HC Deb 09 May 1898 vol 57 cc760-819

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [19th April]— That the Bill be now read a second time.

And which Amendment was— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Thomas Bayley.)

Question again proposed— That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.

MR. W. HAZELL (Leicester)

Sir, during the previous discussion on this question the name of the constituency I have the honour to represent was frequently mentioned, and it was implied, if not expressed, that a community which objected to compulsory vaccination was an ignorant and backward one. I wish to remind the House that all who know Leicester are well aware that it is one of the most advanced and enterprising communities of our great towns. It has been the seed-bed of many public movements, some of which, growing at first there, have spread over the whole land. In particular, and as relating to this subject, I may mention that the compulsory notification of infectious diseases began in Leicester by a voluntary arrangement, and was later on embodied in a local Act, long before the system was adopted throughout the country. I do not speak as an anti-vaccinator myself, but I express the opinion that a great community like Leicester, so keen upon local self-government, cannot be coerced into a course of action against the consciences of the overwhelming majority of the population. The people there are determined that compulsory vaccination, which has been dead for many years, should not be revived in any form whatever. The history of the question in Leicester can be briefly stated. There was a great epidemic of small-pox which began in the year 1870, and continued till 1873, at a time when Leicester was one of the most vaccinated towns in the country. During this visitation there were 360 deaths, and the number of cases was beyond computation. During the last 20 years there have been 30 imported cases of small-pox, mostly from vaccinated towns, but only one took root and grew into a smaller outbreak, in the years 1892–94; there were then 360 cases, and only 21 deaths. Since then no cases have occurred. This smaller outbreak found Leicester practically unvaccinated, and yet the deaths were only about one-seventeenth of those which happened during the former visitation though the population meanwhile had nearly doubled. From 1868 to 1887 there were continued and persistent prosecutions; 6,037 parents were proceeded against, 64 were sent to prison, including three women; 193 distress warrants were issued, and the amount thus recovered was £2,388. All classes were proceeded against, including members of the council, guardians, ministers of religion, great manufacturers, schoolmasters, and one doctor. The public was so strongly opposed to the seizure of the goods of those who refused to pay the fines that it required nearly two-thirds of the police force to be present on these occasions, and there wag one instance where there were in addition 60 policemen in private clothes. At last no auctioneer would undertake the invidious task of selling the goods thus seized, and a magistrate—an ex-Mayor—declined to sit on the Bench to hear these prosecutions. At length, by a resolution of the guardians, the prosecutions ceased, and the community enjoyed peace—a peace which it was determined should not be disturbed. The cessation of prosecutions had no effect upon the opinions and practice of the population upon the subject. At present it appears that the Mayor and nearly all the council are opposed to compulsory vaccination, as are also 46 guardians out of 48, and many, if not most, of the magistrates. Indeed, it is a question whether, if an attempt be made to revive compulsion, the magistrates will be willing to inflict more than a merely nominal penalty. It has been alleged that objection to compulsory vaccination is a Radical fad. If that be so, then the number of Radicals in Leicester must be overwhelming, for the number of births is about 6,300 a year, while the number of children vaccinated is about 80, including those vaccinated by private practitioners. It is also alleged that this objection is held by uneducated people only, but the experience of Leicester entirely contradicts this theory. The president of the local society opposing compulsory vaccination is a Justice of the Peace and a Conservative, and in the opinion of the Mayor it is a physical impossibility to reimpose compulsion. If the Bill passes, it will even permit two prosecutions for each child, which means a possibility of 12,600 cases being brought before the magistrate yearly, and that reduces the scheme to an absurdity. But, while the community is determined against compulsory vaccination, they have taken the most advanced and intelligent steps to keep small-pox and other contagious diseases out, by the most perfect system of sanitation and isolation. They have even gone to the extent of putting families in quarantine, and if a workman has small-pox in his family, he can claim payment from the local authorities in compensation for the wages he loses by staying away from his employment. The people of Leicester desire to be let alone in this matter. They believe that they are successfully carrying on a great experiment, and they are determined to continue their experiment, and to convince the country that vaccination is not the only remedy against small-pox. They specially resent the proposal that the Local Government Board should instruct the vaccination officer, who is the servant of the local guardians, to proceed with prosecutions against the will of his employers. This proposal meets with the strongest possible resentment. They further object to the retention of limited penalties, because, while the penalties proposed in the Bill are a small sum to the well-to-do, they will be a cruel burden upon the poor, and on this and on many other grounds they desire, in the strongest possible way, that the Bill should be withdrawn. I do not think that at the present time the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board can look upon this Bill as a permanent and satisfactory settlement of this controverted and difficult question, and I therefore wish to record my protest against it in the strongest possible terms.


I desire, Sir, to take some part in this Debate, because I am the only remaining Member in the House of the Royal Commission which sat from May, 1889, to August, 1896, upon this subject. When that Commission was appointed there were several Members of the then House upon it, but from one cause and another they are no longer with us. The Commission, I may mention, had the great advantage of having for its chairman Lord Herschell, who gave the most constant attendance to the sittings of the Commission, and to whom it is mainly owing that such an interesting and valuable Report was pre- sented to Parliament. In the course of the time during which the Commission sat it lost two very eminent medical members, Sir William Savory, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Dr. Bristowe, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; and it is well to remember that, though they were lost to the strength of the majority Report of the Commission, their places were not filled up. We also lost by death Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, a Member of this House, who brought a spirit of candour, fairness, and independence to bear upon public questions. The opposition to vaccination was conducted with the greatest possible ability before the Commission, and a former Member for Leicester, Mr. Picton, an opponent of vaccination, was a member of the Commission throughout. It was, no doubt, to be regretted that the Commission lasted so long, although there were many reasons for it, and that the Report was not sooner published. It was to be regretted, I say, because, in many places the delay in issuing the Report was made an excuse for the suspension of operations connected with vaccination. Out of 122 unions where vaccination was not enforced, no less than 46 pleaded as an excuse that the Royal Commission was sitting. Well, Sir, such an excuse has been withdrawn for many months; but the fact that the proceedings of the Royal Commission were made an excuse for suspending vaccination made it all the more desirable that some legislation on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission should be introduced into Parliament; and I for one, as a member of the Royal Commission, am grateful to the Government for dealing with the question, even although the Measure which is now before Parliament is of small dimensions. I am rather amused to find that it is now pleaded as an excuse for not taking steps to promote vaccination that this Bill does not follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As a matter of fact, I fear there are very few people who have read the Report of the Royal Commission. If they had read it, they would have known that three out of the four proposals of the Bill are founded on the recommendations of the Royal Commission; and I think that this should be known when such a plea is put forward by those who ought to have paid more attention to the recommendations of the Commission than they have done. The Bill is a compromise, and we do not, as a rule, love compromises. No doubt it is on that ground that the Bill has been criticised and attacked, but my belief is that the Bill, although a modest one, is drawn on the right lines. It is a small practical Measure, and it will not satisfy extreme people on either side, but I think that is rather a recommendation than otherwise. The main object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to help to make vaccination more acceptable to the country, and to remove objections and apprehensions which may not unreasonably be felt. It ought always to be the desire of those who believe in vaccination, and who hold that the benefits that it has conferred upon the country are absolutely incalculable, not to make war upon individuals, and not to override objections or misgivings or prejudices, call them what we may, but to get vaccination done, and secure that the children of this country are vaccinated. Consequently, I think that whatever makes the process more absolutely safe, less liable to objection or risk, or less difficult and unpleasant, must be all for good. The Royal Commission recommended, and the Bill embodies, two provisions which belong to the Scotch system: the one, the extension of the age within which vaccination shall be performed; and the other, what is called domiciliary vaccination. I do not like the expression "domiciliary vaccination," but what is meant by it, of course, is the visits of the medical man to the homes of the people for the purpose of performing vaccination, instead of giving the people the trouble and the inconvenience, not to speak of the risk, of going to the public station. But I do not understand that, while the Bill recommends this so-called domiciliary vaccination, it supersedes the stations. I imagine that there will still be stations where vaccination can be performed, but that the provision of the Bill is in favour of what is called domiciliary vaccination. The people of Scotland are proverbially intelligent—I do not venture in this House to compare that intelligence with that of the southern parts of the United Kingdom—and there is no doubt that in Scotland vaccination has met with very little opposition. I only mention the circumstance for the purpose of saying that I believe the absence of objection is greatly owing to the exceedingly wise and discerning manner in which the vaccination laws have been enforced by the parochial boards; and, although their powers are now transferred to the district councils, I doubt not that the same discretion will be exercised by the new body as was used by the old. I will not dwell upon questions relating to vaccine lymph, but it is of great importance, in view of the anxiety which has sometimes prevailed, and prevailed with reason, about arm-to-arm vaccination. Probably it is on Clause 2 of the Bill, which contains the provision about repeated penalties, that the greatest differences of opinion will prevail. I do not much wonder that Her Majesty's Government have made the proposal which they have embodied in this Bill. I am entirely with them in their object, but I doubt the value of the provision. Our recommendation—the recommendation of the Royal Commission in its first Report, which was against repeated penalties—was said to be fatal to vaccination. If that be true—and I do not admit it for one moment—will the provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill secure vaccination? I doubt it exceedingly. A letter appeared the other day in a leading journal mentioning that certain societies possess funds ready to be devoted to the payment of fines, and the writer seemed to think that the funds had better be so used. Well, if there be fines, who can doubt that funds will be forthcoming to pay them? How, then, does the Bill secure more vaccination in the future? Will it not rather keep alive the feeling of irritation on the subject to no good purpose? I sea two objections to Clause 2. You may get the fines paid—I do not doubt that you will—but you will make martyrs, and you do not in that way recommend or secure vaccination. What is the present state of things in many towns? The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken with reference to Leicester; and there are other towns which, in a greater or less degree, are like Leicester. The state of things is this: with compulsion in force by statute you do not secure vaccination to any great extent in certain towns; and will anyone assert that the provisions of Clause 2 will alter that state of things in those places? I should be disposed myself to trust more to the beneficent changes suggested in this Bill: the safe lymph, the domiciliary visits, and the extension of the age, added, I may say, to the more intelligent feeling about the practice, which may possibly in some degree arise owing to the subject being again brought before the country by this Bill. The Bill does not, of course, follow the recommendations of the Commission in regard to clause 2. May I be permitted to read a section—it is very short—of the Report of the Royal Commission upon this very important point? We say in section 521— We are now in a position to state the reasons which led us to recommend that repeated penalties should no longer be enforced; indeed, they will be apparent from what we have already said. We do not doubt that the fact that penalties may be repeated secures in some cases the vaccination of children who would otherwise remain unvaccinated, but we believe that the irritation which these repeated prosecutions create, when applied in the case of those who honestly object to have their children vaccinated, and the agitation and the active propaganda of anti-vaccination views which they foster in such cases, tends so greatly to a disuse of the practice, in the districts where such occurrences take place, that in the result the number of children vaccinated is less than it would be had the power of repeated prosecutions never existed or been exercised. This seems to us to be a crucial question. A law severe in its terms, and enforced with great stringency, may be less effectual for its purpose than one of less severity, and which is put in force less uncompromisingly. When this is the case, it cannot be doubted that the law which appears less severe is really more effective. But it may be asked, what do you propose? Well, in section 525, the Royal Commission made one or two recommendations. "It must, of course, be a necessary condition, "they reported— of a claim of this description, that it should be such as would prevent an objection to the practice being alleged merely as an excuse to save the trouble connected with the vaccination of the child. We may give the following as examples of the methods which might be adopted. It might be provided that if a parent attended before the local authority, to satisfy them that he entertained such an objection, no proceedings should be taken against him. Or, again, a statutory declaration to that effect before anyone now authorised to take such declarations, or some other specified official or officials, might be made a bar to proceedings. Well, the Commission did not recommend repeated penalties, but they did not leave the subject suspended in the air, and they took that clear view of the subject which induced them to make this recommendation in reference to a statutory declaration. I think it would impress those who entertain conscientious objections, or who have apprehensions about vaccination, with the solemnity and importance of the proceeding, and those who really entertain conscientious objections—and there are many such—and those who from one cause or another have been afraid of vaccination, would feel a great responsibility in making that declaration, so that they would make it seriously, and would on no occasion be likely to make it lightly. I do not believe that such a provision would increase the number of conscientious objectors—I mean of those who would so describe themselves; but, at all events, it would show who really were the conscientious objectors. I think further, that the question of re-vaccination should certainly receive mention in the Bill. The only other part of the Report of the Royal Commission which I will venture to quote has reference to this subject. In section 533 the Commissioners say— After full consideration of the whole question, we are, however, deterred, by the consideration to which we have adverted, from proposing that re-vaccination should be made compulsory. At the same time, in view of the great importance of re-vaccination, we think it should be in every way encouraged. If an adequate fee were allowed in every case of successful re-vaccination, by whatever medical man it was performed, we think there would probably be a large extension of the practice. We think steps should be taken to impress on parents the importance of having their children re-vaccinated not later than at the age of twelve years. We recommend, further, that when small-pox shows signs of becoming epidemic, special facilities should be afforded, both for vaccination and re-vaccination. Of course, Sir, the Bill is not likely to satisfy extreme people—nobody expects that—but I think it will go far to satisfy reasonable objectors. It is obvious the discussion must be limited to the Bill, and yet I may be permitted, perhaps, to mention two points before I sit down, one of them arising out of the remarks made by the Member for Leicester. But first of all let me say a word or two about the case of Gloucester, which was mentioned on the occasion of the Debate on the 19th April by the honourable Gentleman opposite [Mr. Bayley]. Gloucester, according to that gentleman, is a thoroughly insanitary place, destitute of proper water supply, and so forth; and he, of course, attributes the outbreak of small-pox to this unfavourable circumstance.

