Chapter XLI: Compulsion Intensified--1861 and 1867

The Vaccination Act of 1853 imposed a forfeit not exceeding 20s. on any parent or guardian who failed to have a child vaccinated within three months of birth; but experience revealed a grave defect in the law. There was no provision for the prosecution of defaulters; and those who had no faith in vaccination, or accounted it a nuisance, enjoyed immunity without serious annoyance. To meet this defect a bill was introduced to Parliament in 1861, providing that “the guardians or overseers of any parish may appoint some person to institute and conduct proceedings for enforcing obedience.” The bill was passed through the House of Commons under the care of Mr. Robert Lowe, meeting with little resistance, and with less in the Lords. In vindicating the measure, 10th July, 1861, Mr. Lowe observed--

Parliament in 1853 passed an Act for Compulsory Vaccination, but
owing to a defect in the provision of expenses for prosecution,
it has fallen into desuetude. When the present Government was
formed in 1859, a clause was introduced to the Public Health
Act correcting the defect; but under pressure of the Member for
Finsbury [Mr. Thomas Duncombe] I surrendered it. It has been to
me a bitter reflection that I did so; for I am convinced that the
sacrifice of that clause has occasioned the loss of thousands of
lives in this country.

The question is sometimes asked, Why is it that association with horses is so prejudicial to morality? This interrogation might be accompanied with another, namely, Why is it that the advocacy of vaccination is so frequently associated with romance and rant? That public vaccination had fallen into desuetude was untrue. There were fluctuations from year to year, but the rate was maintained without practical abatement. That in 1861 it could be said that thousands of lives had been lost because prosecuting officers were not provided in 1859, was romance and rant without mitigation. In England and Wales there died of smallpox--

In 1858 6460
1859 3848
1860 2749
1861 1320
1862 1628
1863 5964
1864 7684
1865 6411

Where then were the thousands of lives lost from the formation of the Government in 1859 to 1861? and where were the lives saved after the enactment of the vital clause? But who that knew Mr. Robert Lowe could believe that he was convinced that the surrender of the clause occasioned the loss of thousands of lives, and that the loss was to him a bitter reflection? Would not the vulgar version of the invocation, _O mihi beate Martine!_ have been appropriate to the situation?

Further, continued Mr. Lowe--

From 1837 to 1840 the deaths from Smallpox amounted to 12,000
a-year. From 1840 to 1863, during which period Vaccination was
provided by the Poor Law Boards, the annual average of deaths was
only 5,200. Thus by the diffusion of Vaccination, the mortality
of Smallpox was reduced by more than one-half. Then in 1853 the
Compulsory Law came into operation, and its first effect was
remarkable. The number of vaccinations enormously increased and
the deaths diminished. In 1854 they sank to 2,808, and in 1855
to 2,525. Afterwards they gradually increased up to the present
time [When in fact they never were lower!], the Act having, as I
already explained, fallen into desuetude. Thus is the efficiency
of Vaccination established!

Into such stuff may a clever man descend! The statement was rotten with untruth. It was gross misrepresentation to set forth the average mortality of 12,000 for the years 1837-40 as permanent mortality which the Act of 1840 reduced to 5,200. The years 1837-40 embraced a severe epidemic, following years of quiescence during which vaccinators had been singing pæans over their imaginary victory. Holding as we do that smallpox comes and goes with indifference to vaccination (unless in so far as it keeps the disease alive) the figures cited by Mr. Lowe as completely illustrate our contention as they nullified his. By no contrivance can the fluctuations of smallpox be associated with more or less vaccination.

Probably Mr. Lowe was inspired by his medical staff, but, if so, he made the inspiration his own, evolving as from personal certainty, such fancy-work as this--

Out of 1000 who take Smallpox without being vaccinated 350 die;
while out of 1000 badly vaccinated only 150 die; but out of 1000
well vaccinated only 5 die.

To which the conclusive answer would have been, that a mortality of 7 in 20 of the unvaccinated was about double that of smallpox in the time when all were unvaccinated; and that disregarding the factitious classification, the mortality over all cases continued as it was in the pre-vaccination era. What smallpox was, smallpox has remained--discrete, confluent, malignant; each type being qualified as slight, dangerous, and deadly; the relation of vaccination to the type being wholly irrelevant.

