HL Deb 04 August 1898 vol 64 cc40-58

Amendment proposed— Page 2, line 10, after 'justices,' insert 'or a stipendiary or metropolitan police magistrate.' "—(Lord Harris.)

LORD HARRIS

This Amendment is to make provision for such places where there are no justices or petty sessions.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 2, line 13, after 'justices,' insert 'or magistrate.'"—(Lord Harris.)

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 2, at the end of the clause, insert as a new sub-section— (2) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act, but in its application to a child born before the passing of this Act there should be substituted for the period of four months from the birth of the child the period of four months from the passing of this Act."—(Lord Harris.)

LORD HARRIS

If the Act had been passed as introduced there would have been a considerable number of children born either before the passing of the Act or before the 1st January, when the Act comes into force, whose parents would not have had the benefit of the conscience clause, and it is with the object of securing them from the penalties of non-compliance with the law that this sub-section is proposed. It enables the parent of any child born before the passing of the Act or within four months of the 1st January to have the advantage of the conscience clause.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put— That clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill called it an experimental Measure, and I must say that if the principle of the experiment is to be applied to the health of the people it is possible that it will be not only experimental, but fatal, and reminds me of what Lord Derby once said—that it is a leap in the dark. We do not know what may be the effect of this Measure, but we do know that we are making a very weighty change in the law, and what has been compulsory up to the present time is to be permissive. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading made a great deal of the Report of the Royal Commission, but he did not tell us that when that Royal Commission made the recommendations which they did they coupled them with other proposals which are not contained in this Bill, and I believe at the time that the Royal Commission made the Report to which Lord Lister referred us glycerinated calf lymph had not been discovered—at any rate, it had not been much used—and a great deal of the argument which the noble Lord used went to show what wonderful effect glycerinated calf lymph had in destroying the germs of other diseases, and therefore obviating the great danger of arm to arm vaccination; but all that he said in favour of the adoption of the new lymph was very much an argument in support of the views of those objectors who would very likely change their opinions under this new system. I want to know why the conscientious objector—a small minority of the population—is to be placed in opposition to the general well-being of the country. Are not the conscientious objections of the majority to be considered? Why are we to be exposed to the introduction of this dreadful disease of small-pox because there are a few violent and ignorant people who, believing the agitators, are carried away with them? This clause, we know, was no part of the Bill as brought in by the Government. We also know that the opinions of some of the members of the Government with regard to this particular clause are very much against it. Only last Saturday, on the Third Reading of the Bill in the other House, what did my right honourable Friend the President of the Local Government Board say? He said that if he were right in his apprehension, namely, that an increased number of children would not be vaccinated, he was afraid that what would happen would be that there would be a certain number of epidemics in the country. There are a certain number of epidemics in the country already. He meant, no doubt, that the number of epidemics would be greatly increased. What did the learned Solicitor General say upon the subject when the Bill was in Committee?— If the conscientious objection is permitted, what will be the result? Those who have worked the agitation against vaccination would make haste to lead an excited people to violent declarations. The Committee must look to the interests of the child, which ought not to be exposed to the terrible disease of small-pox simply because the parents have a conscientious objection to its being vaccinated. The resolutions passed at a meeting of the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England on August 2nd, 1898, have not been read to the House. I think it would be advisable that I should read them. They are as follows— That in view of the proposed alterations in the laws relating to vaccination now contemplated in the Bill before Parliament, the council do reaffirm the following resolution adopted by them and forwarded to the Royal Commission on Vaccination on 11th May, 1893, namely— 'We, the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, desire to put on record at the present time our opinion of the value of vaccination as a protection against smallpox. 'We consider the evidence in favour of its life-saving power to be overwhelming, and we believe, from evidence equally strong, that the dangers incidental to the operation, when properly performed, are infinitesimal. 'Experience has satisfied us that, even when vaccination fails to afford complete exemption from small-pox, it so modifies the severity of the disease as not only to greatly reduce its mortality, but to lessen the frequency of blindness, disfigurement, and other grave injuries. 'We should therefore regard as a national calamity any alteration in the law which now makes vaccination compulsory. 'We are, moreover, firmly convinced that re-vaccination is an additional safeguard, and should be universally practised. 'We should add that we believe that the instructions of the Local Government Board for public vaccinators are well designed to secure the greatest efficiency in vaccination, and to avoid the liability to risks from the operation.' Now, my Lords, that is a remarkable statement from the College of Surgeons, and one that I think will be rather difficult for your Lordships to get over. I should like to ask the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill whether he can quote the opinion of any medical body in this country, or in Ireland or Scotland, who have expressed themselves in favour of making this Measure permissive. I maintain that under this clause, if carried, there is no security that any single child in the country will be vaccinated. Many of your Lordships are engaged during a great part of the year in the administration of local affairs, and, during the last few years, anyone who has taken part in the work of boards of guardians or district councils must know how very im- portant the duties are in regard to sanitation, and the promotion and preservation of the health of the people. Great improvements have been made with regard to drainage, with regard to the supply of pure water, and with regard to the renovation of dwelling-houses, and all with the object of maintaining and promoting the health of the people. Many of these works have been costly, and have been thrown upon the rates. At a time when vast sums of money have been and are being expended on improvements of this kind, and in other directions which tend to promote and preserve the health of the people, is it right that we should have a law passed which shall, from time to time, expose us to the danger of the inroads of this fell disease, and entirely undo all the good we have been trying to do? For these reasons, and for some others with which I will not trouble your Lordships, I beg to move the omission of the clause.

