccination should be sent to the registrar, who would compare the number of cases of vaccination with the number of births, and be able at once to fix upon the names of the children who had not been vaccinated within the appointed period of four months. It would then be the duty of the registrar to transmit a list of these to the board of guardians, who should give notice to the parents, which notice, he imagined, would in general prove sufficient for the accomplishment of the object he had in view. He also proposed to give the boards of guardians power to defray the charges of prosecution for non-compliance with the law out of the poor rates. Further, at present, when boards of guardians made contracts with their public vaccinators they were required to have the approval of the Poor Law 273 Board. That authority he proposed by the Bill to transfer to the General Board of Health, and chiefly with the view that the General Board of Health might take the necessary measures for securing competency in the public vaccinators. They might require, previous to any new appointment, a certificate that the vaccinator had practised in a vaccinating institution, and was well acquainted with the appearance of a true vaccine vesicle, or some other guarantee that he knew the business he was about to undertake. He also proposed to slightly increase the vaccination fee to the public vaccinators. It was admitted, he believed, that the present minimum of 1s. 6d. was too low; and as 2s. 6d. was the sum usually paid in many unions, he proposed to raise the minimum to that amount. Objections had been urged against making vaccination compulsory; but it was right to protect infants from being exposed to so dangerous a disease, and from becoming centres of contagion, and he did not think, that, regard being paid to experience and to the example of other countries, Parliament would be now prepared to take a retrograde step and to diminish the security against small-pox. He begged, therefore, to move the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, it was true that the principle of this measure had already been assented to by Parliament, but some of the details were very objectionable. Two conflicting authorities would be set up—the Poor Law Board and the Board of Health. Now that, he considered, would be a most inconvenient arrangement, and, therefore, in Committee he should strike out all which related to the Board of Health, and leave the question—as it ought to be—in the hands of the boards of guardians and the Poor Law Board. There had certainly been a good deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country as to the mode in which vaccination had been performed. In his own neighbourhood, for example, the poor people complained that all sorts of eruptions had made their appearance upon their children after the forced vaccination they had had to undergo; and though this might have nothing to do with the vaccination the poor could not be so persuaded. Such being the case, he was glad to see a provision for increasing the fees to be paid to the vaccinator for, as work badly paid was generally ill-done, the small remuneration given to medical 274 men was probably one great reason why the operation was so much complained of. The present system of compelling mothers to leave their homes and take their children to the vaccinator was a very inconvenient one, and some consideration should, he thought, be given to this point in Committee. Then, again, the provision by which the Board of Health was to certify who were competent to fill the office of vaccinators was very objectionable, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw it.

§ MR. J. EWART
said, he should not oppose the Bill, but would suggest that the registrars should have an increase of remuneration for the increase of labour it would entail on them.

§ MR. MICHELL
said, that, had not vaccination been introduced small-pox would scarcely be heard of at the present day. Vaccination for the last few years had encouraged small-pox; for people, when vaccinated, fancied they were protected, went where small-pox was rife, got infected, and became, in consequence, propagators of the disease. Statistics proved that during the last twelve years small-pox had been increasing on the Continent, and the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) had shown that in Sweden and Denmark, where vaccination was compulsory, there had been more cases than in Prance and Belgium, where it was not compulsory. He therefore hoped the House would not allow the Bill to pass. The people of England were not prepared to receive a Bill like the one now before the House. He had that day presented several petitions against the measure. The real object of this amended Bill was to retain in the hands of the Board of Health a very large sum. A more arrant job was never perpetrated. But, if the Bill should pass, he admitted it was only just that the fee to the medical men should be increased as was proposed to be done. It would, however, impose a tax of £100,000 a year upon the people. The Board of Health would have the power of re-vaccinating every person in the kingdom. If that were not intended, why give the Board that power? The Royal Jennerian Society was altogether opposed to this measure. Dr. Gregory, one of the first medical authorities in the kingdom, and who was at the head of the Small-pox Hospital for a great many years, said that the most perfect vaccination afforded no guarantee against infection, and he doubted 275 its usefulness. By the Registrar General's Report, it appeared that out of 432 deaths from small-pox 135 were cases in which the parties had been previously vaccinated. On board the Constitution frigate there were fifty-nine cases of small-pox, and out of those fifty-nine no less than fifty-four had been previously vaccinated. According to Dr. Gregory, there were, between the years 1824 and 1835, 3,839 cases of small-pox at the hospital over which he presided, 3,093 of which were after vaccination. He had statistics showing that cases of small-pox after vaccination had been increasing all over Europe. His objection to vaccination, then, was, that, in the first place, it gave no sort of protection against small-pox; and, in the second place, it induced paralysis, leprosy, and other diseases. An hereditary disease might be conveyed by vaccination. There was another reason why he was opposed to the system, and that was that vaccination very often caused death; and Parliament had no right to authorise any Board of Health to go into a man's house and say to him, "You shall submit to have a disease conveyed to you which may imperil your life." He believed there was no doubt that the small-pox left the patient more healthy than before, often curing the King's evil; and, upon high medical authority, he was justified in saying that vaccination was no protection against smallpox, but, on the contrary, frequently entailed the most loathsome diseases. For himself he would much sooner have the disease of small-pox than the diseases produced by vaccination. The doctors of foreign countries—especially those of America—showed that many dangerous diseases were produced by vaccination, and doubted whether it was not a greater evil than the smallpox. In all the continental towns cases of vaccination ending fatally had increased during the last three or four years. He objected to giving a compulsory power to enter into people's houses to vaccinate them against their will, for in one case out of three the children were inoculated with some virus conveying scrofula or some disease taken from another person. But for this Bill, if a person were vaccinated against his will and death ensued, it would be legal murder, or manslaughter at least.

§ MR. BRADY
said, he considered that the subject should be placed under the care of the Board of Health. So far from agreeing with his hon. Friend (Mr. Mi- 276 chell) he felt with the majority of the medical men in Europe, that vaccination was, generally speaking, a safe and effective prophylactic against small-pox. He should support the Bill, but he should propose some Amendments in Committee.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he objected to the bureaucratic and compulsory features of the Bill. The boards of guardians were representatives of the great body of the people, and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Michell) that they were not likely to assist the Government in carrying out the measure. He would warn the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) that the people would not submit to the introduction of a new power over the guardians of the poor. He should object to any measure the object of which was to inflict a disease upon any human creature whatever. The right hon. Gentleman said the compulsory clauses of the existing Act had never been objected to; but did he ever hear of a case in which any one had attempted to inflict a penalty under its provisions? The right hon. Gentleman might be quite certain that those who voluntarily served the office of guardian would never consent to be made common informers. He protested against the second reading of the Bill, but he would divide the House. Before it arrived at its third reading, however, the Government would hear more of it; and he trusted that he should have the pleasure of seeing it rejected. If the compulsory principle were good for anything, why did they not seek by its means to prevent a disease which was not dissimilar in name from that which formed the subject of the present measure, and which was the result of crime?

§ MR. MIALL
said, he must likewise protest against the Bill, but on very different grounds. He believed that vaccination was a most valuable prophylactic; but making it compulsory had led to a carelessness in its use. The result had been a great deterioration in the vaccine lymph in use, and a consequent increase in the deaths from small-pox. If that principle were to be carried out we should be having a department set up for the purpose of inquiring into the health of every person every morning, and of prescribing what medicine he should take during the day.