Further, he proclaimed without reserve, that smallpox was transmuted to cowpox in the cow--

There was a theory started that the efficacy of Vaccination was
wearing out; but the valuable discovery of Mr. Ceely has set any
apprehension on that score at rest for ever. Mr. Ceely has proved
that Smallpox, when taken from the human body and introduced to
that of the cow, produces Cowpox. It is thus evident that we
have the means of obtaining Cowpox of the requisite strength to
any extent. The beautiful discovery has also been made that the
security of Vaccination may be almost indefinitely increased by
multiplying the number of punctures.

Thus was mystery dispelled! Cowpox was smallpox diversified in the cow, and the lost security of Jenner’s single puncture was recovered in tattoo!

Appealing to the sentiment of medical men in favour of vaccination as exhibited in the replies to Simon’s queries in 1857--a fallacy for conviction which Mr. Lowe would have been quick to detect if advanced for any clerical, scholastic, or other trading interest, he observed--

The terrible malady falls heavily upon young children: in
Vaccination is their defence. Consider, then, what a painful
responsibility will rest upon us, if, in the face of almost
unanimous medical testimony, we leave them to perish, and
communicate a dreadful contagion throughout the country. These
children have no discretion of their own; and it is a profanation
of liberty and self-government to say that any man has a right to
set up his own sordid and brutal prejudices against such medical
opinion, and expose his child to disease and death.

Words, ferocious words; but how do they bear examination? Why should disbelief in vaccination be stigmatised as sordid and brutal prejudice? Why should parliamentary affection for children surpass parental affection? The argument, if valid, would equally apply to any matter in which the conviction of a minority was at variance with that of a majority; and if in such circumstances the minority is bound to submission, where is the substance answering to civil and religious liberty? If the clear scientific persuasion of the smallest minority concerning such a matter as vaccination is to be subjected to vulgar medical dictation by the brute force of the majority, what form of tyranny may not be justified?

The Bill [continued Mr. Lowe] which I wish to pass into law is
very simple. All that it enacts is that Poor Law Boards may
appoint persons to prosecute those whom the medical officers
report ought to be prosecuted.

And the bill was passed without division. Mr. Duncombe and Mr. Coningham protested, but neither had mastered the question so as to offer effective opposition. Mr. Coningham observed that figures might be made to prove anything; and as concerned the unanimous opinion of medical men, they had to bear in mind the saying, “There is nothing like leather.” If smallpox had fallen off, there were extensive sanitary improvements to account for the fall; and, for his part, he placed his trust much more in better conditions of life for the people than in a prescription like vaccination.

The Act obtained did not fulfil the expectations of its promoters. Mr. Lowe’s bitter regret for thousands of lives lost in consequence of his concession to Mr. Duncombe proved to be wasted emotion. Guardians did not exercise their powers as inquisitors and persecutors with adequate energy. Sir Morton Peto, in the House of Commons, on 14th March, 1864, asked--

Whether the registration of Vaccination is not a total failure,
alike for statistical purposes and for the prosecution of
offenders under the Compulsory Act; and whether it is the
intention of the Government to amend the law this session.

To which Mr. Lowe made answer--

It is quite true that the system of registration under the Act
is very bad, but it would cost a great deal of money to improve
it. Moreover, even when improved, it would not make the measures
for compulsion effectual to any extent. The great difficulty of
working compulsion is not so much due to defective legislation
as to the reluctance to prosecute poor people for disobedience
to the law, the neglect of which is countenanced by too many who
ought to know better. I am sorry, therefore, I cannot hold out
any hope of improving the system.

The medical officers of the Poor Law Board were, however, intent upon coercive legislation; and Mr. H. A. Bruce, more pliant than Mr. Lowe, introduced a bill of their contriving in 1866, which he assured the House of Commons “involved no new principle, and merely consolidated provisions dispersed over six Acts of Parliament, _with a few amendments_.” On going into committee on the bill, 11th April, 1866, he delivered an elaborate defence of vaccination, prepared for him by the astute promoters of the measure, starting in this fashion--

At the close of last century Dr. Jenner achieved his immortal
discovery by which, perhaps, more misery has been prevented
through the alleviation of pain and the preservation of life than
by any other discovery that has ever been made.

