1866_3_Gibbs_Vacc_Useless_Injurious.txt

3132 I756o Orai ang VACCINATION USELESS AND INJURIOUS. A REMONSTRANCE RESPECTING THE VACCINATION BILL OF 1866, ADDRESSED TO THE RT. HON. HENRY A. BRUCE, M.P. , VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION. BY K GEORGE S. GIBBS; WITH APPENDICES. SECOND EDITION. . LONDON : PRINTED FOR THE ANTI- COMPULSORY VACCINATION LEAGUE, ÅND PUBLISHED BY JOB CAUDWELL, 335, STRAND, LONDON , W.C. (OPPOSITE SOMERSET HOUSE. ) PRICE SIX PENCE ,    PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION, “ House of Conimons, March 16th, 1866. “ SIR , " I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your paper on Vaccination, which I will not fail to read attentively. Your obedient servant, H. A. BRUCE." " G. S. GIBBS, Esq ." The following pages contain a copy of the paper alluded to 1 in this letter. The facts stated , viz., that Vaccination is a failure, and also ! > 1 productive of evil consequences are not disputed , and are, indeed, indisputable, but Mr. Bruce, in his speech on moving the com mittal of the Bill, on the 11th instant, accounted, in his own way, for the first by showing on the authority of the Medical Depart ment Inspectors, that seven - eighths of the operations performed under the law were imperfect and useless for their assumed object ; while, with regard to the second more serious, positive, evil of the system, he contented himself with repeating the old, vile, and now disproved , slander against the wives and mothers of England that such results are due to the latent existence of disease born with the children . It is now reported that the committee to whom the Bill was referred will not take evidence. Is it possible that the pecuniary stake in the system is too MUSEUM large to risk on the effect of an open enquiry ? G. S. G. Darlington , April 19th, 1866. 1 E  l A REMONSTRANCE ETC. Darlington, March 13th, 1866. SIR ,Assuming that in bringing in the " Bill to consolidate and amend the Statutes relating to vaccination in England,” you acted as agent for the Medical Department of the Privy Council, 3 and that the duties of your own office may have prevented you from giving the provisions of that extraordinary projet de loi all the consideration they deserve, I venture to draw your attention to them in this special manner. Very reluctantly I do this. Indeed, I make it a matter of formal complaint that I, as a member of the mercantile commu nity, am in this sort compelled to divert my thoughts from my own proper business, and enter upon a defence of my rights as a parent and a citizen because a peculiar form of medical or surgical practice is so largely endowed by the State as to prevent its full, free, and impartial discussion within the pale of the profession to which the subject properly appertains.“ By way of parenthesis, in the 7th clauseof this Bill it is pro posed to give the Privy Council arbitrary power to order the vaccination and re-vaccination of the whole population of England : which power they once asked for in a straightforward manner and were refused it . By clauses 27, 28, 29, and 33, it is proposed that infantine vaccination, withretrospective action for thirteen years , be made compulsory, and that even to the extent of invading two well recognized principles of common law, since the 29th provides for the infliction of successive penalties for the same offence, and the 33rd proposes to grant to the Medical Department what is peremptorily refused to the Emperor of the French --namely, the right to consider the accused quilty until he proves himself innocent. That these monstrous propositions should ever have been made may be taken as a collateral proof that the practice to the aid of which they are called is one deeply repugnant to the common sense of the community at large, and ought ofitselfsuffice to open the eyesof legislators to the fact that intelligent observa tion, and not " sordid and brutal prejudice,” causes the failure of the compulsory law. The fact is, that every year demonstrates more completely than its predecessor that the benefits expected do not result from the extension of the practice. In 1801, Jenner asserted that " cow -pox admitted ofbeing in oculated on the human frame with the most perfect ease and safety, and was attended with the singularly beneficial effec of * It estimated that Public Vaccination costs the United  Kingdom about £250,000 per annum , is  rendering through life thepersons so inoculated perfectly secure from the infection of smallpox." In 1833, a Select Committee of the House of Commons re ported that Vaccination had been so great asuccess, and had got such hold upon the population that smallpox might be con sidered as extinct, and the National Vaccine Establishment might be safely abolished - yet the Establishment has continued its labours ever since . In 1852, the Epidemiological Society of London practically re peated Jenner's statement, asserting in their Report addressed to the House of Lords that one epidemic disease (smallpox) was distinguished from all others, inasmuch as science (! ) could " ex tirpate ” it by means of vaccination : and it was on the strength ofthis audacious declaration that private judgment, on the purely private question of the medical treatment of one's own family, was rudely thrust aside, knocked down and trampled upon. For what are the Facts ? Has compulsion extirpated smallpox ? During the five years, 1850—54, inclusive, the smallpox deaths in England and Wales were 24,941, ten years later — 1860 -64, they were 19,345 . In London during the same periods the smallpox  deaths were respectively3,622and 4,024. But, didany of these deaths occur after Vaccination ? Mr. Simon , in 1857, asserted , in support of compulsory legis lation , that even when smallpox is contracted by