MR. T. BAYLEY (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)

I spoke of the state of the city before the outbreak.


I understand the honourable Gentleman now to say that it was previous to the epidemic that Gloucester was in a thoroughly insanitary condition. It is, however, a curious circumstance that in 1891 the Secretary to the Anti-Vaccination League of Gloucester declared before the Royal Commission that Gloucester was a specially clean town, well abreast of sanitary improvements; and yet it was in this pure town, with all the best improvements of a sanitary kind, that the outbreak occurred. Now the honourable Gentleman refers to the outbreak, and says it was owing to its insanitary condition.


I spoke of what I saw with my own eyes; and if the honourable Member will go to Gloucester to-day, and see place called Key Court, he will be of the same opinion as myself.


Well, I mention the remarks of the honourable Gentleman on the former occasion for the purpose of showing that both he and the Secretary of the Anti-Vaccination League could not have been correct. Let me refer for a moment to the case of Leicester, in consequence of the interesting speech made by the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. It is quite true that Leicester is a singularly un-vaccinated town, but Leicester, unlike almost any other town that I know of, has adopted a most elaborate system of isolation. No one who thinks about the subject far a moment can doubt that the elaborate system of isolation at Leicester must have had a very great effect; and really, when one hears so much about interference with personal liberty, I do not know any greater interference with personal liberty than that which prevails at Leicester, where, on the smallest suspicion of small-pox in a family, not only the sick person but his family are subjected to isolation treatment. So that I always feel that while Leicester has happily been of late years much freer of the risk which might be expected from the want of vaccination, at the same time I believe it is due to the elaborate system of isolation which the town of Leicester has adopted. But I am afraid other towns in the country which neglect vaccination have not followed the good example set them by Leicester. In some quarters there is a vague impression that as small-pox is happily so rare, vaccination is either unnecessary or useless. In this House some years ago there was a most interesting and weighty speech made by Sir Lyon Playfair—now Lord Playfair—which I am sure must be in the memory of some who heard it. Sir Lyon Playfair said in substance on that occasion: Little as people knew it, the fortunate prevalence of vaccination had so fortified the country against small-pox that even if the practice were to some extent to become rare it would be some time before the neglect of vaccination told. But I need not say how far he was from suggesting that neglect could go on with impunity. I confess that I see with some anxiety that since then some towns have dropped into neglect of vaccination. Sooner or later it is to be feared the same result will follow as at Gloucester. I do not doubt, if ever such similar epidemics should break out again—which Heaven forbid—that there would be the same rush to vaccination as at Gloucester; but that would not undo the mischief or make up the arrears of protection. I believe this Bill would remove some of the grounds which the opponents of vaccination have to work upon. If security as to the character of the lymph is given, if the operation is performed without trouble or risk to the infant, and if the infant has passed the tenderest period when vacci- nation may conceivably be attended with the greatest risk, then I think even those who are disposed to resist or to neglect vaccination may reconsider their decision. I must, however, speak disparagingly of Clause 2. I do not attach much importance to Clause 2, even in the interests of vaccination. That opinion will not, of course, prevent me from voting, as I shall very heartily do, for the Second Reading of this Bill. But I hope that the Government will reconsider Clause 2, and that in the course of the proceedings in Committee they may be disposed to give effect in a greater degree to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and if they do that I believe they will make the Bill a much more valuable Bill to the country.

MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

The speech of the right honourable Baronet the Member for Ipswicn, who preceded me, was a speech of very great importance. It was a speech made after an experience of seven years upon the Royal Commission, and deluged with facts upon the question of vaccination. The right honourable Baronet, in making his speech, has had the advantage of considering and reconsidering his position since the Royal Commission, which sat to consider this matter, and reported upon it two and a half years ago. The right honourable Baronet substantially agreed with the contention which was advanced, with singular force and great good judgment, by the honourable Member for Ilkeston, who, as the House is aware, is an extremely able advocate of vaccination. Practically, therefore, we now have before us not only the opinion of a former Secretary of the Local Government Board, but of the only remaining Member of the Royal Commission who has now a seat in this House, that compulsion is dead, and that in any future Bill dealing with the question of vaccination any compulsory clauses ought to be eliminated. I do not quite understand the inference which the right honourable Member drew from his own argument. He appeared to be inclined to remove the second clause absolutely from the Bill, whereas far greater effect would have been given to his argument if he had suggested the abolition of the compulsory powers altogether, and had, in lieu of the proposals in the Bill, pressed for his suggestions of sanitation and isolation. But, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the speech of the right honourable Baronet is a speech which Her Majesty's Government must weigh and consider carefully in dealing with the future course of this Bill. Having regard to the startling fact that no less than 122 of the local authorities boards of guardians, to which this Bill again re-intrusts the administration of the Acts—46 of which have alleged the sitting of the Royal Commission as a pretext for so doing—have refused to carry out the compulsory powers under the Acts, it appears to me that in many districts of the country it is impossible to carry any further the policy of dealing with vaccination by compulsion. I have read much of the evidence given before the Royal Commission, and also the Report, and I should imagine that any practical man, after having considered the general effect of that evidence and Report, would have come to the conclusion that it was of no use whatever to treat the question of vaccination by any measure of compulsion. The old policy of carrying out vaccination by force, and the cruel penalties proposed to be inflicted in this way against persons who have a conscientious objection to it, is a policy which is absolutely dead, and one which we must at once give up as a useless and hopeless policy. Substantially the speech of the right honourable Baronet amounted to this: that the future policy with regard to vaccination should be a policy of friendly advice to the public, and that facilities should be given to those people who favour vaccination to follow out their inclinations. So far as I myself could see, his argument did not go farther than that. His whole argument came to this: that the real hostility to vaccination arose largely from the fact that it was a constant interference with the liberty of the subject, and that there is a natural desire upon the part of the parents to retain their own freedom of judgment upon a matter upon which, while it excites a great deal of interest in the country, there is a great diversity of opinion. Even before I heard the important and weighty speech of the right honourable Baronet, it appeared to me that the true policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter of vaccination would be, as it has been in other matters of late, a policy of "silence and polite withdrawal," and I think there would be quite as much safety in their doing so. It is, of course, a merit of the Bill that it does away with repeated prosecutions. But those who, like myself, represent constituencies where vaccination has practically been abolished, and abolished, I might almost say, with the connivance of the Local Government Board itself, consider that there should be some further concession made to the feelings of those persons who have a conscientious objection to the practice of vaccination at all. There is undoubtedly, as the honourable Member for Leicester said, a very strong consensus of opinion amongst those interested in this question of vaccination that it is unfair to give the rich man an opportunity of paying his two fines, and so escaping scot-free, whilst the poor man is subject to two fines, which, in all probability, he cannot pay, and he may have to make three appearances before the court. This is shown by an answer which was given to the honourable Member for the Market Harborough Division on Thursday last. This is a question largely affecting working people, whose wages are much interfered with by these repeated prosecutions. They are compelled to make three appearances in court, and are subjected to two fines, and unless there are strong and substantial reasons for maintaining—and maintaining in a more rigid form than it has been attempted to be maintained for the last few years—this policy of coercion, it is simply ridiculous to maintain this part of the Bill, and have people up two or three times before the court, and allow the rich man to pay and get off scot-free and put all this trouble and affliction upon the poor man. Now, this Bill is a rather inconsistent and foolish attempt to bolster up a system which is really discredited by the evidence of the Royal Commission. That evidence shows a wide divergency of opinion upon this question, not only amongst those who are the excited advocates of personal liberty in this matter, but those who by scientific qualifications and medical research are entitled to give an opinion upon this subject. Undoubtedly, the evidence given before the Royal Com- mission shows a very wide and serious difference of opinion upon this subject. This Bill is an endeavour to enforce once more a system which could only be justified by the practical unanimity of scientific men that vaccination is substantially a sure preventive from the ravages of small-pox, and on the other hand that it is free from every risk and danger to the children who are to be operated upon. The President of the Local Government Board dwelt upon this policy of domiciliary visits as if it were a concession and an advantage to the public; but I have read a somewhat singular comment upon this policy of domiciliary visits— At an adjourned meeting of the Ormesby Urban District Council, in the course of short discussion on the subject of a house-to-house visitation for the purpose of vaccination, Dr. Knott, the medical officer, said that the medical men appointed by the guardians had visited North Ormesby, and in many cases had met with a scandalous reception. They had not been received in a respectable way at all, and were looked upon more like bailiffs than doctors. In some instances they were told to vaccinate the cat. In several instances the people who were visited said that when they desired to be vaccinated they would have their own club doctors. Well, I venture to say that if the President of the Local Government Board would accompany some of his own officers and go through some of the districts that I am familiar with, and go through the experiences some of those gentlemen have, I am bound to say that I think, genial and conciliatory as he always is upon every occasion, he would find himself in the course of the day in exceedingly difficult and unpleasant positions. I venture to predict that these domiciliary visits, if ever carried into law, will be bitterly resented by the people. There is this further extraordinary provision, the right honourable Gentleman proposes to force upon the local authorities, who are entrusted with the carrying out of this Act—he is going to compel them to elect an officer who is practically to be placed, so far as his authority is concerned, above the heads of the boards of guardians; and although the boards of guardians may be elected by people who dislike this Act and disapprove of it upon conscientious principles, and although the boards of guardians may pass resolutions that there shall be no prosecutions for the non-compliance with the provisions of the Vaccination Act in that area, yet their officer, whom they will have to elect, whether they like it or not, is to have the power of instituting proceedings and carrying out prosecutions against the wishes and in spite of the resolutions passed by his own board on the subject; and he also has a right of imposing upon the ratepayers of the district, who, through the boards of guardians whom they elect, entirely disapprove of his action in the matter and repudiate it, the expense entailed by the prosecutions in which he engages. Any attempt to carry out such a foolish policy as that in the Midland counties of England will be farcical and ridiculous in the extreme. The right honourable Gentleman gave the explanation, that he did not want to overload the Bill, and this matter would be dealt with by regulations, and described to the House that these vaccination officers would have power to initiate the prosecutions themselves, for which the ratepayers would have to pay, although the boards of guardians had resolved that no prosecutions should take place.