LORD ALDENHAM

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a few observations with regard to what has been said in regard to this Bill. I desire to support my noble Friend who has just moved the rejection of the clause. I listened with very great attention, on the Second Reading of this Bill, to the able, and I may say convincing, statement of the noble Lord beneath me [Lord Harris] who has charge of the Bill. I say it was convincing, because it would, I think, convince anybody of the merits of the main features of the first clause of the Bill; but when we come to the clause which we are now discussing, we find that the conscientious objector is himself most objectionable. I cannot but ask, in the first place, why are we to be so careful here of the conscientious objector, when we take no note of him at all in another part of our dominions? There are conscientious objectors in India also, to whom we pay no attention at all, although their objections, dangerous as we feel them to be, are really conscientious—that is to say, they are bound up with the religion of the people who object; but we treat them as we feel bound to treat them—with due regard to the health and security to the people at large. I fear we are not doing that here. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord what those objections are, the difficulty that has been experienced, and how that difficulty has been surmounted; but here we allow the conscientious objector to stand in the way of the passage of this Bill, which contains many valuable and useful provisions. It seems to me that the two clauses—that is to say, the first clause and the second clause—do not hang together at all, because if, as we learn, and are inclined to believe, the use of glycerinated calf lymph and the domiciliary visit, instead of the child being carried to the vaccinator, will really suffice to do away with the real objections, whatever real objections there are to vaccination, why, indeed, should we choose this particular time, when the law is being altered in favour of the children who have to be vaccinated, to bow down before these people, who are in some cases themselves convinced, but who are mainly, I believe, the prey of others who are pressing this upon them, and inducing them to make their objections? We are told, and we are told from several quarters, that if we in this House do not pass the clause the House of Commons will drop the Bill. Now, my Lords, I really cannot, without better certainty—and I know no better certainty than that of sending it to them to see—believe that the House of Commons, who carried the Bill to a certain point without this clause, would do anything of the kind. Seeing that the Commons themselves only inserted the clause at the last moment, I do not think, if it were now omitted, they would decline to proceed with a Measure which they regarded as beneficial. Where do we see the demand for this conscience clause? I do not think anybody has produced any evidence of such a demand. Is the demand outside Parliament, or is the demand in Parliament? We have seen nothing outside Parliament to indicate that the majority of the people, or any large body of people, desire such a permissive clause. The noble Lord spoke of maternal solicitude. I take leave to think that maternal solicitude is very much more employed in desiring the vaccination of the children than in considering the particular quality of the lymph, or how vaccination is performed. We have heard about the medical profession. We have been told by a great authority—the greatest authority—that the medical profession almost universally object to this clause being added. Even the noble Lord beneath me [Lord Harris] says that he cannot speak with any positive certainty as to whether this clause will be productive of good or productive of evil. That being so, I think this is too experimental a clause for your Lordships to accept. If, indeed, the noble Lord had said, "I am satisfied; I believe the advantage of this clause will be so great that it will result in a great decrease in the number of objections to vaccination, and in a very great increase in the number of children vaccinated"—if the noble Lord had been able to say that it might alter my opinion, but I suspect that the real supporters of this clause are not those who desire vaccination at all, but those who object, for fanciful reasons, or for what they consider scientific reasons, to vaccination. If they have their own way, I suppose we shall come to the time that Sidney Smith spoke of as a thing absolutely impossible, when he coupled with many other ludicrous impossibilities the thought "that the world will return again under the influence of the smallpox." I want to know where we are to stop if we once yield to the conscientious objector. We have conscientious objectors on all manner of questions. There are the "Peculiar People," whose objection includes the whole medical profession. They refuse to permit their child to see a doctor if it is ill, or a doctor to see the child. They risk the lives of their children. But here the conscientious objector is risking, not the life of his own child, but the lives of children throughout the whole of the country. There are other conscientious objectors who object to all sanitary reform. Why are we not to listen to their objection? All sanitary laws are objectionable, more or less. I object myself to the influx of barbarians into my house to pull up my drains, to see, not what is the matter, but to see if anything is wrong. I strongly object to that, but I do not propose to come to Parliament for relief. I remember—and I daresay your Lordships will also remember—what Canning said on the subject. He said— We do not subscribe to the opinion that a sincere conviction of the truth of no matter what principle is a sufficient defence for no matter what action; and that the only business of moral inquiry with human conduct is to ascertain that in each case the principle and the action agree. We have not yet persuaded ourselves to think it a sound or a safe doctrine that every man who can divest himself of a moral sense in theory has a right to be with impunity and without disguise, a scoundrel in practice. It is not in our creed that Atheism is as good a faith as Christianity, provided it be professed with equal sincerity; nor could we admit it as an excuse for murder, that the murderer was, in his own mind, conscientiously persuaded that the murdered might for many good reasons be better out of the way. This is not a case of murder, but I fear very much it is a case of promoting disease and death. For murder you must have a particular person to be murdered. This is more general—it proposes to murder us all. Canning speaks of conscientious objection. What is conscientious objection in this case? I could understand conscientious objection to something which goes against one's religion or morality, but it does not go against religion or morality to say that every individual in this country must obey the law which is passed for the safety of the rest. Now, with regard to this conscientious objection, how are we to decide that there is a conscientious objection? We are told that there is a great agitation in the country on this matter, and that the passing of this clause with do away with the agitation. Will it? I very much doubt it, my Lords. There is this conscientious objection to be dealt with. The objection is to be declared before a justice of the peace. Now, let us suppose that in Leicester or Northampton the unhappy justices of the peace, after considering the matter carefully, decide that the objection cannot be sustained; is it not to be believed that there will arise a new and yet more formidable agitation against the justices and against Parliament, too? An old friend of mine said to me the other day— Why trouble yourselves about this? We can all protect ourselves, we can all be vaccinated and have our children vaccinated. What signifies it if others do not? I do not think it is the duty of Parliament to protect themselves. I think the duty of Parliament is to look after the health, the happiness, and the comfort of all the people in this country, who would,. I think, by the passing of this clause, be imperilled by the possible introduction of this frightful and fearful disease into their homes. Therefore, my Lords, I beg to support the Amendment of my noble Friend.