persons who 66 have been vaccinated the disease is great mitigated in favour of these exceptional sufferers." What are the Facts ? What proportion of the deaths recorded occurred after Vaccination . The Registrar -General cannothelpusto answerthis question, partly because the fact of vaccination is not certified in all cases to him , and partly because he issued instruc tions that certain vaccinated persons should be returned as un vaccinated . ( See Appendix 1, letter 7. ) But we have some other sources of information. On the 9th of May, 1833, Dr George Gregory stated to a select committee of the House of Commons, that during seven years ending with 1832 there had been in the London Smallpox Hos pital 534 deaths, of which 40 occurred after vaccination . He also stated that in the same institution, in 1825, there died 120 persons, of whom 12 had been previously vaccinated ; that the Swedish epidemic of 1824 carried off 560,34 having been  vaccinated ; and that the Ceylon epidemic in 1830 was fatal to 94 persons, of whom 16 were vaccinated. Mr Marson has published statistics of the Smallpox Hospital for the sixteen years ending with 1851 , showing 1274 deaths, 268 occurring after vaccination. The Registrar -General informed Dr Epps, with regard to the smallpox deaths ( 1062) occurring in London in 1851, that 664 were returned as without vaccination, 91 after vaccination, and that he had no information respecting the remaining 307 cases. Suppose we divide the unknown cases, and say 244 vaccinated and 818 unvaccinated. In November, 1859, Dr Letheby wrote to  the Editor of the    Times thus: - " Since July last, I have made especial inquiries into theparticulars of 93 casesof smallpox which occurred in the city, and of which 34 were fatal; and the results were that in 13 of the fatal cases and 14 of the recoveries vaccination had not been performed .” * Bringing these into one view we have : Deaths. Vaccinated . 34 = In 1824 Sweden 560 6 : 1 p. 100 1825 Smallpox Hospital 120 12 10.0 1826-1830 do. 534 401 7.5 1830 Ceylon 94 16 17.0 1836-1851 Smallpox Hospital 12747 2687 21.0 1851 London 1062 244 23: 0 1859 City of London 34 21 61.8 In addition, we may fairly presume that the records of the London Smallpox Hospital show the increasing failure of  vaccination as a protection against Smallpox, for although Mr Marson has hitherto withheld the more recent statistics from the public, (Appendix I. letters 3 and 4, ) Ifind the Medical Circular ofApril 29, 1863, stating on his " authority " that the patients in his Hospital for some years previous had been vaccinated in the proportion of 80 per cent." But the Editor arguing in favour of vaccination was ashamed to state the proportion of deaths. From these premises, are we to infer, with Mr Simon, that numerous and fatal cases of post-vaccinal smallpox are exceptional and mild ones ? or, as I venture to think, more reasonably, that vaccination, as now practised , and considered as a protection against smallpox, is as complete, utter, and decided a failure for humanbeings as it is proved to be for Sheep and Cattle . ( See Simond's and Gamgee's Lectures, & c.) But is vaccination only a failure ? I think not. Has it an injurious influence on the public health ? I think it has. The vast increase of infant mortality, an excess in seven years of 254,000, since the Compulsory Vaccination Act came into force, and the corresponding luctuations of this mortality with the vaccinations actually performed are worthy of serious notice. On the 7th of March, 1859, Lord Granville stated to the House of Lords that the vaccinations performed bore certain proportions to the births in a series of years , On the 10th of July, 1861, Mr Lowe stated to the House of Commons the number of deaths from all causes under one year * Dr Letheby afterwardspublishedsome statistics for the nine months end. ing with March, 1860, which are simply incredible, for he makes the unvacci. nated deaths exceed the number of unvaccinated cases, and the vaccinated deaths in the nine months less thanthose occurringin the first four months of the same nine. -See Sunderland Times, Oct. 11, 1862. † Dr Gregory and Mr Marson state, with reference to these figures, that10 of the 40, 145 of 1274, and 63 of the 268 were cases " affected by superadded disease."    vi during a series of years. The following is a tabular result of these statements : Date Proportions of Vaccns. Deaths from all causes of to Births. children under one year. 1853 33 per cent.318,000 1854 65 408,000 1 1855 56 351,000 1856 51 350,000 .. 1857 52 338,000 7 1858 341,000 1859 335,000 1860 354,000 Various attempts have recently been made by the Medical Department to account, irrespectively of vaccination, for this excessive mortality, but no cause has been pointed out which was not in existence with equal force ten or twelve years before. Mr. Marson, in his hospital statistics , for the 16 years, 1836– 1851 , shows, (quite by the way, and with a different object) that of 268 vaccinated persons dying of smallpox, 63, or 23.5 per a cent. , were “ affected by superadded disease," while of 1008 un vaccinated persons 82, or 8 per cent. only, were so affected. Dr. Quain has stated, in 1857, that on making enquiry concerning the vaccination of patients in the Consumption Hospital, he found the vaccinated in the proportion of 70 per cent. A case of  smallpox  occurring in 1856 at the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum led to a rigid examination of the inmates as to their condition respect ing vaccination, and it was found that only two out of 1805 were unvaccinated. These facts, occurring in a population about half vaccinated , * are of peculiar significance, but would, of course, be of no scien tific value unless it could be shown that other diseases than  smallpox  