I said those were powers we possess already, and could put into force at any moment. They have nothing to do with the Bill.


Are they powers which the right honourable Gentleman has ever enforced under any circumstances before?


They have nothing to do with the Bill.


The domiciliary visits, which will be deeply resented by many of the people, are aggravated by the extraordinary provision that the vaccination officer elected by the board of guardians would have power to initiate prosecutions, for which the ratepayers would have to pay, although the board of guardians might have resolved that there should be no prosecutions.


Again, I must point out that those are powers which are already possessed, and can be put in force at any moment; they have nothing whatever to do with the Bill.


At any rate, the policy announced by the right honourable Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill amounted to this: that he was prepared to support a system under which the vaccination officer will be able to initiate prosecutions, and to impose charges upon the rates in the locality where the board of guardians, with the full approval of the inhabitants, may have passed a resolution to the effect that they did not want anything of the kind to be done. Now, I venture to think that is a very unwise proposal. I say the only justification of such a policy would be scientific certainty that vaccination will prevent small-pox, and that there is freedom from risk of contamination. What are the facts? It is admitted by the certificates of doctors, who saw the children die, that, between 1881 and 1895, 773 children died from the effects of vaccination—that is, one healthy English child per week during that whole period. There can be no reasonable doubt that in the case of thousands upon thousands of other children's deaths they have been contributed to by the process of vaccination. The uncertainty, if not the worthlessness, of vaccination has been absolutely proved again and again. I myself brought before the House in 1889 the case of St. Joseph's Industrial School at Manchester, where all the pupils and attendants were vaccinated, yet small-pox was introduced by a well-vaccinated child of 12, and half the school took it. In the evidence given before the Royal Commission there is also a substantial admission that for many years has been denied, that certain loathsome diseases can be communicated by vaccination. Now, it is stated that the lymph which is to be provided under the new system will obviate that. I listened with the greatest interest to the able and lucid speech of the honourable Member for Edinburgh University, but I will be glad to hear some further explanation on this point, because I do not see why glycerine should be fatal to the germs of these horrible diseases, and not destroy the germs of cowpox itself.

SIR WILLIAM PRIESTLEY (Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities)

It has been proved.


We are all familiar with the explanations which are given as to the improvement in the figures as regards small-pox. The diminution, I venture to say, is explained, not by vaccination, but by improved sanitation and the policy of isolation. I find, as regards Leicester, the mortality from small-pox, when it was well vaccinated, was practically the same as in Birmingham, but since Leicester has become a non-vaccinated town the number of deaths from small-pox have enormously diminished, as compared with Birmingham and other towns. In my own experience I know of two cases where, shortly after successful re-vaccination, there have been cases of small-pox. Certainly, the Bill has not pleased the medical officers. The honourable Member who preceded me spoke of isolation as affecting the liberty of the subject, but under the process of vaccination you are imposing upon a helpless child a certain risk, on the plea that there may be some chance of escaping a possible future risk. Well, I think the policy of this Bill is a most foolish outcome of the cogitation of the right honourable Gentleman upon the results of the Royal Commission. Apparently, the right honourable Gentleman wishes to make a trifling concession to those who conscientiously object to vaccination, but I venture to think the Bill will not be received with either enthusiasm or gratitude. The country is coming to the common-sense conclusion that it wants no more compulsory vaccination. If people want to be vaccinated they can easily go to their own medical man and get the operation performed upon themselves or their children. Compulsion is a policy which I do not think the right honourable Gentleman will venture to re-establish in this country. Some 120 boards of guardians Lave refused to carry out the policy of this Act. Does the right honourable Gentleman think seriously he will find these gentlemen willing at once to adopt and give effect to this Bill when it becomes law? Does he propose to carry out his policy by the fire-and-sword process? I have treated this matter from a non-Party point of view, but regarding it for the moment as a question of Party interests, I hope the right honourable Gentleman will carry his policy through, and send down his vaccination officers to coerce and override the boards of guardians. If he attempts that, I venture to predict that there will be a good many seats which will be lost to his Party in the Midland and Northern counties, and their present occupants will be doomed to political extinction, and the results will be disastrous to the authors of the policy of this Bill.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

There are, it appears to me, three different views on this subject. There are a certain number of persons who consider vaccination almost absolutely preservative against small-pox, and that it is perfectly innocuous. There are other persons who think it may be preservative, but that it is so harmful that it should not be resorted to. There are a third class of persons who don't presume to legislate on a subject on which doctors differ, and I am one of these. I should not venture to lay down any strong opinions, but I do think that there is such an opinion in this country that it is most improper to compel parents to vaccinate their children, having regard to the divergent views as to its efficacy. Now, Sir, this Bill reduces the penalties to two. Well, so far so good; but what surprises me is the miserable want of logic on the part of the vaccinators. What is their doctrine? That small-pox is so infectious that, unless all children are vaccinated, the community must suffer owing to the spread of the disease. Logically, therefore, they ought to insist on the vaccination of every child in the public interest. It is admitted that vaccination wears out. Why do they not insist on re-vaccination? I understand that in seven years the supposed preventive effect disappears, and I should like to know how many Members of this House have been vaccinated within seven years. Let us consider how many of them have not been vaccinated, and if they have been visited with severe penalties for jeopardising the health of Parliament by abstaining from re-vaccination. I point this out as an argument of the absurdity of the proposal. Heretofore the idea prevailed that by the imposition of repeated penalties the resistance of a parent who refused to have his child vaccinated would be worn down, but here you have only two penalties. In other words, anyone for the comparatively small sum of £2 may contract out. What would be said if the President of the Board of Agriculture were to allow any dog to wander about unmuzzled in consideration of a payment of £2? It would be said at once that such exemption would neutralise and destroy his own scheme, and so it is with the present Bill. Again, what would be said if we had the plague here, and if it were laid down generally that any person having the malady was not to ride in a public vehicle, but that if he chose to pay double fare he could go about in a cab? I wish merely to point out how unfair it is between the rich and the poor. The proposal in this Measure to allow people to purchase immunity by payment of £2 would favour the rich. At any rate, we know on this side of the House that £2 is a lot to a poor man. The poor man who could not pay would be imprisoned, and thus the Bill would draw a distinction between rich and poor. But the Bill is so illogical that it reduces compulsory vaccination to an absurdity. I am inclined to think that if this contracting out clause is persisted in, compulsory vaccination will be done away with. Then, with regard to calf lymph, there is a point that requires explanation. I have heard that cows are liable to consumption. If lymph were taken from an apparently sound calf, could anyone be sure that the animal did not come from a consumptive family? How are you to guarantee the child if you cannot guarantee the calf? Now I want to know this—does the Local Government Board claim that it has the power to initiate prosecutions without the assent or approval of the guardians? If so, will the right honourable Gentleman explain how it occurs that that power was obtained? Further, I would ask, supposing he considers he has those powers, if he intends to use them only in the event of this Bill being passed? I wish to know whether the Local Government Board claims that it has power to initiate prosecutions without the assent or approval of the guardians. If so, will the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board explain how that power is obtained? Some honourable Members on this side of the House think that these powers are given in the third clause, but I do not urge the third clause in the matter. If the Bill passes the Second Reading I hope we shall have some expression of opinion in regard to the points I have raised. If it passes, it will be my bounden duty to propose or support a considerable number of Amendments to it; in fact, I hardly think that if the right honourable Gentleman persists in the Bill we can hope that the House will rise before the end of September. We shall oppose it line by line, so far as the compulsory powers are concerned, and I have also, after communication with my constituents, framed a new clause which I shall propose.

MR. R. ASCROFT (Oldham)

I did not propose to take any part in this Debate, but the board of guardians in the constituency which I represent passed a resolution unanimously asking me to oppose this Bill, on the ground that they objected to any kind of compulsory vaccination. The board of guardians is not a political board—it is, six of one and half a dozen of the other so far as parties go—therefore, there can be no suggestion that any representations they may make are based on political grounds. Under the present system you prosecute—it is not prosecution, in many cases it is persecution—and the result is that at the present moment compulsory vaccination was never so much, hated and detested in this country. In every constituency in the country there is a large body who feel strongly on this subject. Magistrates refuse to inflict fines, or, if they do, the amounts are so trifling that they are of no avail; and boards of guardians will not allow their officers to prosecute. Now there is to be a change. We are told that the vaccination officers, although they are paid by boards of guardians are to take their orders from the Local Government Board. But that is contrary to the spirit of local government, and will be resented in every constituency. If this proposal is passed, and the Local Government Board takes upon itself the duty and responsibility of dictating in this way to boards of guardians throughout the country, it will lay itself open to general execration on the part of Boards of Guardians, and the Bill in that respect will be a failure. With regard to the proposed domiciliary visits, they also will be a failure. Years ago we had in this country a Hearth Tax, under which the authorities had power to enter every house and count the number of hearths. That was considered to be an interference with the liberty of the subject, and the tax was abolished. As to these domiciliary visits, in the commencement it will be a polite invitation; in a little while the medical officer will come accompanied by the vaccination officer, and a little later by the police-constable on the beat, and a system of coercion will spring up which may not be intended at the moment, but which will inevitably result if this Bill is passed. The Government has tried in every way to popularise vaccination. I do not blame this Government—all the Governments we have had for many years have tried in every way to popularise vaccination. It has been enforced on the Army, the Navy, on School Boards, on the Post Office, on Civil servants. Pretty nearly everybody who wanted office had to be vaccinated, except gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench. Their day is still to come, and in the meantime I should like to know how many Members of the Front Bench have been vaccinated. I should like to see the day when acceptance of office will depend on vaccination, still I do not think that will be sufficient to prevent any Member accepting office. If this Bill, instead of being devoted to compulsion, had done something more for sanitation, isolation, pure air, and pure water, good drainage, notification of infectious diseases, and competent medical treatment, we should have made great strides towards stamping out small-pox. It is useless attempting to hide the fact that the Bill is unpopular with the people. When passed it will be resented, and every endeavour will be made and every means taken by those people whose conscientious scruples are roused—whether rightly or wrongly—to have impediments thrown in the way of carrying out the Bill. If so, the object in view, the stamping out of small-pox, will be defeated from the very commencement. Boards of Guardians have already passed resolutions, and some of these have been embodied in resolutions and petitions to the right honourable Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board. So far as I can see, this is a fight between the Local Government Board and the Boards of Guardians throughout the country, and all those persons who object to compulsory vaccination. And I do not hesitate to say that the Local Government Board will be defeated. They may not be defeated in passing their Bill—there is a majority in this House that can pass any Bill; but they will be defeated in the object they wish to attain. It would be better to establish in every town some little building adapted and fitted properly where people could take their children to be vaccinated if they wished, but in proposing compulsion the Government was taking a serious course. You may take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. It was only the other day that an account was published in the papers of the Board of Guardians in one of the Metropolitan districts passing a resolution to compensate the parents of several children who had lost their lives from erysipelas, contracted by means of vaccination not from calf lymph. For years and years you have been trying to compel people to vaccinate their children from other children, and have been prosecuting them for failing to do so. How is it you have only found out your mistake now? These people have been right and the Government in their prosecutions have been wrong. We are told by the honourable Member for Edinburgh University that calf lymph properly prepared is not injurious; but who is going to guarantee the preparation? I hope and trust this Bill will not be read a second time; if it is I can assure my honourable Friend opposite that opportunities will be taken to prepare as many Amendments as possible, and I hope it will never become a Bill so long as I am a Member of this House.

