said, that the Bill would enable the Postmaster General to sit in that House. The state of things as to the representation of the Government in Parliament was this—Under the Statute of Anne, as amended by that of George II., and by the later Act known as Burke's Act, a limited number of office holders could be Members of the House of Commons. All the great Administrative Departments were or might be represented in the House, but the Revenue Departments were not in the same sense represented. The heads of those Departments such as the Boards of Customs and Inland Revenue, were permanent officials, and it would be of course impossible that any such officials not liable to go out with the Ministry of the day should be eligible to that House. It would be also impolitic to make the heads of these Departments political officers, as their duties ought not to be carried on under the pressure of political considerations. But the Post Office, although technically a Revenue Department, and provided for in the Revenue Estimates, was virtually one of the great Administrative Departments. Hence its head had been for a long time considered as a political officer, going out with the Government; but as he was excluded from that House by the construction of the statutes which he (Mr. Childers) had recited, he was usually a Peer, sitting in the other House. In one case, under Mr. Canning, the Postmaster General was a Commoner, but this was found inconvenient, as the Department was represented in neither House, and the case has not occurred since. He did not think it essential, or indeed expedient, that as a rule the Postmaster General should be in that House. The revenue business of the Department was controlled by the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Postmaster General in this respect acted under the orders of the Treasury, who were represented in that House, and were thus ready to answer any questions relating to the Post Office. But he saw no reason why a distinct and absolute disability should be retained precluding Her Majesty from, if she thought fit, appointing a Member of that House to a political office, usually held by a Cabinet Minister. He therefore should not object to the second reading of the Bill; but it would have to be amended in Committee, the recital in the preamble being incorrect. He presumed the words in the preamble meant to say that every Member of the Government liable to lose office on a change of Ministry might sit in the House of Commons. But this was not so. Not to mention more doubtful instances, all the Secretaries of State, and all the political Under Secretaries could not be at the same time in that House. The hon. Gentleman would remember the difficulty caused, only two years before, by the accidental infringement of this provision in the case of his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War. Subject, however, to this and other alterations in Committee, the Government assented to the second reading of the Bill.

said, he had no exception at all to take to what the hon. Member had stated. The interpretation which the hon. Gentleman had placed on the relations of the civil departments of the country with this House was, of course, a matter of argument which he (Mr. Griffith) did not think it necessary to go into at present, but he quite admitted that the preamble to the Bill would bear amendment. With regard to the disabilities of the Secretaries of State, it should be remembered that, although not more than four could sit in that House at once, there was no disability of any particular Secretary so long as the rule was complied with. There was no absolute statutory impediment to any Member of the Cabinet sitting in that House, except in the case of the Postmaster General. He did not wish to make it obligatory that that officer should have a seat in that House, but simply to remove any legal hindrance to his doing so. He could conceive that a rising Member of the Cabinet with a seat in that House, but holding a sinecure office, might well undertake the duties of the Postmaster Generalship in the event of the chances of political life affording him the opportunity. He begged to acknowledge the perfect courtesy and grace with which the Secretary to the Treasury had received his proposition. The Bill would not take effect while the noble Lord who was at present Postmaster General remained in office, so that during his tenure of the office he would be safe from the operation of the Bill.

said, he was sorry that the measure before the House was not of a different nature. He could have wished some proceedings had been taken to abolish the office of Postmaster General altogether, because he believed it was as near a sinecure as possible. Some two or three years ago he had charge of a measure in that House, in consequence of which he had to communicate with the Post Office, and he found that the Secretary of the Post Office was the real manager of that Department. Mr. Peel was the organ of communication with the House, and he always referred, when reference was necessary, to the Secretary of the Post Office, and not to the Postmaster General. He did not know what the Postmaster General did except dispense patronage, but surely some other Member of the Government would relieve him of that burden. He thought that if the Post Office were made a part of the Treasury the Secretary of the Post Office might discharge the duties, and they might dispense with the Postmaster General. He believed the only object in keeping up the office was to pay a compliment to some person of high rank, and give him a salary for doing nothing. It was a waste of the public money. He hoped the Government would take the matter into consideration, and see if they could not do without the Postmaster General altogether.

said, he would like to know what effective duties the Postmaster General really performed, or indeed what he had to perform? It was of no advantage to have an officer with a seat in the House who could give no information to the House, and whose duties were altogether a sinecure.

said, he desired to express the great satisfaction he felt in knowing that the Government were going to support the Bill. He was sorry to say there was a total want of responsibility in regard to some other offices in one great department of the Post Office; and the officials very often dealt with complaints which were sent to them in a most uncourteous manner. The Post Office officials had refused altogether to entertain the complaints made with regard to the very serious delays connected with the postal service of Fife; and within the last few days they had signed a contract with the Caledonian Railway Company for a term of five years, and they declined to have any communication with the only railway company which possessed a through communication through Fife. He believed all this arose from some personal petty squabble between a certain official in the Post Office and an official connected with the North British Railway Company; but it was a very hard thing that the public should have to suffer because of such squabbles and disagreements. Counties—not that of Fife—having all advantages on the Caledonian Railway at their command, had then-letters delivered in a reasonable time. The inhabitants of Fife would be glad if the Caledonian Railway had lines of communication through Fife. But as it had not, it was hard that they should be visited with the caprice of Post Office officials, because only the North British Railway, with whom they had a quarrel, happened to have lines through Fife. They declined to have through communication with Fife on account of a paltry sum of £2,000. It was a great hardship to merchants and others that their letters from India, Australia, and America should be delivered in the way he had pointed out. It might be said that they might get their letters by certain trains. That was quite true, but it was not at the expense of the Post Office; but the manufacturers had to employ private messengers of their own. He trusted that a responsible officer connected with the Post Office might be appointed in that House, and that then we might be enabled to put an end to such a discreditable state of things as now exists.