and cowpox may be transmitted by vaccination. ThePiedmontesemisfortune recorded by the Lancet and other medical journals in Nov. 1861 , (Appendix II.) and some other cases of a similar kind occurring to adults in Paris about the same time, having attracted considerable attention on the continent, M. Ricord, who, in 1857, declared emphatically that he had no “ reason to believe or suspect that lymph from a true Jennerian vesicle had everbeen a vehicle of syphilitic, scrofulous, or other constitutional infection to the vaccinated person , ” got special possession of Prof. Trousseau's chair at the Hotel Dieu, for the purpose of delivering a pacificatory lecture. To two extracts from this lecturet I entreat the favour of your particular notice. After reviewing one case he remarks, “ it is not impossible that the disease was transmitted with the vaccine lymph, but in the estimation of facts which seem to establish such transmission it is necessary to distrust the evidence of our senses.” And after commenting on the Rivolta and other cases, he concludes with * Sir Robert Peel in debate on the 11th April quotes a report of the Poor Law Board showing that out of 702,181 children born in 1862, 437,693 had been vaccinated , † Journal of Practical Medicine and Surgery, Feb. 1862. Art. 6161.    yü these words— " Let us admit and carefully inquire into these cases, and let us guard against any predetermined notions on the subject; but as to the interpretation offered let it be received with an amount of hesitation and doubt increased by the obvious fact that, if ever the transmission of disease with vaccine lymph is clearly demonstrated, VACCINATION MUST BE ALTOGETHER DISCON TINUED, for in the present state of science we are in possession of no criterion which maypermit the conscientious practitioner to assert that the lymph he inoculates is perfectly free from ad mixture with tainted blood.” But a year later, on the 19th May, 1863, this eminent leading man declared before the Academy of Medicine, “ At first I repulsed the idea that syphilis could be transmitted by vaccination . The recurrence of facts appear ing more and more confirmative, I accepted the possibility of this mode of transmission, I ought to say with reserve, and even with repugnance. “ But to -day I hesitate no more to proclaim their reality .” | I call , then, in the name of Ricord, on every ro conscientious practitioner,” to give up the practice of vaccination, and I call on you, sir, to withdrawyour support, or to expunge the compulsory clauses, from the bill before Parliament, for in the face of these facts, of whichwe cannot suppose the Medical Depart ment wholly ignorant, the preparation of such a measure can be regarded as little less, and little else, than a desperate attempt to impose still further on the patience of an already too long suffering people in the vain hope of escaping the impending doom and disgrace of both legislative and scientific defeat. In conclusion , allow me to remind you that the general effect of arbitrary over -legislation is to weaken and ultimately destroy the guilty government, and to express the hope, as a loyal subject and sincere supporter of the present government, that I may be spared thesight of its strength andpopularity wasting away from the effects of domestic tyranny, like snow beneath the rays of a middaysun, leaving it naked and bare to the bleak winds and biting frosts of mistrust and disaffection . I am, Sir, your obedient servant, GEORGE S. GIBBS. To the Rt. Hon. Hen. A. Bruce, M.P. , Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, &c . &c . + Journal des Connaissances Medicales. Paris, March 10, 1865. M. Ricord is supported in his opinion by Drs. Depaul, Ancelon , Layard, de Biermont, Cayal, Carnot, Chassaignac , Delabrosse, Devergie , Diday, Duché, Guepin , Guersant, Herard ,Herpin, Lecocq , Noirst, Rey, Roux, Teissier, Viennois, Villette de Terze, Verdé de Lisle, Nittinger, &c.   APPENDIX I. ( 1. )  smallpox  and Vaccination Hospital , London , July 22, 1861. SIR , -There is not any annual report published regularly of this Hospital. One is printed for circulation amongst theGover nors occasionally. Each year in February an account appears through the newspaper reporters of the patients admitted, and some financial statement of the Hospitalfor the past year. Some times in one paper, sometimes in another. It has been in the Times the last two years. You do not state what object you have in wishing for the report, whether medical or general, or perhaps I could have helped you. Isuppose not medical, as I do notsee your name in the Medical Directory ; this however is not conclusive, you may belong to the medical profession but not be in practice . If you belong to the medical profession and areinterested in any way about Smallpox and Vaccination, you will find an account, for sixteen years, of all patients admitted into the Hospital in the Med. Chir . Trans., vol. 36, arranged and classified by me, showing the effects of vaccination, & c. I am , &c. , J. F. MARSON , Resident Surgeon . ( 2. ) Haughton - le - Skerne, Darlington, 7 mo. , 23, 1861 . SIR - I am much obliged by your letter, and offer of service. I am not a member of the medical profession --but compulsory legislation has taken vaccination in some measure out of the hands of the faculty and placed it in those of the public, obliging every thoughtful parent very seriously to study the subject. It was with this viewthat I applied to you for information respecting your hospital for the last ten years. I am acquainted with yourtables for the sixteen years ending 1851. Are those mentioned in your letter the same? If not, and for a later period, I shall be glad to procure them and spare you any further trouble; but if they are the same, you wouldvery much