Spoken from whatever elevation, nothing divides talk like this from that of a quack at a country fair. Having struck the note, Mr. Bruce ran through the familiar gamut of assertion wherewith the rite of vaccination is supposed to be justified. The following is a sample of the advocacy imposed upon him--

A statement has been widely circulated that Syphilis has been
communicated by Vaccination. Millions of children have been
vaccinated in the last sixty years, but not a single case has
occurred in which it has been proved that Syphilis has been
communicated. A case is alleged to have occurred in France in
which a child had been vaccinated from another which inherited
Syphilis, but the surgeon in that case, in taking lymph from
a child covered with syphilitic blotches, acted in monstrous
disregard of common prudence and medical knowledge. No such
case, so far as the most careful medical research can discover,
has happened in this country.

Whilst this statement would now incur general discredit, yet even in 1866 the official prompters of Mr. Bruce presumed over much on public credulity. It was not probable that what vaccinators did not wish they would discover; or, if discovered, proclaim. Nevertheless, the denunciation of the “alleged” French instance was entirely inconsistent with the contention that syphilis could not be communicated from a syphilitic vaccinifer, blotched or unblotched. So much it was imperative to maintain, for it was obvious that the complete vaccination of any population must involve infants with latent syphilis whose virus might transfer the disease to the untainted. This peril, opponents of vaccination, from Cobbett onwards, had recognised; and as its recognition was prejudicial to vaccination, its possibility was stoutly outsworn until manifold and indisputable evidence compelled its admission, and shifted the question to the extent of its frequency.

Mr. Henley, following Mr. Bruce, spoke some homely sense--

We all know that when we want anything of the kind done, the
medical man entertains us with a fine cock-and-bull story about
waiting until he can get lymph from a healthy child. This caution
implies risk; and though it is said that not a single case of
injury has occurred in sixty years, yet nobody will persuade me
that medical men take all these pains (where they are well paid
and watched) if there are not grounds for the exercise of care.
Undoubtedly it was an abomination to take vaccine from a diseased
child, but how is a public vaccinator to know that any child is
diseased? If he inquires too particularly, he will run the risk
of a slapped face from the mother for his trouble.

Mr. Henley also drew attention to the claims made for vaccination, coupled with the admission that the greater part of it was good for little--

One remarkable statement has been made--that there has been an
examination of 500,000 children belonging to the humbler classes
chiefly affected by Compulsory Vaccination. Of the number so
examined only one in eight was found to have been perfectly
vaccinated, which fact involves the further fact that seven out
of the eight were imperfectly vaccinated, or not vaccinated at
all. If only one in eight has been perfectly vaccinated, great
doubt will come upon many people’s minds as to the matter with
which the others have been inoculated.

Much in the bill was crude and impracticable, and Mr. Ayrton expressed the sense of many in the House when he observed--

The bill before us is badly drawn, and bears too much the
marks of its official origin. Great powers have been taken for
the vaccinating department, but nothing is provided for the
protection of the public. It seems to me that if Vaccination is
to be enforced by penalties, public vaccinators should be subject
to penalties for inefficient and injudicious work. I have been
entrusted with a great many petitions against the bill, and I
have been much impressed with the admission that the existing
system of Vaccination has entirely failed in effecting its
object. The bill will have to be referred to a Committee, and as
many believe that Vaccination does as much harm as good, I trust
the members will not be fettered in their inquiries.

It is needless to say the asserted failure of vaccination was an artifice to induce Parliament to pass the bill. The public vaccinations for 1863, 1864, and 1865, were as numerous as ever, and accompanied with a marked increase of smallpox. No doubt vaccination was a failure, but in a different sense from that in which the word was used to acquire increase of power and pay for the application of the rite. The bill was referred to a select committee, who reported; but the Conservatives having displaced the Liberals, it was withdrawn. Mr. Corry, in announcing the fact to the House of Commons, 23rd July, 1866, said--

I have ascertained that the measure is likely to meet with great
opposition on both sides of the House; and it is, therefore, very
doubtful whether it could be carried at this late period of the
session. Moreover, some of its provisions require further and
careful consideration.

The bill was framed and promoted by the Poor Law Board, independently of Liberals and Conservatives, the problem of the medical officials being, “How far is it possible to obtain the assent of Parliament to what we consider desirable.” There were limits to parliamentary complaisance, however wide, and, informed by the experience of 1866, a revised bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Lord Robert Montagu in 1867, who, like his predecessors, reproduced the instructions of his advisers with sufficient flavour to pass them off as his own. A portion of his business was to obtain recognition for the payment of extra fees for successful vaccination--

When an Inspector reports that certain Vaccinations are of the
1st class, the Public Vaccinator will receive 1s. over and
above the sum paid by the Guardians for each Vaccination he has
performed. If the Vaccinations are reported of the 2nd class, he
will receive 8d. For 3rd class Vaccinations nothing in excess of
the Guardians’ contract fee will be paid.

