The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-07-31 00:00:00

THE LAW OF VACCINATION.

A deputation of members of the British Medical Associa-
tion, claiming to represent not only the Parliamentary Bills
Committee of that Association, the duty of which is to
supervise all Bills affecting the medical profession intro-
duced into Parliament, but also the general body of the
association, comprising among its members nearly half of
the practising medical men in the United Kingdom, waited
upon the Right lion. J. G. Dodson, President of the Local
Government Board, on Monday afternoon, at Whitehall, to
make representations on the subject of the Vaccination
Acts Amendment Bill.

Among the principal members of the deputation were Sir
J. W. Lubbock, M.P., Sir T. Lawrence, 31. P., Mr. Errington,
M.P., Dr. Lyons, M.P., Mr. G. W. Hastings, M.P., Colonel
Alexander, M.P., Mr. Farquharson, M.P., Sir T. Watson,
Sir W. Thompson, Sir J. Fayrer, Dr. Quain, F.R.S., Mr.
Erasmus Wilson, V.P.R.C.S. ; Mr. Ernest Hart, Chairman
of the Parliamentary Bills Committee; Dr. Bartolome, Shef-
field ; Mr. Marshall ;- Dr. Chadwick, Leeds; Dr. Habershon,
Guy's Hospital; Dr. W. A. Guy, King's College Hospital;
Dr. Mayfair, and Mr. Ceely, Aylesbury.
Mr. Hastings, M.P., introduced the deputation to
the President of the Local Government Board, as re-
presenting a body of upwards of 7,000 medical men.
As a member of Parliament he objected to the
principle that any subject might escape the incidence
of the laws of the realm by making a money payment.
If the Vaccination Act were an error, the short
course would be to repeal it, but so long as it re-
mained on the Statute Book it ought to be enforced,
though with moderation and judgment. He had heard
a good deal as to the popular feeling against the Vac-
cination Act, but he had not been able to find that
any such feeling existed. The constituency he repre-
sented was tolerably numerous, there being about
12,000 voters on the register at the last 'election, but
the number of persons who had expressed a wish that
he should vote against the Vaccination Act was about
three. He thought that the outcry had been ex-
aggerated as to its extent and intensity.

Dr. Lyons spoke as .representing Ireland, and Mr.
Farquharson as representing Scotland.
_ _ _ _

Mr. Ernest Hari stated that he had a list of 400
gentlemen who had written to him to express their
strong regret that owing to the hour of meeting and
the short notice they were unable to be present. He
had received a letter from Sir W. Jenner, in which he
said :

"I regret extremely that I cannot attend on the 26th.
The Bill is so absurd that I can scarcely conceive it will be-
come law. Instead of a fine of 205., if Mr. Dodson deter-
mines to carry his measure would it not be better that any
one should have a licence from the Inland Revenue Office
to go unvaccinated? Then one would get a licence at the
same time that one got a licence for dogs, horses, B,:c.
This certainly would be more simple, and would in time
yield a revenue to the State. Licences might also be
granted for a suitable sum for drunkenness, (to, and then
people would not be fined as often as they now are 55., I
think. If a man paid 20s. at the beginning of the year he
would have a season ticket for drunkenness and a season-
ticket tor spreading smallpox."