oblige me by supplying the figures for the years 1851-1860, shewing the number of patients admitted, divided into vaccinated, unvaccinated, and not stated, and the number of deaths in each class. The use I intend to make of this information, if given, is to submit it, with other indisputable facts to some medical friends in an independent position for their consideration and my course as aparent and citizen with reference to the law will be influenced , if not regulated, by their expression of opinion. I remain , & c . GEORGE S. GIBBS. ix ( 3. )London, July, 29, 1861 . SIR , —The paper I mentioned in my last letter is the one you are already acquainted with, giving an account of all patients admitted at this hospital for 16 years to 1851. It is very tedious work collecting and arranging statistical in formationon a large scale. The information for the last ten years is collected and partially arranged, as I have before furnished it, and when givento the world after so much trouble it will be more agreeable to me to bring it out in my own way, than through a second person. The public I think can hardly require more convincing proof of the efficacy of good vaccination than that afforded in my paper to which you have alluded . I remain, & c ., J. F. MARSON . ( 4. )8 mo. 1, 1861 . SIR, -Allow me to thank you for your letter of the 29th ult ., altho' not accompanied by the information sought. I cannot but express my personal regret that it is withheld , for the tables referred to cannot be considered as conclusive evidence that vaccination as now generally practised, and prescribed by law , is an efficient protection against smallpox. In 1859 (Nov.) Dr. Letheby, in a letter to the Times, gave the following figures as the result of some observation he had made, а during some three months preceding the dateof his letter, in the City of London viz : -- Smallpox cases 93, vaccinated 66, un - vaccinated 27 : Deaths 34, vaccinated 21, un -vaccinated 13. The discrepancy between these figures and yours is so greatasto lead to the supposition that either smallpox, cowpox and the general constitution of the people have very materially altered their relations to each other in the course of a few years, or that the legalized vaccination is not good ; ' and, if not, then surely something to be strictly and carefully avoided. 6 The more recent statistics of your hospital would, I should think, tend to show which of these opinions would be most nearly correct. I trust, therefore, that you will not delay carrying out your intention of publishing them at an early date , and remain, &c. , GEORGE S. GIBBS. ( 5. )London, August 3rd , 1861 . SIR, - Dr. Letheby most likely obtained his information about the cases of smallpox mentioned by you from the registers of deaths ;; not from personal observations and inquiries. Many of the registrars are notmedical men and knownothing ofthe points to be observed in registering such deaths. They would enter the death as having occurred after vaccination , though the vaccination had not been performed above four or five days . Nothing is more common than for persons to put off the vaccination of their children until smallpox is in their house or next door and then to 6 X go and have them vaccinated. Many of the deaths (I have no doubt from my knowledge of the subject) mentioned in Dr. Lotheby's report occurred under these circumstances. Unless vaccination has been performed 10 or 11 days before illness from smallpox it has no effect in controlling the attack of smallpox — to have effect, it must have got on to the stage of areola before smallpox illness commences. Smallpox illness commences be tween the 11th and 12th day after inhaling thedisease. The areola from vaccination is not fully formed until the 9th or 10th day after vaccination . Now here is a degree of nicety that will never be observed by the non -medical registrar, if even by him - so that when smallpox shows itself within a fortnight after vaccination the person should be considered as unvaccinated . Vaccination has had no chance of exerting its influence. All patients are closely questioned here, on their admission , about vaccination ; and their arms examined for the mark . After, name, age and other particulars, “ Have you been vaccinated ? -Yes. Where were you vaccinated ?-- At Haughton -le - Skerne. Who vaccinated you ?-Mr Jones. Did the vaccination take effect ?-No. " Now unless this last question were asked the patient might easily pass as vaccinated, and so it is often in registering the deaths. A person to get at the truth must be skilled inthe inquiry. I am , &c. , J. F. MARSON . ( 6. )8th mo. 5, 1861. SIR , - Dr Letheby's words are:- " Since July last I have made especial inquiries intothe particulars of 93 cases of smallpox which occurred in the City, and of which 34 were fatal; and the results were that in 13 of the fatal cases, and 14 of the recoveries vaccination had not been performed . " I have been informed by the Registrar-General that his " abstracts do not enable him to distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who have died of smallpox, " and since receiving his letter I have ascertained that the ordinary form of certificate ofdeath is not such as to admit of the information being inserted . These facts seem incompatible with your theory respecting the source of Dr Letheby's information . The case supposed in the latter part of your letter assumes in my mind the form of a powerful argument against the law ( which is what concerns me and other non-medicalparents ), for if vaccination, non -effective as regards  smallpox , be common , legal prescription must render it more common, and the public health must be proportionately prejudiced. There is another point mentioned in your letter, respecting which I feel somewhat puzzled, namely, the time after the per formance of the operationof vaccination at which it may be declared successful. Mr Hovell insists on the 6th or 7th day, the law prescribes the 8th, you say the 10th or 11th , and Dr Epps stands out for the 15th. Can you, from these discordant notes, produceanything approaching to harmony ? I remain , & c. GEORGE S. GIBBS. x i ( 7. )London, August 7, 1861 . SIR , Ifear I did not make my statement clear about the time necessary for vaccination to exert its protective influence. I will try again.  