This graduation of vaccination excited no comment though why aught save first-class should have been accounted tolerable, or paid for, was far from obvious. The possible amount chargeable for these awards was thus estimated--

The ratio of children born to the population is about 3½ per
cent., which gives 700,000 a year for the population of 20
millions. Reckoning that four-fifths of these children, or
560,000, are vaccinated gratuitously during the year, the
expenditure will be £28,000 if all the Vaccinations are 1st
class, and £18,500 if 2nd class. Shall we, then, think it too
much if, for a sum between £18,500 and £28,000 we ensure that
there shall never occur a case of smallpox, and that we save
7,000 lives a year?

Such was the argument put into the mouth of Lord Robert Montagu for the persuasion of Parliament! Only pay an extra price for first and second class vaccination, and not a case of smallpox shall occur in England, and 7,000 lives a year shall be saved! When we inquire where the 7,000 lives a year were lost, we discover how boldly the credulity of Parliament was imposed upon. There died of smallpox in England and Wales--

In 1861 1,320
1862 1,628
1863 5,964
1864 7,684
1865 6,411
1866 2,977

Where, then, were the 7,000 lives to save? In 1864 the mortality exceeded 7,000; but to select an extreme year and represent it as ordinary would have incurred a sharp epithet if practised in finance instead of smallpox.

A similar fable of salvation from smallpox was related by Lord Robert Montagu concerning Scotland. He said--

It is wiser to save people’s lives than to consult their
prejudices. The example of Scotland shows the value of a
thorough-going Vaccination Act. The measure for that country has
reduced the smallpox death-rate from 2,000 to 120 per annum.

The Act to extend and make Vaccination compulsory in Scotland was passed in 1863--an Act little else than superfluous, for the people were vaccinated without it. There died of smallpox in Scotland--

In 1859 682
1860 1,495
1861 766
1862 426
-----
3,369

In 1863 1,648
1864 1,741
1865 383
1866 200
-----
3,972

The average of these eight years was 907 deaths annually; and one inquires with some amaze, Where were the 2,000 which compulsory vaccination reduced to 120? It is difficult to repress some indignation over such measureless misrepresentation; nor to point out that we are not dealing with theologians, who are often assumed to hold a license for prevarication, but with medical officials with M.P.’s for spokesmen. The following years, of which Lord Robert Montagu, speaking in 1867, was necessarily ignorant, gave these deaths from smallpox in Scotland--

In 1867 100
1868 15
1869 64
1870 114
1871 1,442
1872 2,488

Smallpox was proclaimed “stamped-out” of Scotland in 1870, but the epidemic of 1871-72 proved how vain was the boast. Smallpox, in common with typhus, may be exterminated, but by no such irrelevance as vaccination.

One object of the bill was the reconstruction of vaccination districts, so as to secure sufficient numbers for arm-to-arm practice.

It is necessary [said Lord R. Montagu] to successful Vaccination
that the two classes of patients, those who have been vaccinated
eight days before should meet those who are to be vaccinated, so
that the doctor may take vaccine from the arms of one set and
transfer it to those of the other.

Mr. Henley, in opposition, maintained that careful vaccination on such terms was impracticable, saying--

It seems a large proportion of the Vaccination provided by the
public is imperfect; but the bill before us is wholly inadequate
to secure Vaccination that is trustworthy. If a vaccinator never
sees a child until it is brought to him, and knows nothing of its
parentage, how can he judge whether it is fit to be vaccinated,
or fit to serve for the vaccination of others? No torture will
induce a mother to confess before company that anything ails her
baby. Every one who knows anything of women is aware that they
will conceal in public what they may reveal in the privacy of
home. The shame of making known her own infirmities, or those of
her family, will keep a woman silent in a crowd, and if she does
reply to awkward questions, it will be to mislead. Medical men
will consequently be perplexed and outwitted; and, therefore, on
the terms prescribed a safe and efficient system of Vaccination
cannot be secured.