Sir E. Burrows had also written to say that he much
regretted that he could not attend the deputation. On
this question the profession had spoken with no uncer-
tain sound. The Royal Colleges of Physicians and
Surgeons, as well as the British Medical Association,
and other associations of medical men throughout the
kingdom had expressed their opposition to the prin-
ciple of ale Government Bill. The medical profession
felt that were the Bill to become law the first blow
would be given to the system of compulsory vaccina-
tion in this country. Formerly the great bulk of the
small-pox deaths were among children, but since the
law had provided a machinery for looking up each
child from its birth till it was vaccinated the propor-
tion of small-pox deaths at different ages had com-
pletely changed. If this Bill were to pass no one
could foresee the suffering and mortality that would
ensue if small-pox again became epidemic.
Dr. Chadwick and Dr. Bartolome also spoke, and
were'followed by Dr. Quain, who gave the opinion of
the College of Mysicians in the language of a petition
to the House of Commons, in which they declared
that "the Bill in question would, if it became law, be
certain to cause the spread of smallpox to the great
detriment of the public. They also feel justified in
expressing a confident belief that by insuring a more
careful and efficient performance of vaccination, and
by carrying out with still further stringency the com-
pulsory provisicms of the present law, smallpox might
eventually be exterminated, and the ravages of one
of the most loathsome and fatal diseases by which
humanity_ has ever been afflicted become a thing of
the past."
Mr. Erasmus Wilson, speaking on the part of the
College of Surgeons, would simply say that they were
all of one mind on the question, and that this Bill
ought not, in the sense in which it was intended, to
become law.
Mr. Ceely (Aylesbury) added a few words in support
of the objects of the deputation; and was followed by
Sir John Lubbock, M.P., who said there was no
question on which they could expect unanimity of
opinion; but there was hardly any case in which
there was such a preponderance of opinion as in that
of vaccination, if this Bill were passed into law he
believed it would cause a very profound feeling of dis-
satisfaction. He very earnestly hoped that Her
Majesty's Govennment would reconsider the matter,
and ponder over the arguments brought forward that
day, to which so much force must be given owing to
the very eminent authorities by whom those argu-
ments had been put forward.
Mr. Dodson wished first of all to remove any mis-
apprehension which might exist that he had any feel-
ing, or, as far as a layman might speak, any doubt as
to the value of vaccination, and the best proof he
could give was in his own person, for he had been re-
peatedly revaccinated, and he and his whole house-
hold were revaccinated a few years ago, when the
epidemic was raging. But he would not attribute the
introduction of the Bill to any feeling of his own.
He perfectly agreed with Sir John Lubbock and
other gentlemen that the prevalent feeling in the
country was decidedly in favour of vaccination, and
he heartily rejoiced that it was so. The question,
however, before them was whether the law as it
stood promoted vaccination or whether it acted the
reverse way, and that was a question of experience.
He thought it was scarcely fair to attack the Bill
on the ground that people would be allowed to escape
the operation of the law by a money payment, and
that that would be the effect of the Bill. That was
the law as it stood. Any one might escape the
operation of the law by a money payment, and the
anti-vaccinators, instead of going to prison, escaped
the law by money-payments. The law was that if a
man did not really bring his child for vaccination, he
might be fined, and there was no further power to
compel him. It had been asked whether you would
allow a drunken man to purchase an indulgence for
drunkenness by money payment. But if a man got
drunk he was fined for his act. The cases were not
absolutely parallel. It was said that a man was com-
pelled to drain his house whether he thought it
necessary or not. That was perfectly true, but they
would allow that there was an essential difference be-
tween a man being compelled to do an act with re-
ference to his house and requiring a man to submit his
child to a particular operation which he might think,
perhaps wrong-headedly, injurious to him and to the
child upon whom it was proposed to be performed.
The letter of Sir William Jenner was a very short
way of turning the Bill into ridicule—
" Ridieulum acri
" Fortius ac melius magnas plernmque snot res."
Ridicule was a very powerful weapon, but it might
not always be the best guide to truth. When a man
took out a licence to do a thing he purchased the
privilege of doing a thing which might be otherwise
condemned, but as the right was treated as a privilege,
it required the payment of a specific money payment.
Taking out a licence was not, however, the same
thing as submitting to a penalty. The Bill said that
if a person had had the full penalty of twenty shillings
once inflicted upon him he should not be fined again,
but if the full penalty was not inflicted in the first
instance he remained liable under another clause to be
brought up by the vaccination officer before a magis-
trate and fined. Under one clause a man was
liable to a penalty if lie did not bring his child to
be vaccinated. If the full penalty was not inflicted
he might be asked to show cause why an order should
not be made for his child to be vaccinated, He was
liable to be fined twice and brought before the magis-
trates. He was reminded that compulsory vaccina-
tion was established in 1853. 111 1867 it was provided
that neglect to take the child for vaccination within
three months, or, in scattered districts, a longtr
period, was an offence for which the parent could be
proceeded against summarily, and for which he was
liable to a penalty not exceeding 20s. The pro-
position of the Bill was not a new one. In the Bill of
1871 appeared the very proposition made in the pre-
sent Bill, when the clause containing it was passed
in the House of Commons. He could not call to
mind, but he did not think that any strong and
organised opposition on the part of the medical pro-
fession was then made.