smallpox  appears generally, if not invariably, in the unvaccinated on the 14th day after being taken. On the 12th day illness commences, which continues for 48 hours, and then the eruption begins to appear. Now vaccination, to be protective, must have got on to the stage of areola before illness from  smallpox  commences, i.e., the areola should be well formed. The areola will be well formed when the vaccination runs its regular course, on the 10th or 11th day, but occasionally the course of vaccination is retarded, from illness or peculiarity of constitu tion. But it isnecessary in these matters to be very particular in the use of words. Vaccination may be fairly said to be “ successful,” so far as it goes, when theoperation has taken effect, but it also wants time in startofsmallpox to be protective. I hope I have now made the subject clear you. The Registrars of deaths take the information from anybody, andthe public generallycannotfairly be expected to be partieular in these matters. I always have sent the particulars about vaccinationin persons who die at this hospitalto the Registrar, andyou will findinstructions on thesubject given in one of the early Reports of the Registrar -General. It was suggested at that time that, unless vaccination had been performedamonth before the occurrence of small -pox, that persons dying of  smallpox  should not be considered to have been vaccinated . I think you will find instructions to this effect. The statistics you gave me the other day from Dr. Letheby's paper, taking the whole of the cases, you will see correspond with my unprotected cases, viz., 35 per cent. of deaths. This led me to think sufficient care had not beentaken in furnishing the particulars, because the mortality in this Hospital, for some years. past, taking all cases vaccinated and unvaccinated has onlybeen 12 and 13 per cent - last year 14 — three or four previous years 12 and 13. I am , &c. , J. F. MARSON. ( 8. )8th mo. 14, 1861. SIR, —I take the earliest opportunity of thanking you for your letter of the 7th inst., and for your kind attempt to elucidate a very difficult subject. IfI rightlyunderstand your expressions, the case stands thus : Vaccination may, according to law, be pronounced " successful,” 80 far as it goes, on the 8th day after the performance of the operation : but cannot be deemed protective until after the lapse of a fortnight without the appearance of  smallpox . From this it appears that the much vaunted law, resistance to which draws onthe opponents denunciations of lunacy and wicked desire to " sacrifice their children to a sordid and brutal prejudice,” does not provide what alone it is supposed to ensure, namely, xii protection against small -pox, but only a vaccination " successful" so far as it goes, and which in thousands of instances affects in juriously the whole of after life. Itwaswith a feeling akintodespair of everarrivingat aknowledge of the absolute truth on this subject that I read your statement respecting the instructions issued by the Registrar-General. If a person is not vaccinated andprotected a month after the operation whenis heor when can he be ? Dr. Hamernik , of Prague, says that, there, certain figures are placed in certain columns “ justto square the register; " but I am exceedingly unwilling to believethat English statistics are made to suit the opinions of the public servants who have charge of them , and the figures set to dance to any tune that may be pleasing to theorists in power. I am, &c. , GEORGE S. GIBBS. ( 9. )London, August 16th , 1861. SIR, -One word more about the protection afforded by  vaccination . A person is protected at the end of a month after vaccination - he is protected at the end of a fortnight if he has no illness then from smallpox . But vaccination must have time to act, and has laws of its own like other things in nature - a seed requires time to germinate and reach maturity — the impregnation ofanimals requires time for the production of the young, varying even in different animals — it can, therefore, not be surprising that vaccination requires time for its protection. It was the same with inoculation for  smallpox . " If  smallpox  had been taken in the naturalway, the inoculation was of no use unless it had had time to act in its peculiar way. As to the time that ought to have elapsed after vaccination, in a person dying of smallpox, before the death is considered as fairly after vaccination, there need not be any great difficulty about it. We have settled that when vaccination has gone on properly and there is no illness from  smallpox , vaccination is protective at the end of afortnight, perhaps a day ortwo sooner; but if smallpox eruption begins to shew itself at the 10th or 11th day it is not protective. Now , then, smallpox destroys life generally on the 11th , 12th , or 13th days — some live a few days longer, but that is the usual time of death after it shews itself thus 13 days added to the fortnight necessary for protection brings the time to nearly a month . I have taken more trouble to make you understand the subject than with any individual before. When I write I write for the profession. I am interested principally in the scientific part of the inquiry, and in arriving at the truth. I