DR. R. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Seven years ago I had the honour of seconding the proposal to appoint the Royal Commission on vaccination. I did so because I was convinced that the more vaccination was inquired into the more its merits would become patent. I am bound to say that, after a long trial, vaccination leaves the court without a stain upon its character. It may be said that the parturition of this mountain mouse has been long-continued and laborious. I can only say that I am glad indeed that the Government have had the support and assistance on this occasion of the honourable Member for Northampton, and I believe the honourable Member for Edinburgh, who has put the case for vaccination so completely that I almost hesitate to make any more remarks after his very able, lucid, and complete speech. When I said that this Bill was not a logical one on the findings of the Committee, that, Sir, no doubt is a conclusion which recommends itself to many honourable Members of this House. I may say that on these matters I am rather a "thick and thinner." I am not much of a believer in your conscientious objector. I should prefer myself that we should have a paternal Government ruling over us, as in Germany, who would take care that we were vaccinated with calf lymph. In Germany, when a schoolboy arrives at school age, he is not allowed to go into school at all unless he has been reasonably vaccinated. I do not want to be too stiff-backed upon an occasion like this. I should have preferred the Government to have taken up a strong and vigorous line of action, and continue some sort of compulsion; but we must, of course, go with the times. There is no doubt about that. I am bound to say that, after the speech of my honourable Friend and professional Brother who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, and who so well acted his part as politician and medical officer to the Local Government Board, I have no doubt he is right, and I must keep my stronger opinions and make them fall in with us. That proposal was perhaps better than that which this Bill proposes to carry out. There is one point which I think this House will not dispute, that is that small-pox has diminished, and that it is a much less terrible disease than it used to be. And what is the reason of it? Why has it diminished? It has been stated that a great number of people marked with small-pox used to go about in the old days, and it used to be rather the exception to see a person who was not marked with it. I was reading in an article the other day a description of this disease in the old days, and it stated that small-pox began to be such a usual thing that no one took any notice of it, nor thought that it was anything special or unusual. Well, we say that small-pox has diminished, and no one in their senses can deny that it has diminished. I say it has diminished on account of vaccination, but our opponents say that it is on account of sanitation. ["Hear, hear!"] I won't say "Hear, hear!" but I will say half a "Hear, hear!" because I think that everyone will admit that sanitation must of course influence every disease and every human constitution; and, of course, if you place people under better sanitary conditions, with their houses well drained, there is no doubt in the world that those people are placed in a better position by their constitution for withstanding the ravages of any disease. But my friends are bound to go further than that if they want us to believe that sanitation is the one thing which has brought this great result by which the diminishing of smallpox has been carried out, and they are bound to prove that there is some scientific connection between small-pox and sanitation. My honourable Friend the Member for Edinburgh placed that very clearly before the House. He told us that a certain number of diesases, like typhus and typhoid fevers, were produced by bad drainage, and bad sanitary conditions, and that diphtheria, and a lot of other diseases of that kind, are well-known to depend solely and specifically on bad sanitary conditions. But I do not think any prominent scientific man has ever brought forward any case or scientific evidence to prove that small-pox has any specific relation with sanitary conditions. Then there are other diseases which my honourable Friend told the House of, relating to the same class, such as measles, scarlet fever, erysipelas, and whooping cough, which, if small-pox had been diminished by improved sanitation, ought also to have diminished. But, instead of being diminished, these diseases have actually risen coterminously with the improved conditions of sanitation during the last few years. Then, again, this is also another proof: the larger number of insanitary places have often had very low small-pox rates, as anyone who has been to Germany within the last 20 or 30 years, and who has seen the condition of sanitation there, and observed the state of zymotic diseases, will admit. Now, what are the facts of the case? Why, that during a long succession of years, in which sanitation made no special progress, small-pox has gone on diminishing and diminishing, and that disease is almost entirely stamped out in Germany. Then there is another great point. In Leicester and Middlesbrough, and all those places where there have been epidemics of small-pox, we have had an opportunity of studying its effects, and it is quite evident to anyone's mind that the people who suffer most are the young unvaccinated children. I do not want to weary the House with statistics of unvaccinated children and unvaccinated people, but at the same time I may be permitted to point out that the children and people who are unvaccinated are the most heavily hit by this disease, whilst policemen, postmen, and soldiers, who are officially revaccinated, have escaped the disease altogether. And, finally, there is the illustration of the nurses, and that is a very sore bone for the anti-vaccinators to pick, for they have tried their best with it for many years, but they have not made much impression upon it. In every small-pox hospital every nurse has to be revaccinated, and they escape the disease, but, in one or two cases, the nurses who have declined to be vaccinated get the small-pox, and occasionally die from it. That is a condition of things which can be absolutely proved, and often has been proved, by most direct arguments. Now, Sir, I do not want to detain the House longer, but I should like to say one word more, and that is in reference to isolation. Isolation is no doubt very important, and far be it from me to undervalue it; but I am inclined to think that the taking of people from their homes and shutting them up in hospitals is an interference with their personal liberty. Is it possible that you can always get sufficient hospital accommodation to effectively isolate cases of small-pox? Small-pox is a disease which it is not at all very easy to diagnose in the early stages, and if you drag people out of their homes to convey them to a small-pox hospital you not only damage their constitutions but you run the risk of spreading the disease as you pass through the streets. It is not altogether improbable that a strong medical opinion exists in favour of these smallpox hospitals in a large number of cases, but it has been pretty well proved that these hospitals have been the means of disseminating small-pox around the locality in which they are situated. But apart from the fact that this isolation in hospitals may eventually be the means of preventing the spread of the disease, I do not think that it is an extremely agreeable process for a person with small-pox in his own comfortable home to be shifted into a large hospital with a lot of other small-pox patients, where you see the depressing sights which are inseparably associated with every large hospital containing a large number of patients. Now we have heard a great deal about calf lymph, and my honourable Friend below me was not quite sure about the advisability of mixing calf lymph and glycerine. Now my honourable Friend the Member for Edinburgh was absolutely within his scientific rights when he stated that, by experiment, it had been proved that glycerine preserved the vaccine lymph and destroyed every source of infection. That is founded on strict scientific experiments, not only carried on here by the observation of scientists in this country, but also in Germany it has for many years proved to be a process which has been swift, sure, and effectual. The old-fashioned idea is that vaccination by calf lymph is more irritating; but by improved method of culture and administration I believe it has now been absolutely shown that the use of calf lymph is not attended by nearly so much irritation as the old-fashioned method. Now my honourable Friend below me referred to the divergence of opinion upon the Report of the Royal Commission among scientific men. Well, is there anything in human affairs, scientific or otherwise, in which it is possible to get unanimity among human beings? There are one or two people who do, I think, argue against vaccination. Dr. Collins, the well known and respected chairman of the London County Council, does toot go as far as we do. His opinion is, I believe, that the effect of vaccination wears out quicker than we say it does, and he does not think that compulsion is necessary. I do not think that even Dr. Collins has ever disputed that vaccination is a preventative against small-pox. My impression is that he is convinced that vaccination is a remedy for small-pox, but that it soon wears out. It is, however, in the first place, generally admitted that the danger is minimised by vaccination with calf lymph; secondly, by the effect of the glycerine, which destroys the germs; and, thirdly, I should be strongly in favour of this: that the calf should be first examined by a surgeon. If the examination was satisfactory, the calf should then be killed, but the lymph taken from it should not be used till a post-mortem examination has been made of the calf, and a searching inquiry made, so that the surgeon is able to certify absolutely, from an examination of all the organs, that the calf was perfectly healthy in every part, and that there was no possible danger in using that lymph. I believe a good deal of bad vaccination, as my honourable Friend has told us, has been caused by using impure lymph from other persons. I do not think there is any doubt about this. But these objections, I think, will be entirely removed by the fact that glycerine has a destructive effect, and will prevent the irritation which frequently causes erysipelas. In Scotland we are a well-vaccinated people—we are a sensible people. Anti-vaccinators do not come up to Scotland. I remember at some of my meetings I was pursued by a paid agent of some society, who heckled me a little, but he got no satisfaction either from me or the meeting. I am bound to say this: that the system of house to house visitation is carried on very well now in Scotland, but I do not think it will work so well by this Bill. With regard to these domiciliary visits, my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton did paint a picture which is, perhaps, coloured rather highly; but still, if you wash out some of the colouring there will be little of the true picture left. He said that these visitations would not be well received. In Scotland vaccination is all done by the family medical attendant. How much better that is. The family doctor simply comes to the house and says, "Your child is not vaccinated. I have some very good calf lymph, which is free from syphilis; let me vaccinate the child." He rarely meets with a refusal, because the parent is much more inclined to agree than if an utter stranger, whom he had never seen before, had entered the house, and metaphorically presenting a pistol at his head, said, "I have come to vaccinate your child." I think if some form of private vaccination could be carried out it would be more effective. My honourable Friend the Member for Edinburgh thinks that public vaccination is much better than private vaccination, but the vaccination which satisfies the mother does not always satisfy the sanitarian. He wants three or four good marks to give the child protection. I really think that if you could arrange for a system of visits by private practitioners, rather than by the public authorities, the results would be much more satisfactory. Without wishing to trespass any further upon the time of the House, I should like to refer to a remark of my honourable Friend. He mentioned certain cases of revaccination being carried out. I do not think that parents object very much to that. When I had the honour of filling the post of medical officer to Rugby School there were 500 boys there. An epidemic of small-pox came into the neighbourhood, and I revaccinated more than half the school. Every parent was asked and gave his consent. I revaccinated with great success, without causing any inconvenience, and with some pecuniary advantage to myself, although I should have got a greater pecuniary advantage out of a good epidemic of small-pox. Just one other point. The Government do not want to go quite so far in this direction. Although the Bill is a small one, it is not a bad one as far as it goes. Perhaps it contains the germ from which better Bills will come in the future. I think it will prove bene- ficial in many directions, and I shall be very happy to give it my support.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I had hoped that at least one voice, on some side of the House, would have been raised in favour of Clause 2, which I look upon as the most important clause of this Bill, because it contains the principle of the Bill, and yet no one has raised his voice in its favour. I cannot agree with my honourable Friend who has just sat down in the view which he has taken of the results of the past Royal Commission. I endeavoured years ago to impress upon the Chairman of the Local Government Board the necessity as to reinvestigation into this question. I did that in connection with my honourable Friend the Member for East Donegal, and we then took a Division of the Committee upon a vaccination grant. At that time the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Croydon was Chairman of the Local Government Board, and he then stated on behalf of the Board that all the assertions that had been made regarding vaccination, and regarding certain evils which were supposed to come occasionally with it, were unfounded. He said he would not have either a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, because, in the first place, no one would serve, and, in the second place, no one would come forward to give evidence. At that time we made certain specific charges—if you like to call them so—against vaccination. Can my honourable Friend who has just sat down say that these charges were unfounded? We had a Commission appointed, and every one of those charges has been borne out by the Report of the Royal Commission, and I am astonished to hear my honourable Friend say that the verdict of the Commission left not a stain upon the character of vaccination. What were the facts? I asserted that in my experience as a public vaccinator I had seen symptoms caused by vaccination. I said I had seen several cases. That statement was denied, absolutely denied, on behalf of the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board for two years afterwards sent out a form in which that denial was contained. What occurred before the Royal Commission? We had a case two years afterwards which occurred in Leeds. A lad had been vaccinated, and syphilis occurred as a result of that vaccination. That was the verdict of the coroner's jury on the lad, who had died at the Leeds Hospital. My honourable Friend the Member for West Leeds asked a question in this House. The Local Government Board absolutely denied the fact, and sent down one of their medical officers. That medical officer reported, and we had his Report read to us in reply to the honourable Member for West Leeds, that, instead of syphilis being communicated by vaccination, it was a case of hereditary syphilis. Fortunately, the Royal Commission was sitting, and that Royal Commission appointed Dr. Barwell to make a Report to them, and a very eminent Member also investigated this case. The evidence given before the Commission was quite clear, and it can be found in the Report of the Commission. The parents were examined, and there were no signs whatever of any syphilis in them, and both the medical men were of opinion that the views expressed by the surgeons in the hospital and the opinion expressed by the coroner's jury gave the true facts of the case. Yet my honourable Friend says that vaccination left the Royal Commission without a stain on its character. He knows very well that Dr. John Donaldson is one of the ablest men in the profession.