Mr. Hart : The Bill came on late ix the House of
Commons, and the opposition was made in the House
of Lords. _ _

Mr; Dodson : The Bill passed through the House of
Commons and the clause was thrown out in the
House of Lords. At all events the proposition,
which seemed to have stirred up so many members of
the medical profession, was not put before the country
for the first time. He might say that his predecessor
in that office, who represented the late Government,
though he did not bring in a Bill, felt as much as he
(Mr. Dodson) did the difficulties that Were caused by
the injudicious infliction of multiplied penalties, and he
issued a circular letter in which he strongly recom-
mended the exercise of great caution in the infliction of
penalties, and dir cted that the vaccinationofficer should
not proceed in the way of multiplied penalties until he had
brought the circumstances of the case under the
notice of the Board of Guardians. The question was
which was the best expedient for securing the greatest
amount of vaccination. It appeared to him that
where they had cases in which the same man had been
fined 30 times and more, and yet the child remained
unvaccinated, ancl would remain unvaccinated pro-
bably if the parent were fined 30 times 30 times,
this was not advancing the law. That was only
making a martyr of a man. As to imprisonment, a
man was liable to imprisonment if he did not pay the
fine now. The opinion of many gentlemen was that
compulsion ought to be direct and not indirect; many
arguments went on the suppcsition that vaccination
was compulsory, whereas if the child were not
vaccinated the parent paid the penalty. His own
desire was to see vaccination promoted and rendered
as universal as possible throughout the country. The
question was one of expediency as to the execution of the
law. The deputation might he sure thattheir argument
would not be treated by him, or any of his colleagues,
with any degree of slight, but would receive the
attention which they deserved. He might remind the
deputation, as further evidence that he was anxious
to promote vaccination, that he had undertaken that
facilities should be given for obtaining animal lymph
in the same manner as the humanized lymph could
now be obtained. The rigl?t hon. gentleman con-
cluded by protesting that this grave question should
not be treated as if it were a political matter.
Thanks having been accorded to the right hon.
gentleman for the courtesy with which he had re-
ceived them, the deputation withdrew.

JUDGING BY APPEABANq.—Smith (who hadn't
seen the lady before). Was it Mrs, Drown I saw with
you last night? Brawn. It was. Why? Smith.
Oh, nothing; only I heard your mother was staying
with you just now, and I thought it might be--
(Pauses suddenly, General awkwardneas.)—Jucly.

' EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.

On the above subject, The Times has published the fol-
lowing letter :

Sir,—As very exaggerated views prevail of the effect
which the "Employers' Liability Bill " would have on
railway companies, it may be useful to give some
figures derived from actual experience.
The Brighton Railway Company contributes about
£9,000 a year to various provident and insurance
funds. Of this £1,622 was its contributior; for the
year 1879 to an insurance fund against accidents,
instituted in 1853, being one half of the premium, the
other half being contributed by the men for insurance
at the following rates :
Weekly allow-
Premium pay- Payment in ancein case of
Class able by men per case of Death. Accident for
month. 25 weeks, if so
long about.
Ist 60. £lOO 20s.
2nd 41d. 75 • • 15s•
3rd 3d. .. 50 10s.

The number of men insured in 1879 was 9,337; the
amount paid for insurances' £2,219; the number of
fatal accidents 10, on which £B5O was paid.

Of those fatal accidents, as far as I can ascertain,
one would have been clearly within the Act, six clearly
without it, and three doubtful.
`Suppose half the doubtful cases had been decided
against the company, and the maximum, compensation
of three years' wages—say £2oo—awarded in each
case, the company would have had to pay £5OO instead
of £425. _ _ . .