deny that vaccination ever “ affects injuriously the whole of after life” as you state. I am, &c. , J. F. MARSON . ( 10. )8th Mo., 19th , 1861 . SIR , -Allow me to assure you that I fully recognize and appreciate the courtesy with which you have taken so much  xili trouble with one whom I doubt not you consider the reverse of an apt pupil. Our points of view are not the same. You regard vaccination per se in relation to smallpox as a matter of professional interest. I regard THE LAW as a matter of political and social interests. I. find an extensive and costly system established on the hypothesis that it operates to thebenefit of the public health – I inquire, is the hypthesis verified by facts ? I find mydomestic life interfered with in a novel and disagreeable manner. I inquire, is it for good or evil ? Such enquirers are denounced to the House of Commons by Mr Cowper as lunatics and by Mr Lowe as actuated by a sordid and brutal prejudice. Cela n'importe. I inquire all the same. Your explanation gives a show of reason for the Registrar General's instructions respecting the month ; but I still think them calculated to produce a false result: for the local registrar would naturally reckon the month from the time of the completion of the vaccination ; or, at least, from the date of the " successful ” certificate . Believe me that it was not hastily or unadvisedly that I used in my last letter, referring to operations legally prescribed and purporting to be vaccination, the expression “ affect injuriously the whole of after life ." I stated asorrowful and but too well known fact, against which it is useless to oppose a simple denial. Twocases have come (I have no time to seek them ) under my own observation. The first was that of an infant operated on against the will of the parents, they yielding only under threat of prosecution, as theyhad suspicions respecting the source of the lymph to be used. These suspicions werefearfully justified, and when I saw the child it was frightfully disfigured for life and labouring under all the symptoms of secondary syphilis. In answertoquestions, the mother informed me that the medical man said it was " nothing ; ” but at the same timeshe gave me a PORTION ofthe remedies he had prescribed. The second is that of a little girl now four years old. She was, up to the age of six months, in perfect health when she was vaccinated. The operation was almostimmediately followed by eruptions on various parts of the body as well as by evident great internal suffering which continued for more than two years, the persons in charge of her not having a night's rest during the whole of that time. Now the eruptionshave ceased, but there is, even in the midst of play, an expression in her countenance most painful to witness . A gentleman resident at Carlisle, has writtento me detailing the case of his daughter who was in perfect health, at a year old, when she was vaccinated. The operation was speedily followed by the appearance of a disease to which no doctor could give a name andfrom which she suffered at intervals to the age ofseven when it caused her death . A highly respectable and intelligent man, who has several children, speaking a short time since about the Law said : - " I would sooner go to prison than have any more of minetouched . My second boy wasvaccinated and he is the only weakly one of the lot." ziv You may say that these cases are not to the point, that they can be explained away and that they could not possibly have any connexion with vaccination. I cannot but think otherwise. For if vaccination, or operations performed as such, did never injuri ously affect health , How is it that the Scientific Congress of France about to assemble at Bordeaux have to award a prize of 10,000 francs to the successful demonstratoi of the advantage and HARMLESSNESS of vaccination ?* How is it that Dr Bachhoffner in writing to me, after describing the system of vaccination in Marylebone, should declare “ in my opinion, this is a fruitful source of failure, if not something worse ? " How is it that the Registrar-General's reports contain from time to time, among the causes of death, such entries as  vaccination  , 5 days - vaccination, erysipelas, 10 days” ? Depend upon it, the cognizance of such facts by the common people, among whom they most prevail, is the reason why the law is disregarded, detested, abhorred ; and not, as the Times ridiculously asserts, an " absolute ignorance of the beneficent discovery made 60 years ago, and of which Hindoos, Chinese, and American savages have testified their appreciation. I remain, &c . , GEORGE S. GIBBS. ( 11. )London , Aug. 30, 1861 . Sir , I hardly know whether you would expect me to send an answer to your last letter. I suppose I could not convince you of the harmlessness of vaccination, but I would say, in reply to your statement, that I have vaccinated above 50,000 persons and have neither seen nor heard of any of the evils amongst them such as you describe. Erysipelas is the most likely evil to follow and perhaps does, in rare instances, cause death , owing, probably, to the vaccine lymph being taken for use at too late a stage. It should , how ever, be remembered that erysipelas follows, occasionally, wounds of all kinds. You would hardly, I suppose, if the law were in your hands, leave all persons to take smallpox in the natural way and die, as they do, at 35 per cent. If not, and you inoculate them for  smallpox , you would run the same chance of syphilis as at present from vaccination , -mind I do not say there is any chance of it , because, not having seen it in 50,000 vaccinations, I do not believe in its being so transferred. You should see, in this hospital, when  smallpox  is very preva lent in London, the terrible disfigurements, loss of sight,and loss