View report page

These figures show the great increase in annual "loss," from 1883 onward to 1898, and indicate
that the new Act, which came into operation in 1899, has brought about a considerable increase in
the number of primary vaccinations. The cost to the country has been great; but the Act has
justified the policy of the Local Government Board in introducing it. The Board, in their annual
report for 1901-2, referring to the vaccination returns for 1899, observed that "the increased
acceptance of primary vaccination"—at a time precedent to the last epidemic of small-pox—is to
be "referred to the altered conditions under which, consequent upon the Vaccination Act, 1898,
and their regulations made thereunder, vaccination is now performed, and the increased facilities
which now exist for its performance." One of the most potent influences tending to the increase
in the number of vaccinations in normal years, is the provision made for the use of glycerinated
calf-lymph, which has cut the ground from under the feet of those who objected to vaccination
because of the possibility of enthetic disease being conveyed in humanized lymph.
In a communication with which the vaccination officer favoured me recently, the opinion was
expressed that the continuing decrease in the number of births might be "partly due to nonregistration."
He occasionally discovers " children born in this and other Boroughs, whose births
have not been registered by the parents, either from ignorance of the Registration Act, or from
intentional withholding of information in order to evade the Vaccination Act." He thinks "it
would do some good if notices were posted in conspicuous positions—churches, chapels, etc.,
calling attention to the penalties for neglecting to register, and for falsely registering, the births of
children." He "traced 15 cases in Kensington, and 11 of other boroughs, in one year, which had
not been registered ; parents alleging in some cases that they had acted in ignorance, and admitting,
in others, their purpose to evade the Vaccination Act." This, he believes, " would not happen if
the person attending at a birth, were held responsible for giving information to the Registrar of
Births. Should a child's birth be not registered (he adds) it is improbable that it will be vaccinated;
and the same remark applies with respect to false registration, which in Kensington alone, he thinks
amounts to about five per cent., and is " likely to continue, as no proceedings are ever taken on
discovery." These views correspond generally with those of the late vaccination officer who was of
opinion that " false registration, i.e. fictitious addresses entered in the birth list sheets, largely
accounts for the ' loss'; the children cannot be traced."
[Table.
* This is the percentage for the Metropolis as a whole, In several of the unions the percentages of cases not finally
accounted for in 1901, were exceedingly high: for instance, in Mile End Old Town 65 8, in Bethnal Green 51.8, in Poplar
48.7, in Shoreditch 44.4, and in Stepney 43 9.