View report page

43
This opinion, then, most completely sets at rest the point
that has been raised, and must convince even the most
prejudiced of the original intentions of the Legislature.*
*Having discovered, since the above was written, that the mischief produced by the
promulgation of the false notions I have referred to was much wider spread than I
at first thought possible, I have, in justice to my position as a Health Officer, been induced
to submit the entire question to a competent referee, who, in reply to my inquiries, has
obligingly pointed out a few passages bearing upon the subject in the publications of the
Poor Law Board.
After commenting upon a published table exhibiting the ratio of births to public
vaccinations throughout the kingdom, and lamenting that there should be found a great
disproportion of the former over the latter, in certain years, the Commissioners remark
in one of their Reports to Her Majesty's Secretary of State:—
"A few Boards still manifest great indifference on the subject. The Guardians of
the parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, in July, 1844, passed a resolution
that all cases for vaccination, in connexion with the parish, be performed at the workhouse,
in Mint-street, on and after the 29th of September then next ensuing, and that
the vaccinators in their respective districts appoint the particular day and hours of
attendance for such purpose. On being made acquainted with that resolution we
addressed a letter to the Board of Guardians objecting to the arrangement, and we
stated that it would put an end to the general vaccination of the residents of the parish.''
There can be no doubt that such a proceeding as this was calculated, like the one I
now complain of, to create anywhere the greatest possible prejudice against Vaccination
amongst all classes. That it did so in the Parish of St. George the Martyr, clearly
appears in the sequel; for after making some very pointed allusions to the almost certainty
of those of the inhabitants who were not paupers "feeling unwilling to take
their children to the workhouse, under the impression that by so doing they were
placing themselves in the position of paupers," the Commissioners proceed to
remark:—
" In the year ended 29th September, 1844, at which date vaccination was first
restricted to the workhouse, the number of persons vaccinated was 1,079, and in 1845
the number fell to 42, and in 1846 it was only 44."
Such occurrences as the above (and the Commissioners allude to some others) are, it is
submitted, quite sufficient to justify the remarks recently addressed to the Privy Council
by one of our learned societies, through its distinguished President, Dr. W illiam
Jenner, who writes:— "They (the society) have always protested, and feel bound still
to protest, against this great branch of preventive medicine being associated with Poor
Law relief."
Again, in a recent authorized publication, exclusively devoted to the consideration of
"The Vaccination Extension Acts, by Danby P. Fry, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and of the
Poor Law Board," the following are given as the expressed opinions of the Poor Law
Board:—
" Every person, of whatever grade and condition in life, may take his child to the
Public Vaccinator to be vaccinated; for the provisions of the Vaccination Acts
are not confined to the poor, but extend to all classes qf society."
"It will be seen that, ancording to the form of contract prescribed by the Poor
Law Board (see General Order), the Vaccinator undertakes to vaccinate ' every .
person resident in the Union,' who shall apply to or be brought to him for that
purpose; and that the Guardians undertake to pay him 'for every person so
resident as aforesaid' who shall have been successfully vaccinated and duly
entered in his register."
That a Public vaccinator, then, has a right to place the names of every vaccinated