1884.] 
Analyses of Books. 
of scarcely conceivable importance to the human race, and its 
discussion should, we submit, be conduced in the pure white 
light of the intellect alone, without appeals to the passions. In 
this respeCt we note with little satisfaction a quotation from Mr. 
John Morley that “ when the law comes into conflict with the 
consciences of men it is law that should be altered, and not the 
conscience that should be forced.” To this diCtum we cannot 
give our assent. There is such a thing as the conscience of a 
Thug, or of an Inquisitor. Yet the law is bound to “ force ” 
these consciences, and to uphold its interference, if needful, with 
the rope or the bullet. In like manner if it is once demonstrated 
that vaccination is a sure preventive against smallpox, and that 
it does not bring in its train any other evils, the person who 
refuses to avail himself of it, and thus makes his household a 
focus of danger for the community, not only may but should be 
“ forced,” all pleas of conscience notwithstanding. The whole 
question, then, is simply physical, and should be treated as such. 
Unfortunately it cannot be denied that the opinion of the 
Faculty as to the certainty and the duration of the immunity 
obtained by this “Parliamentary rite,” as Mr. Tebb calls it, has 
changed. Time was when vaccination once, in infancy, was deemed 
a sufficient protection for life. Then it was found desirable to 
repeat the operation at the age of puberty. Now it is recom- 
mended in addition whenever an epidemic of smallpox breaks 
out, and Dr. Collingridge, of the Port of London, is here quoted 
as recommending “ thoroughly efficient annual vaccination.” 
These proposals are an evident admission that the protection is 
neither absolute nor enduring. 
The statistics given in the work before us are sufficiently 
alarming, and cannot be thoroughly discussed without a refer- 
ence to documents which we have not at command. Certain 
considerations on the other side, however, suggest themselves. 
We are here told that the mortality from syphilis during the 
years 1850 to 1880 has increased from 37 per million to 84, or 
124 per cent. This faCt is given in evidence of the hazardous 
nature of vaccination. Now, that this operation has transmitted 
constitutional syphilis from the diseased to the sound we admit. 
But is it the only cause for the increase ? And how is it that so 
many anti-vaccinators are at the same time unwilling that any 
measures for the eradication or the restriction of syphilis should 
be adopted ? Why do they nickname endeavours in this direc- 
tion “ State regulation of vice ?” 
Again, let us take the cases where various other diseases have 
broken out, in children or in adults, after vaccination, and on the 
post hoc ergo propter hoc system are ascribed to this operation. 
Few persons like to confess themselves scrophulous, syphilitic, 
&c., and vaccination often — though by no means in all cases — 
serves as a convenient explanation for the occurrence of these 
diseases in their children. The faCt must be admitted that 
363 
2 B 2 
