Report from the Select Committee on the Vaccination Act (1867) : together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Vaccination Act (1867)
Date:
1871
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report from the Select Committee on the Vaccination Act (1867) : together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    59/558 (page 35)
    play with it as a blessing revealed from heaven, to this enlightened age/’ 696. Mr, Candlish.] What is the date of that? —1807. “ What has been called the cow-pox, is not a preservation against the natural small-pox.” That was the testimony of Mr. Birch. Moseley, Moore, Gregory, Copland, names known to every medical man, and many others, might be quoted, all of whom declared the theory to be fallacious. Mr. Birch anticipated the results of vaccination, when extensively adopted in words which Avill be found at page 40 of his book. He says that “Mr. John Hunter did not give the experiment much credit.” 697. Chairman.] What was the date of that? —1807 ; from this I apprehend that the theory of Dr. Jenner, tested by such men, and tested by the experience which has been derived at small- pox hospitals, will convince all men who are un- prejudiced in their inquiry that the utility of vaccination is at least very doubtful. I now proceed to discuss the next proposition : That vaccination is not prophylactic against small-pox, as proved by the statistics of small-pox hospitals and other records. The theory propounded by Dr. Jenner was that persons once affected were “ protected for ever,” those are his words. Dr. Jenner lived long enough to witness the failure of his theory, and set up the excuse that there were two kinds of cow-pox, true and spurious, to which I have referred ; Dr. Jenner admitted the failures, and attempted to explain them in various ways. The cow-pox wdrich occurs spontaneously he found subsequently was not protective, and he gives here a caution lest persons trusting to it should be disappointed; the passage is at page 7 of the edition of 1801 ; he says there is a form of natural cow-pox, which is not protective ; “ Pustulous sores frequently appear sponta- neously on the nipples of cows, and instances haA'e occurred of the hands of servants employed in milking being affected Avith sores in conse- quence. Those pustules are of a much milder nature than those which arise from that contagion which constitutes the true cow-pox ; they are al- Avays free from the bluish or livid tint so con- spicuous in the pustules of that disease; no erysipelas attends them, nor do they sIioav any phagedenic disposition as in the other case, but terminate in a scab, without creating any appa- rent disorder in the coav. This complaint ap- pears at various seasons of the year, but most commonly in the spring, Avhen the coavs are first taken from their Avinter food, and fed Avith grass.” It is very apt to appear, also, Avhen they are suckling their young. “ But this disease is not to be considered as similar in any respect to that of which I am treating, as it is incapable of producing any specific effects on the human constitution. HoAvever, it is of the greatest consequence to point it out here, lest the want of discrimination should occasion an idea of security from the infection of the small- pox, which might prove delusive.” If the theory of Dr. J enner had been true, there Avould have been no necessity for re-vaccination, for Avhich there is such a rage at the present time. The memoranda lately put forward in the name of the Lords of the Privy Council, by the medical officer of the Council, Mr. Simon, state that by vaccination in infancy, most people are com- pletely insured for their whole lives against an attack of small-pox. Subsequently he says, partly because of the existence of a large number of imperfectly vaccinated persons, and partly be- cause also even the best infantine vaccination, sometimes, in process of time loses more or less of its effect, it is advisable that all persons who have been vaccinated in infancy should, as they approach adult life, undergo re-vaccination. Why ? because my Lords of the Council are made to say that the population always contains very many persons Avho, though vaccinated and believing themselves to be protected against small-pox, are really liable to infection, and may in some cases contract as severe forms of small- pox as if they had never been vaccinated. I compliment Mr. Simon on for once uttering such a patent truth as that; but still it is very un- satisfactory to a community, Avhen a panic is pre- vailing, to tell them first that they are secured for ever if the operation be properly performed, and then subsequently to advise the re-vaccina- tion of everybody, lest they should be over- taken by small-pox, and it should kill them. I think one ansAver to that would be (if Mr. Simon had not omitted to state it) that Prince Arthur, who had been vaccinated, could not, I suppose, have been properly vaccinated, or he Avould not have canglit small-pox, which i believe he caught in Scotland, where it is supposed to have been ex- tinguished by A^accination. 698. Are you axvare that he did catch it in Scot- land ?—I learned that he paid a visit to Scotland, that he caught the small-pox there, and came home Avith it. 699. Mr. Jacob Bright.] When Avas it that he took small pox in Scotland ?—It is about three years ago, I think. 700. Dr. Lyon Playfair.] Do you remember the dates ?—I do not remember the dates. 701. Mr. Muntz.] Do you know as a fact that he had the small-pox?—Yes, and he Avas attended by three physicians at Greenwich? Mr. Simon says, “ In large part vaccination is certainly good, othenvise small-pox could not, within half-a-century, have been, as it has been, rendered comparatively infrequent and in- nocuous.” The answer to that is, I think, that Ave have a heavier epidemic now than we have had for 30 years. Now I take up the report of the ITighgate Small-pox Hospital for 1866. I called on Mr. Marson yesterday for the subse- quent reports (Avhich I unfortunately mislaid), but he Avas out, but this Avill suffice. At page 7 of this report Mr. Marson says, “ The ratio of vaccinated cases to the Avhole admission of small-pox patients, as calculated from a series of 16 years ending Avith 1851 Avas 53 per cent., a proportion which has gone on progressively in- creasing. In the epidemic of 1851-52 it Avas 66*7 per cent. ; in that of 1854, 1855, and 1856 it Avas 71*2 per cent. In 1859-60 it Avas 78 per cent., and for the four years of the present epidemic I860, it has been 8tT per cent.” In the report for 1868 it Avas 84 per cent., that is to say, putting it the other Avay, only 16 of every 100 patients admitted in that hospital were found Avithout the protective mark. 702. Mr. Hibbert.] You spoke with regard to 1868 just uoav ; that does not appear in that re- port ; Avhat do you speak from ?—I can vouch for its correctness ; 1 have seen the report, and I quote from memory. It has gone on gradually increasing, showing that there is a greater dispo- sition in the vaccinated in adult life to small-pox than in the unvaccinated. In the year 1866, in this same report, I find that 425 unvaccinated cases Avere admitted, and 1,605 vaccinated, who had no business in that hospital if vaccination e 2 afforded Mr. C.T. Pearce, M.D. 3 March 1871.