I never doubted the fact of the occasional existence of this disease, but I say that it is of extremely rare occurrence.


I only want to assert that, so far from the statements made by the Local Government Board then being accurate, they have all been disproved, and every assertion made by myself and the honourable Member acting with me in that Debate has been borne out by the Report of the Royal Commission. There have been cases of erysipelas following. Another assertion that we made was that vaccination often brought on other diseases which otherwise would remain stagnant. Of course, I know that vaccination is supposed to cause lots of diseases that it has no effect upon; and vaccination, which has nothing to do with them, has all the blame thrown upon it. But I was taking absolute cases, and making absolute charges. I say that you have vaccination causing specific diseases, such as syphilis and other diseases, that it produces secondary results, such as erysipelas—and very bad erysipelas, too—and that very often it brought about a weakening of the child's constitution, where it had a susceptibility to disease. All these charges have been absolutely proved by the Report of the Royal Commission, and now we have a Bill brought in to change the entire form. Let me say this: that, as far as I am concerned, I believe that vaccination does modify small-pox, and I am rather inclined to take the view at the present time of the agencies which caused the Chairman of that Commission to take his present view. I read the able reply of my friend Dr. Collings, in the minority Report. Dr. Collings is a very strong advocate. I was talking to him only the other day, and he was then expressing views very strongly opposed to this present Bill. I believe that vaccination necessarily must modify small-pox, but I think the evidence given before the Royal Commission has shown that the first, the old view, the theory upon which this House voted £30,000 to Dr. Jenner, the theory which was held up to the time when we got this Royal Commission, must be given up. What is the history of this? Because, if we are going to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, we must understand something of our past legislation in regard to it. Looking at it from an historical standpoint, neither the medical profession nor this House, and especially the Local Government Board, have much cause to feel very strong, and to be very "cocky" about it. By the law of 1853 it is made an offence punishable with one month's imprisonment to do what the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons believed to be essentially the best method of dealing with this disease. Inoculation was then the officially recognised method. It was laid down that if a mild form of small-pox occurred, and that mild form was given to a healthy person, he was free from liability to it afterwards. He took it under conditions which would not press very hard upon him, and the result was that inoculation prevailed, and was almost universal, like vaccination is at the present time. What was the result of that? The result was that you constantly had small-pox endemic. You kept it alive, and now and then you had waves of epidemic arising from this endemic condition. A century ago small-pox attained the highest degree of development it ever reached in this country, and the reason was because you constantly kept it there. At that time they began to give up inoculation, and then this discovery was made by Dr. Jenner. What was his discovery? He inoculated a number of children with cowpox, and then he afterwards tried to inoculate them with small-pox, and he found that after they had taken the cowpox they could not take small-pox. He came to the conclusion that the great bulk of the medical faculty thought that he had now discovered a perfect cure for the smallpox. I am speaking of what occurred in this House in the past. There is no man in this House now who would take the same view as was taken then, because of the present condition of things. We have had the law made compulsory since 1853, and we are told that in consequence there was much less small-pox, and that that was due to vaccination. It may be one of the effects, but I do not see it as my honourable Friend sees it, and I will tell you why. We have got the bills of mortality during the 18th century, and, whilst I readily admit that I do not think they are so accurate as the Returns of the Registrar General, still, we can glean from them what was the amount of the death rate from small-pox during that period. Since the last century—since vaccination was discovered, and has been put into practice—we have had two serious epidemics in this country, as a result of which there was a greater mortality than you have had at the worst time of the last century. In the 1871 and 1873 epidemics the number of cases and the mortality was very much greater than it was in the 18th century epidemics. Now my honourable Friend spoke of the influence of vaccination and re-vaccination in Germany, and also in our Army. Now, I have been reading a very able pamphlet by Dr. Russell Worrold, who is a very able naturalist. He was the first man in this country to propound the theory of evolution, not that he was the author of it, as Dr. Darwin's book was in the hands of Dr. Hooker when Dr. Russell Worrold first sent home his paper on the theory of evolution. Dr. Darwin's book came out soon after. Dr. Russell Worrold is one of the ablest naturalists that we have, and he examined this question from the standpoint of the decision of the Royal Commission, and I should like to hear some reply, not from the Local Government Board, but from some one who has a greater technical knowledge of the subject than that gentleman. He gives, from 1864 to 1894–30 years—the Returns with regard to the Army and Navy. The Army small-pox death rate during those 30 years was 58 per million, and in the Navy 90 per million. Then he took Ireland—a badly vaccinated country—and found that the average was 15 and 45 per million. I say Ireland is badly vaccinated, because, although the towns are fairly well vaccinated, the country districts are not. So that, taking the whole of Ireland, you have 65 per million, whilst you have 90 per million in the Navy and 58 per million in the Army. So that you have 90 and 58 per million of picked lives, and in Ireland over the whole country you have only 65 per million. He also gives the Army and Navy against the towns. From 1873 to 1894 the death rate in the Army was 37 per million, and the Navy 6.8, taking the same ages, and in Leicester it was only 14.4. Now I must say, if these statistics are accurate—and they are accurate so far as Dr. Worrold is concerned—unless some explanation be given I must moderate my view with regard to the protection of vaccination and re-vaccination. My honourable Friend says that the Royal Commission was illogical. I think it was perfectly logical; the only argument which they could use was that infant mortality had lessened; but when they had got thus far there was a modification. They found that at about the age of ten years vaccination ceased to have any effect, and that, therefore, if you are to have vaccination you must of necessity have re-vaccination, which, in my opinion, was a very logical and rational conclusion to come to. There are two views taken, and one of the things which has prejudiced me is, in my opinion, the stupid arguments on both sides of the House on this Debate. They have not taken into consideration the effect of sanitation, but they depended on vaccination, and vaccination has been a broken reed. What was the result of the inquiry in England, published in 1879 and 1880? I will read it to my honourable Friend. It is page 142 of the Report of the Commission which sat to inquire into the Sanitary Measures (India), and it says— The vaccinations' returns throughout India show the same fact, that the number of vaccinations does not necessarily bear a ratio to the small-pox deaths. Small-pox in India is related to season, and also to epidemic prevalence. It is not a disease, therefore, that can be controlled by vaccination in the sense that vaccination is a specific against it. As an endemic and epidemic disease it must be dealt with by sanitary measures, and if these are neglected small-pox is certain to increase during epidemic times. Now, I think that is a most sensible course, and a most sensible Report, and it is the result of experience in India and of our experience here. Now, it is perfectly true that small-pox has lessened, but a number of other fevers have lessened still more. Typhus has lessened enormously, but it can hardly be said that it has been lessened by vaccination. On the contrary, the honourable Member for Deptford, in his argument, said he was a guardian for Mile End, and that seven years ago the guardians of Mile End determined to stop compulsory vaccination, and in the first year they had 80 cases in 142 days, and next year they had 42 cases in two days, and no deaths, and hence the argument that if you stop vaccination you stop small-pox. But you may, in some years, have epidemics of small-pox, you know. There have been cases of a very serious epidemic when you have the disease virulent in vaccinated towns and unvaccinated towns, as was the case in 1873, 1884, 1895, and 1896. Take that well-known, well-vaccinated town of Sheffield, one of the best vaccinated towns in the country, and then the badly—the still notoriously badly—vaccinated town of Leicester. Look at what a plague small-pox was in Sheffield, and how easily they put it down and stamped it out in Leicester. Leicester went in for anti-vaccination, but, at the same time, it also went in for improved sanitation and for isolation, so that when the epidemic broke out there the case was sent away at once, and the result was that practically the disease had very little effect. Now, I do not know what views will be brought forward from the other side when we come to discuss the second clause of the Bill—the most important in the whole Bill, in my opinion. I am not going to discuss vaccination upon scientific principles. This is not the place to do it; but we want to get at the lines the present Bill is drafted on, and why you refuse to carry out the Report of the Commission. My honourable Friend who has spoken to-night has asked for a modification of Clause 2 upon the lines of the Commission, and I think it is perfectly clear that if you do not carry out the suggestion of vaccination and re-vaccination it is absolutely useless. I think if you take the view that vaccination is necessary, then re-vaccination is equally necessary, and the whole System should be carried out thoroughly and completely if you want any protection at all. You use the argument that if you do not vaccinate, the child who is not vaccinated may be a source of danger to the community, but then, for the same reason, a person who has lost the effect of vaccine also becomes as great a source, and if a parent has a conscientious objection why should you thrust this medical dogma down his throat. Vaccination has come through the ordeal without a stain upon its character, but all the methods adopted hitherto will have to be given up. We are going to have a new method adopted now, not really a new one, it is practically an old one; and I put the question to the President of the Local Government Board. I put some questions to him, and got the usual kind of reply, which we have received to nearly all the questions we bring before him—absolutely inaccurate replies. I asked him whether it was the case that the Madras reports had shown that they had been using this glycerinated lymph, and that in 7,000 cases they had found it to be detrimental to the persons vaccinated. I asked a much more important question. I asked why the Sanitary Commissioners of Bengal had stopped using glycerinated lymph in Calcutta and Dargeeling, and whether they had not stopped its use because they found that it very soon deteriorated, and that the lymph sent out to them for use had become such a source of danger that they had been compelled to give it up. In the next case, I asked whether the medical advisers to the Local Government Board did not hold the same views. Why did I not get a reply? What are the facts? There was a case where 79 persons were vaccinated with this glycerinated lymph, and the whole 79 took disease. Sir George Barker said it was all owing to the state of the lymph, and was entirely caused by the glycerine being mixed with it. He said— I trust that in this country we shall never have a case of this kind, because we shall not use such rubbish. The right honourable Gentleman is ignorant of the opinion of his own medical adviser. It seems to me that the trend of opinion is against this present system, and that it ought to be modified. Like the Commission, I have come to the conclusion that the modification is lessening every year, and if the statistics which I have quoted are correct, I am afraid it will have to be still further modified. I think the true method to be adopted is the method which the people of Leicester have been pursuing—to carry out perfect sanitation, and then, if you have an epidemic, isolate the infected persons. Then, if a person becomes a source of danger you have a right to isolate him, and so prevent the spread of the disease. I think that is the line we ought to adopt in the future.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I have listened to the speech of my honourable Friend, and I must say I am as much in the dark at the end as to what he himself thinks as at the beginning, for he posed as an ardent vaccinator, and then as an anti-vaccinator. I cannot understand how any human being, with ordinary common-sense and eyesight, can have any doubt upon the question, or require statistics to show that vaccination has done infinite ser- vice. When I was a boy in Ireland, one out of every four or five children was badly pitted with small-pox. Now, one cannot see one in every hundred so pitted. I suppose that must be the experience of every Member of this House. Take up the literature of the country, which is very often a good guide as to the social and other conditions of society, and you will find in the middle of the century that people in the higher classes were constantly mentioned as having been afflicted with small-pox. You never hear of that now. Take the statistics as quoted by the honourable Member for the Ilkeston Division, and which have never been contested seriously. An examination was made of 53,000 children in the schools in London, and it was found that of the children who were unvaccinated 360 out of every 1,000 were pitted with smallpox, and of those who were vaccinated only two in every 1,000. How are you to get over figures like these? Other figures show that in England generally one died for every 20 before vaccination, in Scotland one in every 25, in Sweden one for 12, and in Copenhagen one in every 24, and we are asked to go back to the time when this hideous holocaust of life took place every year, in order to preserve what was called "the liberty of the subject," liberty to spread pestilence and disease all around one. Now, Sir, I take another case. My honourable Friend who preceded me talked about the amount of disease that was brought about by vaccination, and there was one case of this disease which it was said had been communicated in that way, but you have only to talk common-sense in order to get a large number of people to believe you. In the first place, I do not think these observations about syphilis do apply to this Bill, which says that vaccination should take place from the lymph from a calf, and how could a calf communicate this loathsome disease? Look at the Report of the Royal Commission. Even under the old form of vaccination, in five years 299 deaths were attributed to vaccination, and of these deaths five were attributed to syphilis. Why, you would think it was something appalling? During those five years six or seven hundred thousand children were vaccinated every year, so that there were three millions and a half vaccinated in the five years. These figures speak for themselves. I hope the Government will stand to their guns, and especially that they will not yield to the menace by which they have been threatened. An honourable Member on this side of the House said that, from a Party view, the Measure should be opposed. I am glad he was not alone in making that threat, because some similar threat was made from the Ministerial side. I hope no Government will ever pay attention to menaces of that kind. It is a matter which, in the opinion of reasonable men, irrespective of Party or political feeling, involves the deepest and highest interests of the community, and any Government which would place Party or political interest in front of the interest of the community in this respect I think is a Government which should be thrown from office by the joint votes of all honest and respectable men.


Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is now under discussion has been assailed by the opponents of vaccination because it does not abolish compulsion, whilst the supporters of vaccination have offered it a modified opposition because, as they put it, Clause 2 opens a door of escape. Now, in my opinion, the Bill was rightly described by the honourable Baronet the Member for Ipswich, who said it sought to make vaccination more acceptable to the masses of the people and to remove any danger which may have existed in the past. I think that was a proper description of the Bill. What is the problem which it is designed to meet? The Government do not propose to argue the question of vaccination. That they are content to take as settled—settled by facts and figures at home and abroad; settled by the weight of medical authority, and settled by the most conclusive Report of the Royal Commission. What the Government have had to deal with is a disinclination upon the part of a considerable section of the people to comply with the law, arising in some cases most assuredly from conscientious objections, and due, secondly, to ignorance and largely to indifference. Now, where the conscientious objector refuses to have his child vaccinated on the ground of possible injury to the child—and I admit what was stated a few minutes ago by one speaker that, although it was a question ten or twelve years ago, it is now admitted that serious objection has arisen in a very small number of cases—I say that when that objection arises we hold that the new lymph ought to remove that objection; and where the objection arises from ignorance and indifference the visit of the public vaccinator to the home will, at all events, tend to get rid of that difficulty. Now, Sir, passing from the case for the Bill, let me say a word or two upon some of the objections which have been raised in the course of this Debate; and, although the Debate has spread over almost the entire evening, I must say that most of the objections were most admirably condensed in the speech of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Leicester, who opened the Debate. Now my honourable Friend put this as a question to the Government: Why ought the borough of Leicester to be coerced into a system which they believe to be wrong? May I answer that question in the Irish fashion by asking another? Why ought the borough of Leicester to claim the right to set aside the decision of Parliament? Because that in the end is what it comes to. Now, Sir, Leicester claims that right, and let us see the effect. A couple of years ago there was a most serious epidemic of small-pox in Gloucester. Gloucester was to a large extent an unvaccinated city, and the House will be able to appraise the strength of the conscientious objection there when I tell them this fact, that whenever the small-pox had got a good grip of the population, that same population which had this conscientious objection to vaccination trooped in its thousands to the public vaccination stations.


Is it not the fact that it was because several prominent and other clubs refused to pay any sick pay unless the members were vaccinated?


I am aware that some prominent anti-vaccinators were vaccinated. Now let us see how this operate. This city had claimed a right to set aside the vaccination law, and was visited by this epidemic. Just see what danger there was of spreading the disease all round about. Why, when the epidemic was at its height a deputation from the neighbouring town of Cheltenham waited upon the Local Government Board. What was their case? I myself received the deputation, as my right honourable Friend was unable to be present. What was their case? They said, Here we are a town within seven miles of Gloucester, a town largely dependent upon the educational establishments which we have, and we are in special danger from this epidemic in Gloucester. All intercourse with Gloucester has been stopped, for Gloucester, by its neglect, had actually imperilled Cheltenham and every other town in the neighbourhood. Well, I say no town has a right to do that—a town has no right to set aside the decision of Parliament and spread the danger of disease to neighbouring communities. Very well. Now, my honourable Friend put another question, which was repeated in various forms afterwards by other honourable Members, but he put it very straight. He objected to the Local Government Board giving instructions to vaccinating officers to carry out prosecutions. He said boards of guardians in many places had refused to carry out these prosecutions, and he objected to the Local Government Board giving instruction to vaccinating officers to prosecute in such cases. The honourable Member for Northampton pressed the same objection. Now here again the question arises: ought any board of guardians, or ought any number of boards of guardians, to be at liberty of their own will to set aside the decision of Parliament? I say that Parliament ought to be supreme in these matters. Parliament has to take a view of the whole country; boards of guardians take merely a local view; and I maintain that no board of guardians has any right to set aside upon any question the decision of Parliament. If they object, let them alter that decision if they can, but until it is altered, and while the law remains, boards of guardians elected to administer the law have no right to set it aside. Now I should have thought—I may be entirely wrong, but I confess I should have thought—that many boards of guardians would have welcomed the intervention of the vaccination officers as freeing them from what they consider a disagreeable duty. But, setting that aside, the honourable Member for Northampton asked this question plainly: Do the Local Government Board claim the power to initiate prosecutions? That was his first question. The Local Government Board claims no such power. The honourable Member then asked: Is it in the power of the Local Government Board to require the vaccinating officer to take proceedings? We have been advised that it is within the power of the Local Government Board, and in the view of the Board it is their duty, to require these officers to to act; but there is nothing about it in this Bill. This Bill does not touch that question at all. Whatever powers may be exercised in that direction must be exercised under Acts now on the Statute Book, and not under this Bill at all. All I have to say on behalf of the Local Government Board is this, that if it be their duty to require these officers to enforce the law, and to conduct prosecutions, they will not shrink from doing what is their duty in carrying out the law.


Do I understand the honourable Gentleman to say that the Local Government Board will take that course, whether this Bill passes or not?


What I am saying is that this Bill has nothing to do with those powers. Those powers, whatever they are, do not spring from this Bill, they spring from Acts already in existence, and the Local Government Board will take whatever steps they may decide it is their duty to take in carrying out the will of Parliament in this as in every other matter. Now, Sir, I come to the speech of the honourable Baronet the Member for Ipswich and the question of Clause 2 dealing with repeated penalties. Now, may I put it to the House in this way? Why has the Government Inserted that clause in this Bill? I am told it is illogical. The honourable Member for Northampton spoke of logic as if that were the only consideration which this House ever paid any attention to. Why, Sir, I take some consolation when I remember a speech delivered at that box opposite by Mr. Disraeli once when he was in Opposition. Someone had been talking that night, just as the honourable Member has done, about logic, and Mr. Disraeli got up and said— I beg to inform the honourable Member that this country is not governed by logic; it is governed by Parliament. Now, this clause may be logical or illogical, but it is necessary that it should be inserted in this Bill. Let us see the reasons that exist for its insertion. First of all, a Select Committee of this House recommended that cumulative penalties should be abolished, and on the strength of that recommendation the Local Government Board issued a circular, which is known as the Evesham circular, which practically left it largely in the discretion of boards of guardians to institute repeated prosecutions or not. Then we come to the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission also recommended the abolition of these repeated penalties. Now I say that is strong authority for the Government to stand behind—the Report of a Select Committee and the Report of a Royal Commission. But there is another reason, and I think an overwhelming reason, for the abolition of repeated penalties. If repeated penalties had secured the vaccination of the child, it might be the duty of the Government to stand by them; but repeated penalties have not secured the vaccination of the child, while they have secured martyrdom in the case of certain mistaken individuals. These are the reasons which have influenced the Government in abolishing these repeated and cumulative penalties. Now, my honourable Friend has stated that if we had been logical we should have insisted upon re-vaccination. At all events, the Royal Commission have not insisted upon it, and where they are not free to tread we may, I think, be excused from going too far upon the road. The honourable Member also said that in one recommendation of the Royal Commission a statutory declaration was proposed in relief of the conscientious objector. Now, our case is that the conscientious objector will be largely provided for; first, when he finds that no danger can result in the operation of vaccination to his child; and secondly, he will be relieved to some extent, at all events, from the action of repeated penalties. I can hardly understand those Members who are opposed to vaccination so strongly objecting to this clause, because those honourable Members have been constantly pressing upon the Local Government Board the necessity for giving some relief in this direction, and for adopting the Report of the Select Committee. Well, now I come to the speech of the honourable Member for Northamptonshire. He said that the Government would be forced to admit by and by that compulsion was dead; and why? Because 127 boards of guardians had refused to put the law into operation. Yes, but there are 650 boards of guardians in this country, and a large number of the 127 boards who have acted in the way stated by the honourable Member have done so avowedly because they were waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission. Now, the honourable Member for Northampton also made rather merry over the question of lymph, and he asked a great number of questions upon it. He quoted, I think, from the Report of the Tuberculosis Commission, to show that disease might be communicated to children through lymph taken from diseased animals. That argument has been used by other Members. Let me relieve honourable Members' minds upon that point. I think it would be next to impossible to communicate any disease in that way. Every animal will be examined with a view to discovering whether it is diseased or not, and if it is found to be diseased it will be destroyed. Lymph will be used only from animals which are found to be perfectly free from disease after examination. Now, what has been one of the main cries of the anti-vaccinationists in this country? One of their main cries has been that syphilis is communicated by vaccination. That will be impossible in the future, for the great recommendation of the new lymph is that the glycerine destroys any organism that may possibly exist in it, while it absolutely adds to the efficacy of the lymph itself. I think these facts ought to go a long way to satisfy even those who are conscientiously opposed to vaccination on these grounds. Now, Sir, I do not know that it is necessary to say more. I have dealt with the main arguments that have been advanced by the opponents of the Bill to-night, and I think, after the two days' discussion that we have had—a lengthened and a full discussion—we may now be permitted to take the Second Reading of the Bill.

