§ SIR JOHN ROLLESTON (Leicester)To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the recently published opinions of Dr. S. Monckton Copeman, and of the Commissioners appointed by the Lancet in 1900 and 1902 to examine the various lymphs on sale in this country, support the view that large marks are not an evidence of efficient vaccination, and that small marks are not an evidence of inefficient vaccination; and that the same authorities have shown, that, in consequence of the modern methods of vaccination, it is possible to produce the Board's stipulated area of vesiculation, viz., not less than half a square inch, without leaving anything; like a corresponding area of marks; and whether he proposes to take any steps to amend the Board's Vaccination Order of 1898 so as to make it more consistent with the latest medical evidence on these points.
(Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Dr. Copeman informs me that in his opinion large scars are not necessarily evidence of efficient vaccination, and small scars are not in themselves evidence of inefficient vaccination, but that usually the area of the scar corresponds fairly closely with that of the vesicle which preceded it. These opinions do not, as I am advised, render it necessary or desirable to amend the Vaccination Order, 1898, which does not make the area of the scar a criterion of successful vaccination.