Further, said Mr. Henley, the bill was defective because no attempt was made to conciliate the prejudices or consult the convenience of the people who were compelled to have their children vaccinated.

The bill is one of pure coercion, making no allowance for those
who are brought under its scope. It must not be forgotten that
the poor mother is not able to do much within the month after
her confinement. The period of three months specified within
which Vaccination must be effected will press very severely upon
the lower orders. We are told that no district of less than
5,000 inhabitants will work successfully, and that 10,000 is a
better number. If country districts are to comprise 5,000, how
many miles will poor folk have to travel to reach a vaccination
station? Consider the inconvenience it will be to a woman to drag
her child two or three miles for vaccination, and be obliged to
go a second time for inspection! The medical authorities insist
that four punctures at least ought to be made on the unfortunate
children. Not only are those four wounds to be inflicted, but the
children are to be brought in all weathers to have their wounds
opened and matter extracted for the benefit of others, thus
prolonging their sufferings and the cares of their mothers. If
we are to act upon the principle of doing as we should be done
by, I would ask how you would like to be compelled to carry your
children to a vaccination station and have them mixed up with all
and sundry, and inoculated at a hazard with you know not what?
For myself I see no difficulty in having the children of the poor
vaccinated at their own homes. It would be far better to pay more
and work discriminately than let the people think there is one
law for the rich and another for the poor. If you simply try to
drive you will find the people apt to kick, and still more ready
to evade the restrictions you put upon them.

Mr. Kendall confirmed Mr. Henley, saying--

As Chairman of a large Union, I have seen great inconvenience
from the crowding of children at vaccination stations. They
are taken to those stations whether wet or dry, and cold and
shivering are kept huddled together in a manner most likely to
breed illness and diffuse infection.

Mr. Lowe sneered at Mr. Henley’s concern for the poor, reminding him that the wounds he deplored would save them from a loathsome disease. Mr. Henley did not dispute the salvation, as he might have done, but pleaded for its more considerate performance. Spite, too, of his assumption, there _is_ one law for the rich and another for the poor. Compulsory vaccination as applied to the majority would never be tolerated by the upper and middle class minority; nor would a plutocratic Parliament have entertained so profane a project. Nor (it must be said) would working men show themselves much more enduring in their own persons. The victims of the law are their wives and children; and it is surprising how much indignity and cruelty they will endure in these helpless dependents. Mr. Henley was more chivalrous for them than they are for themselves.

An argument for fresh legislation was the failure of the Act of 1853. Mr. Brady said--

As a medical man I can testify that medical men are almost
unanimous in favour of Compulsory Vaccination; but in order
to give the public the full benefit of the system it must be
fairly paid for. We shall be penny wise and pound foolish unless
the persons employed to carry out this measure are liberally
remunerated. When the bill of 1853 was before the House, I said
the remuneration was inadequate, and that the Act would be a
failure, and that prediction has proved true.

That the Act of 1853 was a failure, in the sense of not securing the vaccination of the people, was untrue--though necessarily true as concerned the prevention of smallpox. The assertion of failure in 1867 was an artifice to overcome the apathy of Parliament. It was assumed that there was a population to be vaccinated, and vaccinated in a new and superior fashion, if only better pay were provided. More money was wanted to work the Vaccination Mill. In the words of Lord Robert Montagu--

On the birth of a child being registered, the Registrar is
bound to give notice to the parent, and to supply him with
proper forms, whether for public or private Vaccination. He
will enter in a book the name of the child, with the means of
identification. After Vaccination, the Public Vaccinator will
send the certificate of successful Vaccination to the Registrar,
who will enter it in his book. Thus the Registrar will know which
children have been registered in his district and which have not;
which children are liable to Smallpox and which are not liable.
[_O Credulitas!_] Then it is made the interest of all concerned
to work the system and enforce its checks. It is the interest of
every Local Registrar to hunt up every birth, because for every
entry he has 1s. It is his interest to obtain the certificate of
successful Vaccination, for entering which he has 3d. It is the
interest of the Public Vaccinator to operate on as many children
as possible, because for each successful operation he has at
least 1s. 6d., and for first class work an extra 1s. It is the
interest of the parent to have his child vaccinated, for he is
otherwise subject to legal proceedings and a penalty of 20s.