MR. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, Spen Valley)

I venture to suggest that we have no right to enforce a law of this kind unless we are perfectly sure that the protection will be complete, and also that we have no right to compel vaccination unless we are going to secure it in every person who is likely to be dangerous to the community. Neither of those conditions is secured by this Bill. We have had a great deal of medical authority quoted to us. I suppose we would all pay a great deal of attention to medical authority, but when it comes to the question of compulsion by fine, and it may be by imprisonment, we want something a little more impressive than medical authority. It was medical authority that pressed the practice of inoculation on the people of this country. The honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool in a very dramatic manner, recited how, in his early days, he had seen one out of every four or fiver persons pitted with small-pox. Does he remember that that was the result of what was done when inoculation with small-pox was practically universally carried out? Yes; the medical profession inoculated the people of this country, they spread small-pox far and wide, and at last it had to be made penal by an Act of Parliament to carry out the very operation which the medical profession recommended should be carried out; and the cessation of the practice of inoculation was sufficient to account, in large measure, for the disappearance of small-pox. Do honourable Gentlemen mean to suggest that if you inoculate with small-pox you will not, of necessity, have a great many people marked with small-pox? Then my argument is that if you cease to inoculate you necessarily materially diminish the number of people so marked. As a matter of fact, vaccination does not sufficiently protect, and the statistics prove it. In Sheffield 88 per cent. of the persons who took small-pox were vaccinated; in Warrington 89 per cent. of those who took the disease were vaccinated; in Leicester 57 per cent. of those who took it were vaccinated; in Dewsbury 64 per cent. of those who took it were vaccinated. These are figures taken from the statistics presented by the Royal Commission. In Sheffield 9½ per cent. of the cases died; in Warrington 9½ per cent. died; but in Leicester, which is not a well-vaccinated town, the death rate was under 6 per cent. Sir, there is a great deal of doubt about the statistics furnished by the medical profession. One significant feature of this Debate was the speech of the honourable Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire, when he said that members of the medical profession, to which he himself belongs, do not properly vaccinate, that they deliberately vaccinate inefficiently. He charged his brethren in the profession with deliberately vaccinating inefficiently in order to please the parents.


The honourable Member is misrepresenting me grossly. I said, and I still assert, that some medical men do not vaccinate properly. That I am prepared to prove to the satisfaction of the House and the honourable Member. I am not prepared to allow him to say that I made a general charge against the profession.


I did not say that the honourable Member made a general charge. I said he had stated that medical men did vaccinate inefficiently, and he has admitted that. He said there were hundreds of cases in Birmingham where this was done, and he gave as his reason for making that statement that those were the children, who passed as vaccinated children, who took the small-pox. If we have medical men who will fail in their duty in such a respect, who will deceive the Government and the public by reporting that children have been efficiently vaccinated when they know that they have not been efficiently vaccinated, what reliance can we place on the statistics furnished by them? With reference to cases of disease transmitted by vaccination, it is with the utmost difficulty that you can get medical men or the Local Government Board to admit that such cases have occurred. Reference has been made to the Leeds case. In order to explain the undoubted fact that a horrible disease had been conveyed by vaccination, the Local Government Board slandered the parent by suggesting that he himself had had that disease. That was proved to be grossly untrue. It was proved beyond all doubt that the disease was transmitted by vaccination. Yes, rather than admit that, they did not stop from slandering the parent, without the slightest evidence whatever. Then, further, I say you have no right to compel an operation of this kind unless it be for the protection of the community. It is not sufficient that vaccination should make the attack milder if small-pox be taken, because it is admitted by the medical profession that a mild attack in one case may transmit a very severe and virulent attack to another person. But further, if vaccination be a sufficient protection, then the person in danger can protect himself against that danger, and he has no right to demand that another person should be vaccinated in order to protect him. No one has a right to demand that I shall be vaccinated, lest I communicate small-pox to him, if he believes that vaccination will be a protection, because he can vaccinate himself and protect himself against the danger; and he has no right to demand that an operation should be inflicted upon me in order to protect him if there are means available by which he can protect himself. That is an answer to the nurses' argument. If it be true that the nurses are protected by re-vaccination, it is clearly open to any person to protect himself by having himself vaccinated, and he has no right to demand that others should be vaccinated. But does not the mere fact that they demand that others should be vaccinated show that they themselves do not believe in it? Reference was made by one honourable Member to the case of Cheltenham and Gloucester. Cheltenham demanded protection against Gloucester. If Cheltenham believed that vaccination would be a protection, Cheltenham could have vaccinated itself, and it had no right to demand that Gloucester should vaccinate in order to protect Cheltenham. Further than that, if you vaccinate in order to protect the community, you ought to vaccinate all susceptible persons—all persons who are likely to spread small-pox. What I would suggest is that the Local Government Board should have the courage of their convictions. If vaccination is a protection against this terrible disease, then they ought to insist upon re-vaccination. They ought to insist that every person who is liable to spread this disease should be vaccinated and re-vaccinated when necessary. It is their duty to do that. If they know that that is a protection, and the only protection, and they fail to bring a Bill into this House to enforce that protection, they are neglecting their duty. If it is not a protection, they have no right to enforce it only on those who cannot afford to pay. I venture to say that this Bill is absurd; it is unjust, it is ridiculous. It justifies the contention that the Local Government Board is anything but clear in its own mind upon this matter. If vaccination is necessary for protection from small-pox, even the conscientious objector ought not to be allowed to escape from vaccination by the payment of one fine or two fines. If vaccination is not necessary, then I say the infliction of a fine is persecution, and is utterly indefensible. If the Local Government Board mean to give up compulsion as impracticable—which is really what this Bill comes to—let them give it up frankly and entirely, and rely upon persuasion. If they offered to pay medical men something for every person vaccinated, whether in the course of their private practice or at public institutions, I venture to say that that would lead to a greater extension of vaccination than will the provisions of this Bill. There is a very old saying that you will catch many more flies with treacle than with vinegar. No one, except the honourable Member for the Scotland Division, has given a whole-hearted support to this Bill. It is a Bill that is too ridiculous to satisfy anyone; it does not satisfy the medical profession, and it will not remove the opposition to vaccination. It will aggravate rather than allay that opposition; evasion of the law will be encouraged, and the result will be that you will get fewer persons vaccinated than ever.

MR. ALLAN (Gateshead)

I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter, or competent to take part in the discussion on its technical side, but I should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board this question: the Bill provides that the Local Government Board shall have the power of making "rules and regulations with respect to public vaccinators," and then it goes on, "and any rules or regulations made by the Board with respect to vaccination." I want to ask why the word "vaccinators" is not used in the last case instead of "vaccination"? Under these words it would be competent for the Local Government Board to frame any rules or regulations "with respect to vaccination." That, surely, would not be sanctioned by Parliament.


I would point out that the words quoted by the honourable Member refer not to the vaccination officers, but to public vaccinators.


Then the phraseology of the Bill is erroneous. It implies that the Local Government Board may make "any rules or regulations with respect to vaccination." It would be possible, I maintain, under those words for the Local Government Board to make any rules or regulations they choose, and compel guardians to carry them out. Either the phraseology of the Bill is wrong, or it confers upon the Local Government Board powers which they have no right to have.

MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)

I do not wish to enter into the extremely technical matters that have been raised in the course of this Debate, but I think this House reflects the views of the country in feeling that it is not prepared to do away altogether with the present vaccination laws. The mere fact that the present state of the law gives rise to some abuses, and to a great deal of mal-administration or non-administration, has undoubtedly been established, and many of us have been eagerly awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission in order to discover the means of ensuring that the law should not be set openly at defiance by the very bodies who are entrusted with the administration of that law. I believe this Bill is an attempt to bring the law into better harmony with the general views entertained in the country, and to do away with abuses by providing better means of vaccination, by providing for domiciliary visits, and by lengthening the period allowed for vaccination. But I do feel that clause 2, which deals with the provision against repetition of penalties, does not quite convey what it is represented to mean. If we intend really to do away with repeated prosecutions, I hope that will be made quite clear. What I desire is that those who have conscientious objections to vaccination shall be free from the penalties they have at present to undergo. I think the penalties now imposed tend to stir up opposition to vaccination among people who otherwise would not object to it. Martyrdom has a great attraction for numbers of people, and the very imposition of penalties,

resistance to which gives some little notoriety, brings about opposition from people who would in the ordinary course hardly think of the matter at all. If it were possible to frame some kind of conscience clause, which would enable the really conscientious objector to escape the law, while compelling the merely indifferent to have their children vaccinated, that would commend itself to my mind; but I confess I see great difficulty in framing such a clause. However, I think that the exact meaning and intention of Clause 2 ought to be made plain. That can, no doubt, be done when the Bill gets into Committee. Agreeing with the general scope of the Bill, I intend to vote for the Second Reading.

The House divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 23.—(Division List No. 91.)

Allhusen, Augustus H. E. Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Goldsworthy, Major-General
Allison, Robert Andrew Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Allsopp, Hon. George Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. Goulding, Edward Alfred
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Gourley, Sir E. Temperley
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Cranborne, Viscount Graham, Henry Robert
Bailey, James (Walworth) Crean, Eugene Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Balcarres, Lord Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.) Daly, James Haldane, Richard Burdon
Banbury, Frederick George Denny, Colonel Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield- Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.
Bartley, George C. T. Dillon, John Hardy, Laurence
Barton, Dunbar Plunkett Doogan, P. C. Hayden, John Patrick
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Doughty, George Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Beckett, Ernest William Duckworth, James Helder, Augustus
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)
Bethell, Commander Dunn, Sir William Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)
Birrell, Augustine Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart Holburn, J. G.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Howell, William Tudor
Bond, Edward Farquharson, Dr. Robert Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Brassey, Albert Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Ffrench, Peter Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Brookfield, A. Montagu Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.
Caldwell, James Firbank, Joseph Thomas Johnston, William (Belfast)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) Fisher, William Hayes Jordan, Jeremiah
Carew, James Laurence Fison, Frederick William Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.
Carlile, William Walter FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Kenyon, James
Cecil, Lord Hugh Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Kimber, Henry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Fletcher, Sir Henry Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Flower, Ernest Knowles, Lees
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Flynn, James Christopher Labouchere, Henry
Charrington, Spencer Folkestone, Viscount Lafone, Alfred
Chelsea, Viscount Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. Lambert, George
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Galloway, William Johnson Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Garfit, William Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gilliat, John Saunders Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. O'Neill, Hon. Robert T. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M.'T.
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Stone, Sir Benjamin
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Pierpoint, Robert Strauss, Arthur
Lowe, Francis William Pinkerton, John Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Lowles, John Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Pollock, Harry Frederick Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Lucas-Shadwell, William Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Macaleese, Daniel Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Thorburn, Walter
Macdona, John Cumming Pryce-Jones, Edward Thornton, Percy M.
Maclure, Sir John William Purvis, Robert Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
MacNeill, John G. Swift Renshaw, Charles Bine Tritton, Charles Ernest
McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool) Rentoul, James Alexander Tully, Jasper
McCalmont, H. L. B. ((Jambs.) Rickett, J. Compton Ure, Alexander
McEwan, William Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
McKillop, James Robertson, Herb. (Hackney) Warkworth, Lord
McLaren, Chas. Benjamin Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Manners, Lord Edw. W. J. Roche, John (Galway, E.) Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Round, James Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Royds, Clement Molyneux Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Melville, Beresford Valentine Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Molloy, Bernard Charles Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Monk, Charles James Seely, Charles Hilton Willox, Sir John Archibald
More, Robert Jasper Seton-Karr, Henry Wilson, John (Govan)
Morgan, H. F. (Monm'thsh.) Sharpe, William Edward T. Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)
Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.) Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)
Morrell, George Herbert Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalyb'ge) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Mount, William George Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) Woodall, William
Murnaghan, George Simeon, Sir Barrington Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Skewes-Cox, Thomas Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) Smith, A. H. (Christchurch) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Murray, Col. W. (Bath) Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.) Young, Com. (Berks, E.)
Nicholson, William Graham Smith, Samuel (Flint) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Nicol, Donald Ninian Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Sir William Walrond and
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Mr. Anstruther.
Allan, Wm. (Gateshead) Greville, Captain Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Ascroft, Robert Hazell, Walter Wedderburn, Sir William
Billson, Alfred Jacoby, James Alfred Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Knox, Edmund F. Vesey Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)
Burns, John M'Ghee, Richard Yoxall, James Henry
Cawley, Frederick O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Channing, Francis Allston Pease, J. A. (Northumb.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Davitt, Michael Pickersgill, Edward Hare Mr. Thomas Bayley and
Gibney, James Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Mr. Steadman.