LORD HARRIS

Perhaps it will be convenient if I reply to the two speeches that have been already delivered. There have been so many subjects touched upon in those two speeches that I would ask your Lordships' leave to deal with them at once. I must be permitted to complain that when the noble Lord [the Earl of Feversham] quoted the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board he did not complete the whole quotation. He quoted one-half of what Mr. Chaplin said in the House of Commons as to possible risk in the future—as to possible outbreak—but he omitted the latter part, which is equally important. As I told your Lordships the other night, the whole of my case rests upon the Report of the Royal Commission. I am no expert to advise, or prophet to foretell, but when my noble Friend asks what is to happen when the whole community will run the risk of small-pox because thousands of children remain unvaccinated, I would say there is the risk now, for thousands of children do go unvaccinated. And to the question whether the risk will be greater in the future, I reply by reference to the Royal Commission. I prefer to accept the opinion of a body of that kind, appointed for a particular purpose, sitting for many years considering this question from every point of view, and, after hearing all available evidence, coming to a deliberate conclusion—I prefer to accept the opinion of that body to running the risk of losing the Bill. There are many noble Lords in the House tonight who were not here when I spoke the other evening, and I must take the liberty of reminding them that the Royal Commission was a body of the most able men, including within its number five or six medical men of the highest possible position, and that, after sitting for seven years, they came to the conclusion that it wais wise, having regard to the circumstances that face us in this country—the circumstances of obstruction, and that there are a number of children not being vaccinated at the present moment—to pass an Amendment of the Vaccination law practically identical with the proposal in the Bill; and I think he would be a bold man who would rely on his own belief in opposition to such a deliberate opinion.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

Why is this clause to cease in 1904 if it is of such great importance?

LORD HARRIS

It was a recommendation of the Royal Commission that it should be experimental. I was asked by the noble Earl, the Earl of Feversham, whether I could quote any medical authority in favour of the Bill, and he referred to the Resolution of the Royal College of Surgeons which appeared in the papers this morning. Well, that is a very remarkable Resolution, and I should like to call your Lordships' attention to one or two points in connection with it. This Bill in its present form has been before the country for a considerable time, and somehow or other the College of Surgeons has not thought it necessary until the last moment to advise Parliament, or the country, or the President of the Local Government Board what its opinions were, or what this Resolution was which it passed some seven or eight yeans ago. This Resolution was presented to the Royal Commission in 1893, and will be found on page 778 embedded in the sixth of the 13 bulky volumes of evidence. It, in fact, took a little trouble to find. Curiously enough, the Royal Commission do not appear to have taken much notice of the Resolution. They do not mention it in their Report, and the Resolution practically remained unnoticed until it was re-affirmed on August 2nd. Although this indignity was cast upon the College of Surgeons, they made no protest at the time; and it is only at the very last moment that the attention of Parliament has been called to the opinion of the Royal College of Surgeons expressed years ago. As regards the question of the noble Earl, I have to say that some weeks ago, after the Bill had been before the House of Commons some time, the Royal College of Physicians passed a resolution of a somewhat academic character re-affirming their confidence in vaccination, but saying neither "aye" nor "nay to the Bill itself. That is, I think, a not unfair response to the question of the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

That is not an opinion in favour of this clause.

LORD HARRIS

Another question was put to me—where is the demand for this clause? I think I must keep harping on the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission expressed the opinion that, a clause of this kind should be put in, believing that it would have the effect of encouraging people to have their children vaccinated. Let me just say one word about the clause itself. I think I can put it to your Lordships in a fairly practical way. There are three classes of parents. There are, in the first place, the objectors—you may call them conscientious objectors or honest objectors, but they are, at any rate, determined and resolute objectors. The second class are the well-disposed persons who believe in vaccination, and have their children vaccinated. And there is the third class, who may be described as negligent or lazy. Well, my Lords, as regards the resolute objector, it does not matter what you do in the way of legislation, the children of these parents will not be vaccinated. It does not matter what steps you take, whether the boards of guardians do prosecute or, if they do not prosecute, whether you endeavour, which, I imagine, Parliament would scarcely attempt, to force the boards of guardians into carrying out this law. Whatever efforts you made, I am perfectly certain you would find that the resolute objector will remain resolute to the end, and his children will not be vaccinated. Therefore the conscience clause does not touch him. No harm is done, so far as he is concerned, by the introduction of the conscience clause. In the second place, in the case of the well-disposed person, this Bill makes it more easy for him to show his good disposition, because the operator comes to his house and operates on his child there. Therefore the conscience clause need not affect him. I now come to the other class—the large class—of lazy, indifferent parents. Under the present law they are put to a great deal of trouble. They have to go, possibly in inclement weather, and possibly a long distance, to the vaccination station. Under the Bill, as we have introduced it, the lazy person is actually saved trouble, because the doctor comes to his house and vaccinates his child there; whereas, if he wants to become a conscientious objector, he has to walk a greater or less distance in order to convince two magistrates that he is a conscientious objector. I suggest that, without attempting to prophesy, we are justified, upon the Report of the Royal Commission, and upon a practical view of the matter, in hoping that the effect of the Bill will be to induce people to have their children vaccinated rather than, as some of your Lordships seem to fear, to increase the number of unvaccinated children.

