And yet members of the medical profession are saying this kind of thing: Dr. Hind wrote to the Devizes Board of Guardians some time ago saying that he should be very happy indeed to supply them with calf lymph "which would be undoubtedly pure." He is another gentleman who does not appear to have read the other side of the question. (Laughter.) Mr. Microscopist Farn was further asked by Dr. Collins, "Can you recognise under a microscope of the highest power the germs of syphilis?" and the answer was "No." And yet they talk about "pure lymph!" From 1881 to 1892 we have had no less than 620 deaths recorded, 620 English homes which have been one little occupant the less, 620 mothers' hearts which have been bleeding as a result of this Compulsory Vaccination Act; and yet they say "there are no bad results with proper care." How is it, then, that this mischief occurs? If they cannot happen with proper care, then these results, according to that theory, must be due to carelessness, and if so
IT IS MANSLAUGHTER;
and have you ever heard of a medical man being charged with man- slaughter in such a case? (Cheers.) The Grocers' Company a few years ago offered £1,000 to anybody who would discover an artificial nutritive media by which the germ vaccinia could be cultivated without any foreign elements or risk of disease. No one has claimed the £1,000 yet, and still they talk about "pure lymph." I will give you one or two statistics with regard to Leicester. In 1868-72 the mortality of children under one year was 107 per thousand, when 98 per cent. were vaccinated; from 1888-9 only two per cent. were vaccinated, and, in spite of what Dr. Bond says, the general mortality of children. had declined from 107 to 63 per thousand. Furthermore, from 1874-89 the number of children under one year who died of erysipelas had declined from 19'3 to 47 per 10,000 deaths. The Guardians of Gloucester are being urged to re-commence prosecutions, and I appeal to them to make a firm stand against it. (Loud cheers.) There is one thing about this Vaccination Act which I don't like—it's an unequal. law it presses hardly upon the poor. The rich man can pay his sovereign fine and feel none the worse for it; but the poor man has to either submit or have his goods seized, or go to the prison cell in default of paying his fine. I say that the
POOR WOMAN'S CHILD IS AS DEAR TO HER
as the child of a prince is to its parents, and that she has no right to be put in a harder position for its protection than those who are wealthy. (Cheers.)
But there is another thing that I must mention to you, and that is the case of Emily Maud Child, of Leeds. That child who was vaccinated, died, and a coroner's jury having held an inquest, it was brought in conclusively that she died from syphilis, as the result of vaccination. A certificate to that effect went up to the Government, who sent an inspector down to investigate the case; he took photographs of the teeth of the other children, declared they were syphilitic, and reported that it was not vaccine lymph which produced
