1881.] The Vaccination Question Reconsidered. 647 
Dr. Carpenter in his controversial writings. Still, an under- 
current of dislike to the medical profession is not entirely 
wanting. 
Further, the subject is not one of those which can only be 
rightly handled by men of special scientific attainments. 
Were such the case we should be the first to refuse outsiders 
the claim of being heard. But here is a certain phenomenon 
— the smallpox. Here also is a certain agency, n, which is 
asserted to put a stop to the occurrence of such phenomenon. 
If this assertion is correct, then in proportion as n be- 
comes more general the smallpox must become rarer. 
Whether such is the case or not any educated man is able 
and entitled to judge, if the statistics of vaccination, and 
those of smallpox cases and smallpox mortality, are fairly 
laid before him. The matter is here somewhat complicated 
by a circumstance to which Mr. Taylor has very fairly drawn 
attention : smallpox, namely, is not — like, e.g ., phthisis — a 
constant disease which carries off year by year, or decennium 
by decennium, approximately the same number of victims. 
On the contrary, it makes its appearance in irregular epi- 
demics. One year it may be almost absent, whilst the next 
it may assume quite alarming proportions. This fluctuating 
character gives, it must be conceded, great scope for a dis- 
loyal manipulation of statistics — a circumstance of which 
we fear the disputants on both sides have sometimes, though 
perhaps unwittingly, availed themselves. 
We will open our enquiry by considering what grounds 
would justify an objection to the Compulsory Vaccination 
ACt, and an agitation for its repeal. To us there appear two 
only as legitimate, viz., a want of efficiency and a want of 
safety, or, of course, the two combined. By “want of effi- 
ciency ” we mean the failure of the operation to insure 
immunity from smallpox, and by “want of safety” we refer 
to the possible introduction of other — and worse- — diseases. 
Of these grounds the latter, if demonstrable, is incomparably 
the graver. Indeed if vaccination, though less effective 
than its champions suppose, is at any rate harmless, the 
agitation against its legal enforcement is scarcely warrant- 
able. 
As to other than physiological grounds, we refuse to listen 
to them altogether. If the operation is a preventive of 
smallpox, and exposes those who submit to it to no other 
dangers, we hold that the State is bound to enforce vaccina- 
tion upon its citizens. With those who think that the indi- 
vidual is at liberty to make his house a nidus of infection we 
can hold no discussion, because there is no common principle 