LORD STANMORE

My Lords, I rise only to confirm what has been said by Lord Aldenham with regard to India. Experience has shown us that, where restrictions imposed with a view of securing and safeguarding the public health have been relaxed, there has been a persevering and generally successful insistence on the extension of that relaxation to India and the Colonies, which are still legislated for at home. Now, if that were done in the present case, you will find, in India at all events, a vast body, not of merely nominal, but of really and truly conscientious objectors to vaccination, and the practice of vaccination will be seriously endangered. The Mahomedan subjects of Her Majesty, speaking generally, all entertain a real and conscientious objection to vaccination; and an eminent Moslem gentleman, himself a strong believer in vaccination and fully aware of its benefits, once came to me when I had the honour of governing the great Eastern Colony which I lately served in, and implored me, whatever I did, not to depart from the compulsory element, and for this reason—they knew, he said, the benefits of the practice, and they were willing to accept compulsion, which gave them the excuse that they acted under force, but if it were left optional they would all be obliged to object to it. I myself read to-day, in the Times newspaper, a letter from a gentleman who signed him- self "One of the Commissioners," in which he stated that the clause, as it now stands in the Bill, is not such a clause as was recommended by the Commission. Of course, he does not sign his name, but I have no doubt whatever that he will be very glad to disclose his name if it is necessary.

LORD HARRIS

I saw that letter, but I am bound to say that I have been unable to find, in the Report of the Royal Commission, anything which distinctly suggests that that encouragement of the family doctor should go hand in hand with the other recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is very difficult to find it in the Royal Commission. It is not indexed, and I have not been able to find it. But is it not a little straining of the question to talk about the family doctor in the case of a number of poor people? There may be a doctor of the union, whom they know, but I should hardly call him the family practitioner, and I do not think that the suggestion which is put forward by the writer in the Times this morning is a practical one, or one which really affects the merits of the other recommendations which we have put in the Bill.

