THIRD READING. (Hansard, 27 June 1867)

§ MR. VANDERBYL
It is with great reluctance that I rise to move "that this Bill be read this day six months." The object of the Bill is "to consolidate and amend the laws relating to vaccination," but it seems to me that too complicated a course has been proposed for the purpose of making this a useful measure. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am an advocate for continuing the system of compulsory vaccination; but, to secure that object, I think it is unnecessary and absurd to overburden this Bill with clauses which can only act as so much dead weight and thus destroy the object we wish to secure. I may refer briefly to a few clauses to demonstrate how necessary it is that this Bill be reconsidered. Allow me in the first place, to direct attention to Clause 6, defining the remuneration of public vaccinators, and, without wishing to compare the education of the medical man with that of the attorney or solicitor, let me ask hon. members what they think of paying educated gentlemen eighteenpence for performing a surgical operation requiring skill and judgment, writing in the register the name, age, sex, &c,, of the person, inspecting the patient on the seventh day, writing two certificates, and transmitting one by post or otherwise to the Registrar, The Bill does not say who is to pay the postage, but one penny for postage will absorb one eighteenth, or more than 5 per cent of the payment offered. In my opinion this proposal is perfectly scandalous, and I think the framers of this Bill, and of this clause, felt that they were about to inflict a gross injustice; hence they proceeded by the offer of gratuities—in short, Clause 5 was inserted as a kind of sop to make things look pleasant. But on going to Clause 8, in which it is proposed to pay for re-vaccinations two-thirds of the fee for the primary operation, I am at a loss to conceive upon what principle it is proposed, and, if allowed to remain, it comes to this, that we undertake to give a premium for carelessness, for we agree to pay two-thirds of the eighteenpence—that is one shilling—for re-vaccinations 650 which is exactly the amount of the gratuity offered for successful operations. The vaccinator will therefore get one shilling in either case; but, when he has to re-vaccinate anybody beyond the distance of one mile, two-thirds of the primary fee will be one shilling and fourpence, so that he will get more for re-vaccinations than the gratuity offered, and when he re-vaccinates beyond the distance of two miles he would be entitled to two shillings—that is, twice as much as the gratuity offered. Now I disapprove of any antidotes for carelessness in the shape of gratuities, and I would therefore omit giving the gratuity and paying for re-vaccinations. I would propose to pay the medical man fairly for the operation, and expect it to be successfully performed; and if, from any cause whatever, re-vaccination be required the medical man should be obliged to perform the operation again, without further payment. This seems to me the rational mode of treating this question. Now, as regards the registration of vaccination, I can scarcely conceive a more useless, and tyrannical scheme for compiling a national register of vaccination—useless, because if any evidence were required as to any particular person having been successfully vaccinated, the information can be more certainly and more readily obtained by inspection of the person's arm; tyrannical, because it subjects private practitioners and parents to the risk of being summarily convicted in a penalty of 20s. for not sending a certificate to the registrar. As regards the public vaccinator, he has made a contract, and, it may be argued, he must abide by it; but why should the private practitioner, when he has finished the operation, and is about to depart, be stopped to write a certificate? He can scarcely ask for a fee from his patient for this extra service; and why should his time be occupied by writing a certificate for the Government without payment? I venture to say that a much simpler scheme could be devised for obtaining all the statistical information we may require on this subject. But I am unwilling to occupy the time of the House any longer, and therefore move "that this Bill be read on this day six months."

MR. BRUCE
said, that the two points 651 referred to by the hon. Member had been fully discussed in the Select Committee on the Bill and in the Committee of the whole House, and he therefere trusted the hon. Member would not persevere with his Motion.

§ MR. BRADY
agreed with the principle of compulsory vaccination; but the House ought to give the people some security that that principle should be carried out perfectly, and he contended that the Bill before the House did not give that security, and was altogether imperfect.

§ MR. BARROW
said, that medical men were not at all agreed with respect to the efficacy of vaccination. He thought it would be highly impolitic, under such circumstances, to pass a compulsory measure.

§ SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISE
hoped the Bill would be postponed till further inquiry were made.

§ MR. KENDALL
was in favour of an efficient system of vaccination, but would vote against the third reading because he thought sufficient regard had not been had to the feelings of the lower classes.

§ MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS
would vote against the measure because he was persuaded that even if it were passed an agitation would be commenced, which would not cease until the Act was repealed.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he thought it wiser to save peoples' lives than to consult their prejudices. The agitation against the Bill was confined to a very small class—Mr. Morrison and his pill takers, and Dr. Coffin and the Herbalists. The example of Scotland showed the value of a good vaccination Bill. The result of passing the measure for that country was that the death rate from small-pox had been reduced from 2,000 per annum to only 120 per annum.