W. R. Macdon Ki.L 



141 



of thc mctal workcis, I do uol thiiik Ulis Classification is legiiiiiiate. Oonsidcring 

 also tliat vaccination appoars to bc morc or less compiilsüry aiiioiijf a coiisiderablc 

 scctiiiii ol' Uiciii 1 (K'lrnuiiR'd 1:1) (iiniL tlicni all(jgcl lirr, aml thca obtaiiied tho 

 i'dlldwiiiL;' table: 



TAIU.K XIV. 

 First Grouping, MetaL Wi)rkers exduded. 



/■= 1107 ±-0703. 



Compariiitf this with Tables X. and XII. we see that there is a sensible 

 bat siiiall correlatiDU betwecii bitrher status and iinvaccinated coiidition. 



Now I lay no partiuular strcss un tbeso results beuausc the nialcrial is t'ai' 

 tot) sparse*, bat I believe that the abovc statistics are tho only ones hitherto dealt 

 with with a view to dctcrmining whether the classes of bighcr status — presumably 

 the better fed and healthier classes of the Community — are or are not more 

 frequently vaccinated than the lower, presumably the less nourished and less healthy 

 classes. No dogmatic couclusion can be drawn from these data, but they exhibit 

 no evidence at all for the unvaccinatcd class being of lower status than the 

 vaccinated class ; on the contrary, tliere is slight evidence to show that the 

 unvaccinated in Glasgow occur rather more frequently in thc classes of higher 

 Status. 



(4) I turn now to the question whether among the vaccinated there e.xists 

 a correlation between status and severity of the disease. I obtained the following 

 tables : 



TABLE XV. 



First Grouping. 



!• = -0249 ±-0566. 



* The fewnes.s uf unvaccinated cascs iiossibly arises fnim tho fact that diiring thc 1802-95 cpidemic 

 in Glasgow vaccination was ])erfiinned on a large scale amongst all classes, so that the cpidemic 

 of 1900-1 fouiid thc t'reat majoiity of the population vaccinated. 