LORD LOCH

I will only occupy your Lordships' time for a very few minutes, but I desire to state my reason for supporting the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl. The reason that I do so is that a provision of the Measure which is now under consideration, if it passes, provides for the removal of the great objection which, I believe, prevails in this country to compulsory vaccination. The proposal is to adopt the lymph direct from the calf. That, I believe, will in a great measure remove the great objection which prevails to children being vaccinated, as at present, from lymph taken from other children, or from adults. Speaking from experience in the Cape, the same system was established, of taking vaccine from the calf, and there has not been the slightest objection to the enforcement of the vaccination law; it is equally obeyed both by the Dutch and the English Colonists; and I think I can bring forward no greater proof as to the successful working of the Measure when I mention, on this question at least, there is no dif- ference of opinion between the two races. The noble Lord, who spoke with such great authority, referred to the present compulsory clauses not working well. That is perfectly correct—they are not working well. But this change of practice has not yet been adopted in this country, and if it is once known that the compulsory laws only applied to the vaccination with the calf lymph properly prepared, and not taken from children or from adults, I believe that the objections will be removed, and that it will be found that there is no real objection to the compulsory clauses of the Measure. The noble Lord also stated it was difficult to show whether, if this Measure passed into law, the number of persons submitting their children to vaccination would be increased or diminished. But is not that the strongest reason possible for maintaining the compulsory laws until we see the results of this change of system? I would strongly urge upon noble Lords in this House that they should pass the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl against the omission of the compulsory clause of the Act. As regards the great importance and the great value of vaccination, I may mention a circumstance which came to my own knowledge in former years. The compulsory vaccination law did not extend to the Isle of Man, and small-pox broke out there in a very virulent form. A number of deaths took place. I appointed medical men, and selected certain centres where people could be vaccinated. Many thousands came, and I believe I am correct in stating that not one who was thus vaccinated took the disease, and by this means the violence of the epidemic was checked; while several who had been vaccinated lived in the same house with persons suffering from smallpox did not take it, while those who had been twice vaccinated were regarded as perfectly safe, and nursed with perfect impunity the sick patients suffering from the disease. I strongly urge the House to support this Amendment, for I regard it as a great danger if this Measure passes with the clause standing as it is, leaving the enforcement of the compulsory clauses to the option of persons according to what they consider to be their conscientious scruples.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The speech of the noble Lord contained, as many other speeches have contained, a very earnest vindication of the value of vaccination. I do not think that really was a matter upon which it was necessary for the noble Lord to enlarge. There is no difference of opinion in this House upon the extreme value of vaccination; the only difference is as to the best way in which vaccination shall be worked, and that is the question which we really have to consider. I think that the view which is taken by those who support this clause is very much indicated by the speech of my noble Friend Lord Stanmore, who quoted Indian precedents as guides to our conduct on this occasion. I demur altogether to the idea that the action of the Government or the action of Parliament meets with the same response or can count upon the same obedience in this country as it can in India. We have to deal with the case that there is, in a large part of the country, a profound aversion to the legislation which has already been passed, and to the obligations which have been laid upon the subject. Whether that aversion is justified or not we need not examine more carefully, because in this country we have to consider not only the rise of the well-weighed objections of the people, but if the objections extend largely enough we have taken into consideration those with whose soundness we cannot altogether agree. Some of the speakers seem to me to imagine that we live in an ideal state of things, where it is only necessary for Parliament to enact something, and it will be at once listened to where there are pliant guardians and obedient magistrates, and a submissive peasantry only listening for the word of wisdom to be uttered at Westminster in order to throw themselves down before it and obey. That, I am afraid, has no correspondence to the existing state of things in this country. Under certain circumstances, and in the presence of certain delusions, the action of power does not tend to obedience, but to resistance. It tends to exasperate the feelings which it is its object to overcome. We have to deal with the case of what it is fair to call a great delusion, though not a delusion, unfortunately, altogether unfounded. There is, in places which are well known, a belief that vaccination from arm to arm has carried the diseases of one child to another, and that many deaths are due to the lack of those precautions which are so wisely insisted upon by the College of Surgeons. I do not say how far those suspicions, or