Bill read a second time.

Question put, and agreed to— That the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. Chaplin.)


I protest against the course proposed by the right honourable Gentleman. This is a matter upon which a very strong view is entertained by honourable Members on both sides of the House. A great many of us have voted for this Bill believing that it would reduce the penalties, and so was in favour to that extent of those who opposed compulsion, but we did so with the intention of moving Amendments in Committee, and really I do not think it is reasonable of the right honourable Gentleman now to take the Bill entirely out of the hands of the House, and send it to a Grand Committee. I certainly should not have voted for the Second Reading of the Bill if I had supposed that the Government contemplated such a course of procedure for a moment.


I have taken no part in this Debate, although a great number of my constituents (and I daresay this will apply to many Members of this House) hold a very strong view with regard to this Bill, and desire that Amendments shall be introduced into it. As Amendments can be made in Committee, I did not think it right to oppose the Second Reading. But the moment it is proposed to send the Bill to a Grand Committee, and to take away from us the possibility of discussing the Measure in Committee of the whole House, the matter stands on a very different footing. In the first place, the Grand Committee to which it is proposed to refer this Bill is, I believe, already overburdened with work. A large number of Bills have already been referred to it, and the consequence is that this Bill will not receive all the attention it deserves at the hands of the Committee. I for one—and I think many others take the same view—will certainly oppose the sending of this Bill to a Grand Committee. We are strongly of opinion that it ought to be discussed in full Committee of the whole House, so that honourable Members whose constituents take strong views on certain points of detail should be able to have their Amendments fully discussed.


It has been a well-understood rule, with regard to sending Bills to Grand Committees, that only Bills should be dealt with in that way which are practically non-controversial. Now, anyone acquainted with the state of opinion on this subject in many constituencies in this country will know very well that this Bill is highly controversial. Therefore it is grossly unfair to those constituencies—I do not say they are the majority of constituencies in this country, I do not say they are even a large number, but they are, at any rate, a considerable number, and I think it is very unfair to them that any attempt should be made to remove this Bill from fair discussion on the floor of the House by honourable Members who are interested in it. I would also draw the attention of the right honourable Gentleman and of the House to the fact that many honourable Mem- bers are absent to-night, not knowing that this Bill would come on, whose constituencies are keenly interested in the subject. The honourable Member for Keighley represents a division, the whole board of guardians of which went to prison rather than administer the vaccination laws. There are other constituencies in the same position. I venture to say that to send this Bill to the Grand Committee would be a flagrant breach of the spirit in which these Grand Committees were constituted, which is to carry on the discussion of the details of Bills in regard to the principle of which there is general unanimity. It would be grossly unfair to the constituencies, who feel so keenly upon this question, to remove the discussion of the Bill from the floor of this House. In the constituency I represent the board of guardians have refused, and rightly, in my opinion, to prosecute for breaches of the Vaccination Act. This will be a gross breach of the rights of local self-government. They will feel it to be most unfair that their representatives should be deprived of the opportunity of discussing the details of this Bill on the floor of the House in the usual manner.


During the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill I stated that I was not satisfied with all its details, and I said I should vote for the Second Reading in the hope that the Bill would be amended in Committee. I think there are several ways in which the Bill could be improved in some of its details; but, Sir, as I am anxious that I should get those Amendments made to the Bill, I shall certainly support the Motion of the right honourable Gentleman opposite. In the Division against the Second Reading only 23 honourable Members were to be found to vote against the Bill. If the Bill is referred to a Grand Committee, we shall have added to the Grand Committee certain Members representing the views held on this question in different quarters of the House, and I hope that I should have before the Grand Committee a larger body of support for my Amendments than I should on the floor of the House itself. Having voted for the Second Reading, and being desirous to get the Bill amended, I shall certainly vote in favour of the proposal to refer it to the Grand Committee.


It was certainly the general understanding, on this side at any rate, that the Bill was to be discussed in Committee of the whole House. This is a Bill making acts criminal acts which were not crimes before, and its details require most careful consideration. If the right honourable Gentleman had told us before the Division on the Second Reading took place that the Bill was to be sent to a Grand Committee, I venture to think that the numbers in that Division would have been very different. This is a question affecting the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects, and there are Amendments which we are going to move, and which we have been expecting to be able to move in Committee of the whole House, but which we shall not have the right to move upstairs. Under those circumstances, I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and let us discuss the Bill fairly on its merits in Committee of this House itself.


The Motion I have made no doubt affords a very convenient excuse to honourable Members for the very remarkable manifestation of opinion which has just been expressed on this question, but I am afraid it will not avail them. It may be hard lines on the honourable Gentleman opposite who divided the House against the Second Reading and failed to find more than 23 supporters. He is perfectly well aware that if the Bill is committed in the ordinary way to Committee of the whole House, it will have no possible chance of becoming law during the present Session. Under these circumstances the honourable Member must not be surprised if I decline to accept his proposal. It is my desire to see this Bill passed into law, and the Division which has just taken place proves that that is the general desire on the part of the House. I believe the numbers in that Division quite reflect the feeling of the House, and in order that the Bill may have a chance of passing into law this Session I shall do everything in my power to refer it to the Standing Committee.

MR. S. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid.)

Like the right honourable Gentleman, I also desire that the Bill should pass into law during the present Session, but it is on that very ground I object to its going to a Standing Committee. The right honourable Gentleman who has just addressed the House is not a member of the Grand Committee on Law, and he may not be aware how full up that Committee is with work. Such an important Bill as this will have no chance of passing through the Committee and coming back to the House in time for its becoming an Act during the present Session. I object to the Bill going to a Standing Committee on principle. It has become a great deal too much the fashion to refer important Bills to the Standing Committees. The effect will be before very long to abrogate the Committee stage of Bills in this House altogether. If that is going to be done, let it be done openly. I venture to say that it is not quits fair, in a case where there is such strong opposition to a Bill as there is in this case undoubtedly, that no notice should have been given to the House before the Second Reading that it was the intention to refer it to a Grand Committee. I know that several honourable Members who desired to be present during the Second Reading discussion have been absent to-night simply because they had no idea that the Seventh Order of the Day would be reached. I think it ought to be considered to be the duty of the Government with regard to any Bill of this class, if it is their intention to move that it be sent to a Standing Committee or any Committee other than that of the whole House, to put a notice on the Paper to that effect. There is no notice to that effect on the Paper in this case, and I think my honourable Friends who are protesting against this Motion are quite justified in doing so, and if they go to a Division, although I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, and desire to see it passed, I shall vote against this proposal of the Government.


This is the second Bill that we shall have sent to the Grand Committee on Law to-day. I am a Conservative in my view with regard to the privileges of this House, and I fancy that if a proposal of this kind relating to a measure of this kind had been proposed by a Liberal Government, honourable Members opposite would have met the proposal with very strong opposition. The right honourable Gentleman has referred to the small number of honourable Members who voted against the Second Reading. I cannot understand why my honourable Friend went to a Division at all against the Second Reading, seeing that the Bill does away with the severe penalties which exist at the present time, and very much modifies the present procedure, and all that is necessary now is to reform Clause 2.


The honourable Member must not discuss the clauses of the Bill on this Motion.


I simply want to point out that far the second time to-night an important Bill is proposed to be sent to one of the Grand Committees, and I warn honourable Gentlemen opposite that if they persist in the policy of referring first-rate, or even second-rate, Measures to the Grand Committees, there is danger that the same measure will be meted out to them when they are opposing Bills proposed by Gentlemen now sitting on this side of the House.

The House divided:—Ayes 301; Noes 50.—(Division List No. 92.)

Allhusen, Augustus H. E. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Kenyon, James
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Dunn, Sir William Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H. Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart Knowles, Lees
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Farquharson, Dr. Robert Lafone, Alfred
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)
Balcarres, Lord Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.) Firbank, Joseph Thomas Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)
Banbury, Frederick George Fisher, William Hayes Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- Fison, Frederick William Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)
Bartley, George C. T. FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lowe, Francis William
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Fletcher, Sir Henry Lowles, John
Beckett, Ernest William Flower, Ernest Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Flynn, James Christopher Lucas-Shadwell, William
Blundell, Colonel Henry Folkestone, Viscount Macaleese, Daniel
Bond, Edward Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Macdona, John Cumming
Brassey, Albert Garfit, William Maclure, Sir John William
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) MacNeill, John G. Swift
Brookfield, A. Montagu Goldsworthy, Major-General McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)
Butcher, John George Gordon, Hon. John Edward McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)
Carlile, William Walter Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. McEwan, William
Cecil, Lord Hugh Goschen, George J. (Sussex) McIver, Sir Lewis
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Goulding, Edward Alfred McKillop, James
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Graham, Henry Robert Manners, Lord Edward W. J.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Martin, Richard Biddulph
Charrington, Spencer Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Chelsea, Viscount Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Melville, Beresford Valentine
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Haldane, Richard Burdon Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Molloy, Bernard Charles
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Monk, Charles James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hardy, Laurence More, Robert Jasper
Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Hayden, John Patrick Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmthsh.)
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Helder, Augustus Morrell, George Herbert
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Cranborne, Viscount Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Mount, William George
Crean, Eugene Howell, William Tudor Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle Murray, Col. W. (Bath)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Nicholson, William Graham
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Denny, Colonel Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)
Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield- Johnston, William (Belfast) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Jordan, Jeremiah O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.
Penn, John Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Simeon, Sir Barrington Warkworth, Lord
Pierpoint, Robert Skewes-Cox, Thomas Warr, Augustus Frederick
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Smith, A. H. (Christchurch) Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Pollock, Harry Frederick Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Smith, Samuel (Flint) Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Pryce-Jones, Edward Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Purvis, Robert Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Rentoul, James Alexander Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. Strauss, Arthur Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)
Robertson, Herb. (Hackney) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)
Round, James Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Woodall, William
Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard Thorburn, Walter Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Thornton, Percy M. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Seely, Charles Hilton Tollemache, Henry James Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Seton-Karr, Henry Tomlinson, W. E. Murray Young, Com. (Berks, E.)
Sharpe, William Edward T. Tritton, Charles Ernest TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.) Tully, Jasper Sir William Walrond and
Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Ure, Alexander Mr. Anstruther.
Allison, Robert Andrew Doughty, George Pinkerton, John
Bainbridge, Emerson Duckworth, James Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Rickett, J. Compton
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Ffrench, Peter Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bethell, Commander Galloway, William Johnson Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Billson, Alfred Gibney, James Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Birrell, Augustine Greville, Captain Steadman, William Charles
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Hazell, Walter Strachey, Edward
Burns, John Healy, Maurice (Cork) Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Caldwell, James Knox, Edmund F. Vesey Tanner, Charles Kearns
Cawley, Frederick Lambert, George Wedderburn, Sir William
Channing, Francis Allston Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) M'Ghee, Richard Wilson, H. J. (Yorks., W. R.)
Clough, Walter Owen McLaren, Charles Benjamin Wilson, John (Govan)
Daly, James Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Davitt, Michael Murnaghan, George TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Dillon, John Pease, J. A. (Northumb.) Mr. Labouchere and Mr.
Doogan, P. C. Pickersgill, Edward Hare Ascroft.

Bill committed.

Forward to