of life it produces, and then set this against your list of almost imaginary evils . * The Congress met on the 16th September, and continued its sittings for ten days. After a very lively discussion, the committee chosen to make the award decided that none of the supporters of vaccination having fulfilled the required conditions, Dr Nittinger, the donor of the prize, should be released from the bond into which he had entered respecting it . † Tissot gives the average fatality of epidemic smallpox , before vaccina tion, as 14 per cent , XV As to the political part of the business, it is very little people suffer from being made todo well, they suffer, in many instances, from being allowed to do ill . If, however, danger or injury rested alone with those or their friends who refused to be vaccinated it would not be of so much matter. But others suffer from it . If you had an obstinate neighbour who chose in mere wantonness and love of mischief, to burn his house down and in so doing burnt yours, * you would think, I dare say, there ght to be some law to prevent him , or at least, to punish him for so doing. So if you disliked both vaccination and inoculation , and chose to let your child remain unprotected, and your neighbour, of a different way of thinking, chose to inoculate his child, and by so doing gave yours smallpox, and killed it, you would then think, I dare say, very naturally, there ought to besome law on the subject. --but your neighbour might not think so. Unfortunately,, in making laws, however good they may be, it is impossible to please everybody. I am, &c . , J. F. MARSON . ( 12. ) 9th mo. 2, 1861 . SIR, -Few laws please everybody ; but the misfortune of the vaccination law is that it pleases nobody. It certainly does not suit the views of its opponents, and its promoters are dissatisfied , or we should not havehad the bill of this year supported by Mr Lowe's " cram , ” whence has arisen this correspondence. If I had a wicked neighbour who, in injuring himself, should injure me, I have my remedy at common law . If my neighbour were a madman, no special law could make him act in a sane We do not make laws for every possible event contin manner. gent onthe freaks of a madman ; we take the simple, and, think, the wiser plan of placing him under restraint and care. The evils mentioned in my letter are far from being “ almost imaginary ” to the sufferers, and it is no consolation to them to be told that such cases are rare -- one in a hundred, or one in a thousand, theirs being the one. Nor can I allow , as a just set-off against these evilsthe danger a desagremens of the smallpox ; for you know, although you appear to have written in a moment of forgetfulness, that did I walk through your hospital, I should see that disease , disfiguring, blinding , and killing those who had taken what Dr. Farr terms “ a precaution of the simplest kind,” as well as those who had refrained from tampering with the health of bodies fearfully and wonderfully made. I believe, also, that smallpox would not be the dangerous disease it is if the time and talent now expended in endeavouring to CHARM it were devoted to devising abetter method or means of CURE . Finally. Laws affecting the public health should be, beyond all reasonable doubt, for its benefit. To justify the vaccination law, Jenner's proposition should be capable of proof.- " That cowpox admits ofbeing inoculated on the human frame with * But if I had made mine fire- proof, how could he ? -- C . S. G. xv1 the most perfect ease and safety, and is attended with the singu larly beneficial effect of rendering through life the persons so inoculated perfectly secure from the infection of smallpox." The people once believed this , admired and rewarded its author, and needed not any legislative scarecrow to induce them to adopt or submit to the described practice. With thanks for your courteous and interesting letters, I remain, yours respectfully , J. F. Marson, Esq.GEORGE S. GIBBS. APPENDIX II. SYPHILIS CONVEYED BY THE VACCINE LYMPH TO FORTY - SIX CHILDREN . ( Extracted from the Lancet," November 16th , 1861.) We have received a polite letter from Dr Pacchiotti, andthe Number for Oct. 20th , 1861 , of the Gaz. della Assoc. Med . Both these refer to a very melancholy occurrence in the village of Rivolta, near Acqui, in the province of Alexandria ( Piedmont), no less than forty- six children having more or less suffered from syphilis after vaccination . The facts connected with this un . fortunate wholesale contamination are as follows. Toward the latter end of May last, M. Cagiola, a surgeon, vaccinated Giovanni Chiabrera, aged eleven months, and ingood health, with lymph obtained in a tube sent from Acqui. The operationwas performed in the ordinary manner, and with , as M. Cagiola affirms, a very clean lancet. On the tenth day after this, forty - six children werevaccinated with the lymph contained in the vesicle of the child Chiabrera; and ten days after these latter operations, seventeen other children were vaccinated from the lymph of one of the forty -six infants just mentioned . Hence we have sixty -three vaccinated children, forty-six of whom were more or less affected within two months after the first operation. In the first series of forty -six vaccinations there were thirty -eight cases of syphilis, besides little Chiabrera, the child vaccinated with the lymph contained in the tube ; and in the second series, comprising seventeen infants, seven were affected . The child Chiabrera was in a state of marasmus on the 7th of October, and the infant from whom the second series of seventeen had been vaccinated died a month after the operation. These facts having come to the knowledge ofthe Medical Congress at Acqui, from statements made by Dr Ponza, it was agreed that a committee, elected