those complaints, or those apprehensions may be justified. I believe that they are enormously exaggerated, but you have only to read the Report of the Royal Commission to show that they are not devoid of foundation. There is the fear that the disease of one child will be carried to another. There is the knowledge that children, and a considerable number of children, have succumbed to the operation of this beneficent law, and the feelings which are worked upon are the deepest, the tenderest, the most tenacious, and the most difficult to overcome of any in the whole range of human sentiment. That is the state of facts with which you have to deal. It is idle to tell me that the people are wrong, it is idle to tell me that they are deceived; as long as they have these feelings they will respect them—they are Englishmen—and it is no use to quote to me the precedents of India and Ceylon to show the way in which these objections are to be overcome. Now, my Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, with great justice, that the cause of all these apprehensions, and, as far as they have occurred, all these terrible diseases, is now about to be removed under the clauses of this Bill. We have had it explained to us on the greatest possible authority, and with singular clearness and force, the mode in which the new process will protect the child from the dangers to which, under the old process, it was occasionally liable. The noble Lord who has just sat down thinks that that proved his case—that you have nothing to do but to pass your Bill—go on with your coercion. Your process has become safe, the fear of danger has become unreasonable, and therefore the superstitions which prevail will immediately disappear. I think he has been dealing with countries where the executive is a little more powerful than it is here, if he imagines that the action of the Government can, in so short a time, dissipate prejudices which have become deeply rooted, and calm down passions which have been excited to the utmost, get rid of apprehensions which have founded themselves upon the tenderest and most forcible of human feelings, if he thinks that immediately on the adoption of the new process—on the mere assurance that this process is free from the evils of the old—that the resistance with which we have to deal will disappear. My fear is that if you insist upon striking out this clause—that is to say, if you insist on this Bill not passing—the result will be that you will go on with all the exasperation which has been increasing year after year in various parts of the country. Every year there will be a greater and more extended struggle between the apprehensions and delusions to which I have referred, and the obligations of the law, and you will have no power that you have not now in dealing with them. You complain now that the law is not respected. That is perfectly true. But supposing you strike out this clause; supposing the House of Commons, as I presume it will, puts it in again. I presume you will adhere to your opinions, and the Bill will fall. That means that you will continue the present law for the next year, and a good many years afterwards—and what force will the law have? Will it command more respect than it does at present? At present—at least, up to this time—this law has been merely the subject of agitation and discussion; now it will go forth to the country, that you are to demand the confidence of the people, and the laying aside of all those apprehensions with which we have had to struggle, in favour of a law which is condemned by a Commission of unexampled authority, which is condemned by a large majority of the House of Commons, and which is condemned in its substance in this House, and which has only survived because the two Houses of Parliament cannot agree. Do you imagine that a law in that position will command more respect? Do you imagine that the people, who are asked to submit to what they consider great dangers and great hardships, will submit the more readily because it is a law that depends upon sanction such as this? All that you will do will be to exasperate the feelings that already exist, to increase the chaos and the anarchy that prevails in the country, to multiply the number of guardians who decline now in a truly formidable proportion to enforce the law, and to add to the terrible phalanx, already so numerous, of infants on whom the blessing of vaccination has not yet been conferred. The course that we are asking you to take to-night in legislation that is a new departure, is that you have abandoned the dangerous practice of arm to arm vaccination, and that you no longer require it of the people; that you have provided in its place a healthful and safe process on which you can rely, and that you will, for five years, make, as it were, an armistice with this trouble, and say: We will not exasperate feelings; we will not renew so dangerous a contest; we will allow the effects of the new law that we have made, and of the new process that we have authorised, to work their natural course, and if we do not oppose and hinder that healthy and salutary action by renewing the conflicts and the terrors of the past, we hope that we shall, in no long time, arrive at the only helpful solution of this question, and that is, when an overwhelming majority of the people in a body shall recognise the value of vaccination to the community and to themselves. That, my Lords, is the ideal towards which you nave to make your way. I venture to say there is no other way of attaining it excepting by the Bill which we are now considering; and, if you accept the Motion for striking out this clause which has now been presented to you, you condemn us to submit, for an indefinite period, to the anarchy and chaos against which we are now protesting.