But, in reality, the company would gain, in a
pecuniary point of view, if the strict provisions of the
Act were substituted for the present voluntary
arrangements. For, in addition to the insurance
fund, the company contributes upwards of £2,000
a year to a benevolent and other funds, which are in effect
supplements of the insurance fund, and to which the men
contribute nothing, and upwards of £4,000 a year to a
superannuation fund, which it would not be bound to
continue, as regards future employes, who preferred
standing on their strict legal rights. The net result,
therefore, would be that if the strict legal position
under the Act were substituted for the present
voluntary arrangements, the company would save
some 2,3,000 or £4,000 a year.

This, 'however, is a iesult which I should greatly
deprecate, as the present funds have for the last 27
years been an immense benefit for the men, and a
great means of cementing a friendly feeling between
them and their employers. But there is nothing in
the Bill to interfere with their continuance. If it
became law we should offer our men the option of
coming under it or continuing as they are, and the
superior advantages of the present funds are so
apparent that none of them could hesitate which to
prefer.
Take, for instance, the case of fatal accidents. Last
year the widows and families of ten men received
on the average £B5. in each case, without any question
as to the cause of the accident, while under the Act
not more than two or three would probably have
established claims, and those after doubtful litigation.
Nor is this all, for under the present system the
widows and sons of men killed in the service have a
preferential claim for any employment for which they
are suited, and we have at present no fewer than 26
of such widows, earning from 15s. to 20s. a week each,
as female attendants at our principal stations, and a
large number of men in our employment began their
career as boys in the workshops, who were taken on
because their fathers had met with an accident.

In the case of minor accidents, no less than 694
cases, mostly slight, were relieved last year by the in-
surance fund without any question as to their cause,
of which I venture to say not 10 per cent, would have
come within the Act.

I apprehend, therefore, no possible disturbance of
existing relations between the men and their em-
ployers, in the case of railway companies where, as I
believe is generally the case, such voluntary funds as
I have described already exist.

On the other hand, I think the Act will benefit rail-
way companies—firstly, by meeting a legitimate feel-
ing on the part of the men that their claim for com-
pensation, when the company was to blame by itself
or its agents, should be a matter of right and not of
favour, so that in adopting any better alternative in
the way of voluntary arrangement, they are meeting
their employers on equal terms and making a fair
bargain as independent men; secondly, by laying
down the principle of a reasonable limit to the amount
of liability.
The real grievance of railway companies is not that
they should be obliged to insure their men, but that
they should be obliged to insure the public up to any
amount, no matter how excessive, without receiving
any consideration for the extra insurance beyond a
reasonable average amount.
If railway companies were bound to carry such a
horse as Doncaster, whose life was worth £14,000, for
the same fare as an ordinary horse worth £4O, such
fare covering insurance for the full value, the injustice
would be apparent. But this is exactly what the
London and South-Western Company had to do in
the case of Dr. Phillips, when they had to pay £15,000
for injury to a passenger who had only paid them the
ordinary fare of a few shillings. The equity of the
case would clearly require that, as in the case of
horses, valuable goods, and their own workmen, rail-
way companies should only be liable on their ordinary
tickets to passengers up to a fair average scale of com-
pensation, such as £l,OOO, £5OO, and £250 for first,
second, and third class passengers respectively, giving
facilities for extra insurance when desired at a reason-
able rate to be approved by the Board of Trade.
With such a rule, which, I venture to say, com-
mends itself to common sense and fairness, railway
companies would have nothing to fear from placing
their own workmen on precisely the same footing as
ordinary third-class passengers in all cases where the
accident occurred without some contributory negli-
gence on the part of the man himself, subject to the
free right of contract in case the men elected to waive
the Act for some preferable alternative in the shape of
voluntary funds.
The above rerharks are confined to railway com-
panies, and I offer no opinion how far they may be ap-
plicable to other interests, such as mines.—Yours
faithfully, S. LAING.
5, Cambridge-gate, Loudon, July 24.