98

vagaries under the heading of superstition. We agreewith Mr. HAGGARD in giving that designation to the

credulous support which is given to the claims of quacks and

patent medicines, although we are not sure that he wouldnot have done better to label antivaccination as the result of

sheer selfish and reactionary obstinacy. It is certainlybegotten of influences a long way removed from that blendof science with imagination which we set out to discuss.

Annotations." Ne quid nimis."

THE GOVERNMENT AND VACCINATION.

ALREADY there are signs that the Vaccination Bill and theGeneral Order associated with it find no favour with thosewho are immediately concerned with their execution. From

vaccination officers there have come a sheaf of published denunciations, while the opinions of public vaccinators, ifless freely expressed, have been equally emphatic in theircondemnation. The Bill has, indeed, little to excuse it, noteven a " mandate." It cannot be claimed that more than a

relatively insignificant proportion of the inhabitants of thiscountry are genuinely opposed to vaccination. On the other

hand, a considerable number of persons, for various trivialreasons and without conviction, are willing to dispense withit. It is to these ill-informed and wavering persons that thefacility of exemption by simple declaration will chieflyappeal. For them a too indulgent administration has madeprovision accordingly. We cannot admit the wisdom of sucha course. If vaccination had nothing to do with the publichealth or any other matter of importance so complaisant anattitude might be justified. Since it is the only safeguardagainst small-pox known to science, a proved and trust-

worthy remedy, and on these points there can be no ques-tion, then the case is entirely different. To tamper with sucha fact as this is to play with fire, for the issues of mis-

apprehension must be disastrous. It is impossible to

reconcile with any due sense of the importance ofthese issues the rapid, almost casual, manner in whichthis Bill passed through its second reading. The principleof compulsory vaccination has never been condemned oreven seriously indicted. On the contrary, it has been

accepted and approved by the great majority of the popula-tion as a sanitary necessity. Yet a mere handful of gentle-men, one-fifth of the membership of the House of Commons,few with expert knowledge, have been permitted not onlyto threaten but, unless their decision be reversed, even toterminate its existence. This, moreover, without the slightestreference to public opinion. Surely the inherent faults ofparty government and the unreality of our so-called

representative system were never more graphically ex-

hibited than in this case. We sincerely trust that a

measure so little desired by the country and so undesirableon sanitary grounds will not survive the later and calmerjudgment to which it is certain to be subjected in bothHouses of Parliament. The General Order, in so far as it isnew, is a somewhat crude production. That part whichrelates to the position of public vaccinators alters nothingsave the fee, some slight apparent concessions having littlereal significance. The amount and character of the workare unchanged, but the fee in large towns is reduced by one-half, and in smaller towns and. in country districts by nearlya third. The public vaccinator is thus made to accept amuch reduced remuneration for his services and incident-

ally to undersell his brethren engaged in private practice.At the same time, two different standards of pay-ment are adopted-a proceeding which will not only

mar the simplicity of administration but will create an

invidious distinction which in many cases cannot be justifiedeither on the plea of distance traversed or of professionalpreoccupation. There are indications that all boards of

guardians do not view the proposed reduction with equalfavour and their uncertainty with regard to it will not be

lessened by the circumstance that under the terms of theOrder the whole responsibility for this alteration will rest onthem. If the prospect before public vaccinators is not cheer-ful that of vaccination officers is positively alarming. At

present four months are allowed in which a parent mayobtain exemption. If at the end of that period he shallnot bave done so and his child remains unvaccinated thevaccination officer must take steps to have the vac-

cination performed. Under the new Order this officerwill have to notify the parent three weeks earlier, statingthat in default of " some legal excuse for non-vaccination’,he must request the public vaccinator to vaccinate in duecourse-i.e., after a month has elapsed. He will also"be glad to be informed" if the parent " proposes someother arrangement for the vaccination." He is thus madeto come almost as a suppliant and practically to remind theparent that only one month remains in which to claim

exemption-a virtual surre nder of his office in favour of an

opposite policy. The vaccination officers have applied in vainfor some compensation for the loss of income which they arecertain to incur, or for some fixed arrangement as to salary.Not even are they to be allowed a small fee for theirsuicidal efforts in notification. Naturally as a body they feelaggrieved and they have in mere self.defence been driven toprotest. The net result of these various legislative and adminis-trative changes must be the discouragement of vaccinationthroughout the country. It is possible that this result may bebrought about, and thus by rash interference with an Actwhich was working admirably and with very generalacceptance, and by mere unsteadiness in administration thatpublic security which is the fruit to-day of many years’

. experience and care may soon be broken down. Instead of itwill come uncertainty, distrust, and the danger of epidemic.

. We have only to let go our present system of business-likeefficiency and to adopt some such policy of indifference asis now proposed. Whether and whither that policy will

i be suffered to lead us will greatly depend upon the judgmentexercised by Parliament and by boards of guardians in

-

dealing with this important question of compulsoryvaccination.

____--

THE LEAGUE OF MERCY.

VERY effective support is afforded to the King’s HospitalFund by the League of Mercy, over which T.R.H. the

Prince and Princess of Wales preside as Grand Presidentand Lady Grand President, and as such take a most activeinterest in the welfare of the league. This was againshown on July 8th, when they held a reception in

Marlborough House of the presidents and lady presidents,followed by a garden party, to which many vice-presidentsand members of the league were invited, and at which theGrand President distributed the Order of Mercy to those ladiesand gentlemen to whom its award had been sanctioned by HisMajesty the King, the Sovereign of the Order. Many prominentmembers of the medical profession were invited to be present.The work of the league can best be indicated by a quotationfrom the Prince’s speech to the presidents. " The operationscover a larger area than before, and the sum of .618,000which has been handed over to the King’s Fund is £3000more than was contributed in the previous year. It is very

satisfactory to find that in the eight years of the league’sexistence £79,000 has been given to the hospitals throughthe medium of the King’s Fund, and I think we may safelyinfer that one of the principal objects of the League of

Mercy-namely, the encouragement of personal service on