The House divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 40.

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor) Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)
Devonshire, D. (L. President) Abingdon, E.
Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal) Camperdown, E.
Clarendon, E.
Coventry, E.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) de Montalt, E.
Denbigh, E.
Dudley, E.
Lansdowne, M. Grey, E.
Salisbury, M. Onslow, E.
Stamford, E. Belper, L.
Selborne, E. Churchill, L. [Teller]
Waldegrave, E. [Teller] Dormer, L.
Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)
Knutsford, V. Harris, L.
Templetown, V. James, L.
Lawrence, L.
Arundell of Wardour, L. Lister, L.
Rathmore, L.
Ashbourne, L. Revelstoke, L.
Bagot, L. Shute, L. (V. Barrington)
Balfour, L.
Bateman, L. Windsor, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Ailesbury, M. Forester, L.
Glenesk, L.
Bradford, E. Hood of Avalon, L.
Carnwath, E. Howard de Walden, L.
Cawdor, E.
Feversham, E. [Teller] Lingen, L.
Fortescue, E. Loch, L.
Haddington, E. Monk Bretton, L.
Hardwicke, E. Raglan, L.
Leven and Melville, E. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)
Portsmouth, E. [Teller] Saye and Sele, L.
Russell, E. Sherborne, L.
Scarbrough, E. Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)
Ripon, L. Bp. Stalbridge, L.
Aldenham, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery) Stanmore, L.
Cheylesmore, L. Tennyson, L.
Clinton, L. Thring, L.
de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci) Ventry, L.
Welby, L.
Farnham, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Forbes, L.