from amongst the members of the Congress, should proceed to Rivolta to inquire into these melancholy occurrences. Fromthe able report of Dr Pacchiotti we extract the following particulars. The investigations of the committee were considerably aided by the unwearying exertions of Dr de Katt, practising in the village. It has been found that of the forty -six children affected with syphilis, the cases ofonly twenty -three could be accurately noted, as the parents of the children neglected to call in medical aid at the proper time. These twenty -three cases were, however, sufficient to enable the committee to come to a clear diagnosis. In the whole forty - six cases, the symptoms of syphilis appeared, an average, on the twentieth day after vaccination on viz., varying from ten days to two months. Sometimes, the vac xyii cine vesicle, just on the point of cicatrizing, inflamed, and became surrounded with a red, livid, and copper -coloured areola, and then spread and suppurated anew . At other times,, when the cicatrix was complete, an ulcer would form upon it, the crusts of which would fall off andfresh ones be produced. With some children the vesicles looked bad from thefirst, and were accompanied by a general eruption which the country people considered as  smallpox , andthe characters of which the medical men of the neigh bourhood were not always able to ascertain. On the 7th ult. it was discovered that seven children had died without treatment, and before attention had been directed to this unfortunately fast spreading contamination ; three were in danger, and fourteen recovering, after having been subjected to a specific treatment. Thirty-eight at that period were under treatment, which consis ted of frictions with mercurial ointment in the groins, axillæ, and on the limbs, with small doses of iodide of potassium in sarsapa rilla syrup Theprincipal symptomsnoted by the committee were : mucous tubercles on the verge of the anus and genital organs ; sores on the lips and fauces ; swelling of the lymphatic glands in various regions ; syphilitic eruptions of different kinds; loss of hair, secondary ulcerations of the prepuce ; deep tubercles of the cel lular tissue ; gummy tumours, &c . Two children out of the twenty -three were in a wasting condition, and suffering from syphilitic cachexia ; while some of the mothers had mucous tuber cles on the nipples. In fact the twenty-three cases are carefully related in the report, all the children having been seen by the members of the committee. As to how the disease thus came to spread amongst these in fants, the committee refrain from coming to a hasty conclusion, and ask for time to solve the mystery ; the more so as these facts tend to no less than a complete upsetting of opinions hitherto held as very trustworthy. Thus the belief of two diseases not having the power of developing at the same time upon the same individual falls to the ground, as well as the non-contagious nature of the secondary symptoms of syphilis. Dr Pacchiotti , the author of the report, indulges in commen taries on this sad case, and throws out, with extreme humility, various explanations, though trusting completely to none. He invites discussion and reflection on the phenomena which have been observed. Nor does he fail to record that such transmission has been before noticed. Dr Parola has mentioned in his work 66 On Doctrines connected with Vaccination," a case, reported by Tassani, of Milan, in which a boy, whose father had at the time secondary sores on the scrotum , was vaccinated from a healthy child. From the vesicle of this boyfifty -six children were  vaccinated ; out of whom , thirty - five were, in a few months, syphilitic and had diseased their mothers. On the other hand, it should be noted, that lymph from eight of these thirty -five syphilic children was used to vaccinate a second series of thirty -four, and none of the latter showed any syphilitic symptoms. Another case (which was brought before courts of justice) runs thus :In 1846, many re -vaccinations took place in the town of K 9 xix where a surgeon re -vaccinated about ten families on account of an epidemic of smallpox ; and the punctures, in three or four weeks, degenerated into syphilitic ulcers, followed soon after by secondary eruptions. Hubner, in 1852, vaccinated thirteenchildren , of whom the greater part became syphilitic, although the rest escaped. Experiments have been undertakenby Piton, Boucher, Ceccaldi, andLecoq, which prove the transmission of syphilis through vaccination ; whereas other experiments made by Schreier, Montain , Bidart, and Taupin show, on the other hand, that vaccine lymph obtained from a child , evidently labouring under hereditary syphilis produced no evil effects upon those vaccinated with it. The reporter further alludes to an important thesis of M. Viennois, " On the transmission of Syphilis by  vaccination  ;" and to the chapter on the same subject in the book of M. Rollet, of Lyons, entitled “ Clinical and Experimental Researches on Syphilis.” From the facts related above, Dr Pacchiotti deduces the follow ing rules : 1. Examine carefully the child from whom the lymph is taken . 2. Try to learn the state of the parents' health. 3. Choose, in obtaining the lymph, such children as have passed the fourth or fifth month, as hereditary syphilis, in general , -> appears before that age. 4. Do not use the lymph after the eighth day of the existence of thevesicle, as the lymph on the ninth and tenth days becomes dull by mixture with pus, which latter may be of an infectious nature. 5. In taking the lymph with the lancet, avoid hæmorrhage, as there is less danger with pure and transparent lymph. 6. Do not vaccinate too many children from the same supply. Printed by Job Caudwell, 335, Strand, London, W.C,