Colonel Barttelot objected, saying--

There are about 750,000 births annually in this country, and
the parents of the majority surely deserve some consideration.
250,000 of them can neither read or write, yet they are liable to
a fine of 20s. if they do not comply with the printed forms of
this Act. It would be much better to send doctors to the homes
of the children than collect mothers and infants in crowds at
vaccination stations.

Mr. Bruce replied that it was proposed to do nothing new--

Compulsory Vaccination on the same terms has been the law of the
land since 1853. The present bill lays down no new principle. It
merely collects the scattered provisions of the law, and supplies
machinery found necessary after much experience.

The observation was, no doubt, ingenuous on the part of the speaker; but, misled himself, he assisted to mislead the House. The bill, Section 31, ran as follows--

_If any Registrar, or any Officer appointed by the Guardians to
enforce the provisions of this Act, shall give information in
writing to a Justice of the Peace, that he has reason to believe
that any child under the age of 14 years, being within the Union
or Parish for which the informant acts, has not been successfully
vaccinated, and that he has given notice to the parent or person
having the custody of such child to procure its being vaccinated,
and that this notice has been disregarded, the Justice may summon
such parent or person to appear with the child before him at a
certain time and place, and upon the appearance, if the Justice
shall find, after such examination as he shall deem necessary,
that the child has not been vaccinated, nor has already had the
Smallpox, he may, if he see fit, make an order under his hand and
seal directing such child to be vaccinated within a certain time;
and if, at the expiration of such time, the child shall not have
been so vaccinated, or shall not be shown to be then unfit to be
vaccinated, or to be insusceptible of Vaccination, the person
upon whom such an order shall have been made shall be proceeded
against summarily, and, unless he can show some reasonable ground
for his omission to carry the order into effect, shall be liable
to a penalty not exceeding 20s._

Yet, said Mr. Bruce, it was proposed to do nothing new! Here was a development of compulsion subjecting a parent to prosecution during fourteen years of the life of his child, and it was nothing new! What resulted from this aggravation of the law, devised with craft and enacted with indifference, remains to be seen.

The bill was opposed by Sir J. Clarke Jervoise, Mr. Thomas Chambers, and Mr. Barrow. Mr. Chambers prophesied--

I am persuaded that when the bill is passed an agitation will
commence which will never cease until the Act is repealed.

The carelessness and indifference of the House were, however, insuperable. It was legislation for “the lower orders,” and concerned “respectable folk” not at all. The bill was read a third time without opposition, slipped through the Lords unopposed, and received the Royal assent, 12th August, 1867, as 30 and 31 VICTORIÆ, Cap. 84--_An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Vaccination_.

As another example of the advocacy with which this bill was commended to the House of Commons, I take the following from the close of the speech of Lord Robert Montagu, when introducing it to committee, 14th June, 1867. He said--

Smallpox differs from other epidemics in this, that it is one
of the worst, but is absolutely preventible. In other diseases
all that can be done by the removal of predisposing conditions
is to mitigate their virulence; but Smallpox may be altogether
prevented. If, then, one who raises his hand against another and
kills him is guilty of murder, of what shall he be guilty who, by
voice or vote in this House, endeavours to prevent the passing
of a measure which will make it absolutely certain that Smallpox
shall no longer kill 7,000 a-year in this country!

This absurd adjuration was too much for Mr. Henley, who observed--

The somewhat formidable close of the noble Lord’s speech made it
difficult to know whether I ought not to walk out of the House
and leave the responsibility of the measure to others. He said
those who objected to the bill would be guilty of the deaths of
those who died of Smallpox.

Lord ROBERT MONTAGU--I said that Smallpox was so far preventible
that those who stopped the adoption of Vaccination would be
guilty of the deaths of 7,000 children a-year.

Mr. HENLEY--I understood the noble Lord to say that they would
incur that guilt if they objected to the machinery of the bill.

Lord ROBERT MONTAGU--No; not to its machinery.

Mr. HENLEY--Then I do not know precisely what the noble Lord does
mean.

In short, the bill was neither honestly advocated or seriously considered. On the one hand, members of Parliament were prejudiced, ignorant and credulous, and careless as to legislation that did not affect their families or those of their influential constituents. On the other hand there was a knot of medical officials eager for power and the aggrandisement of their profession, who did not disdain to practise upon the prejudice, the ignorance, and the credulity of Parliament. The result was an insufferable outrage upon the rights of every nonconformist--an outrage which, if perpetrated on the theological instead of the scientific conscience, would have roused Englishmen to fever heat.