said, he had always met with the greatest courtesy and kindness on the part of the Post Office officials, and he did not think the Postmaster General would allow such grievances to exist as those pointed out by the hon. Member. He did not know anything more creditable than the improvements which had of late years been effected in the management of the Post Office, and it ap- peared absolutely marvellous that between 800,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of missives of all kinds should be annually dispatched through that Department to all parts of the world. It was not a matter of wonder, then, that complaints should occasionally arise in various quarters, and they deserved the attention of the postal authorities; indeed, in his opinion they would be obliged by any information which would enable them to rectify any error or defect in the system.

said, that he was ready to give the Post Office authorities credit for their good management; but it was sometimes found that it was very difficult to obtain information from that Department, and that difficulty seemed to arise from the absence of any active person at its head. He thought there should be some responsible head to whom complaints might be addressed. It was all very well to speak of the Postmaster General, but lie was a myth; nobody knew where to find him.

said, he understood the Under Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Childers) to state that it would be rather objectionable to have the representative of the Post Office in that House, inasmuch as the Post Office was a revenue department, He felt bound to express his dissent from that view of the matter. When the penny postal system was introduced it was stated that the Government ought to carry the letters for a penny each, because this could be accomplished by a private company; and it was then clearly understood that the Government were not to make any profit out of the enterprize. He held that the Post Office could not be taken as a legitimate revenue department.

said, he thought it was desirable that there should be no misunderstanding upon one point. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Childers) did not intend to convey to the House that, because the Post Office was a revenue department, therefore it was improper that the representative of it should sit in the House of Commons. He understood that the Bill which had been brought in by the hon. Gentleman opposite was not for the purpose of laying down, by implication or otherwise, any rule that the Postmaster General should sit in either that House or the House of Lords. He understood the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Darby Griffith) to be, that the present limitation of the office was an unnecessary limitation, and that it prevented the operation of that discretion which in certain cases might be beneficially exercised. He would certainly be the last man to assert that, because the department was a revenue department, the representative of it should not sit in that House. On the contrary, if it were to be considered as a revenue department, that would rather indicate the propriety of its representative sitting in the House of Commons. It was always to be recollected that the Post Office, besides being a revenue department had another character. There were certain arrangements in it which were of a nature to which there was no analogy whatever in other revenue departments. In the first place, large transactions took place with regard to packet contracts. Then international questions arose in connection with the administration of the Post Office, and the conclusion of treaties with foreign countries. Indeed, there were functions to be discharged which went far beyond anything connected with what was generally understood as a revenue department. He had understood his hon. Friend (Sir Jervoise Jervoise) to say that the Post Office was not a revenue department, ad consequently the State ought not to derive any revenue from it. He was not sure that his hon. Friend held that doctrine; but on every occasion on which it was advanced he felt it was his duty to protest against it. The money the State obtained was for the performance of a service for the public at a cheaper rate and in a better manner than any individual could do it; and the surplus stood in the place of what would have to be raised by taxes. But that was not all; it was to be recollected that money raised by taxes was generally money which it would be desirable not to raise if it could be dispensed with. There were few taxes that were not attended with a great deal of evil and mischief. Consequently, if, always keeping up the efficiency of the service, the Government, while it was conferring an advantage on the public, could make a profit by the performance of what nobody else could do, it was a profit which was well made, and, referring to an ancient story, it was a profit which "smelt sweet in the nostrils" compared with the produce of the general taxes.

said, he regretted that he felt it his duty to oppose the further progress of the Bill. He gave notice that he would do so when the Bill was introduced; and, after full consideration of the subject, he was satisfied that, instead of improving the present state of the law, it would re-enact many grievances that had been got rid of, would be exceedingly unpopular, and would put obstacles in the way of progress. It had always struck him that the practical character of the English mind was less exemplified in the local taxation of the country than in any other public institution. It might have been expected that in a country so heavily taxed as England, where complaints of heavy taxation were so numerous, that a reasonable mode of making the collection and rendering the incidence of such taxation as light as possible by a sensible and economical arrangement would be adopted. It would, further, naturally be expected that a course similar to that a tradesman would adopt in his business would be pursued in the matter of taxation, and that there would be one assessment and one collection. Instead of this, on both sides of the Tweed the system of assessing and collecting local taxes appeared to him to be in a most rude, he might almost say, a barbarous condition. The example of England had been referred to, but, having looked into the Electoral Franchise Returns—where hon. Members would find a large amount of information respecting local taxation—he discovered much requiring amendment. In Scotland, however, previous to 1854, matters were even worse than in England. In the latter country now there was a county rate, and under the principle of union chargeability there had of late been an attempt to bring the local taxation of the country into a general system. In Scotland, prior to 1854, wherever there was a separate power of assessment and a separate body to assess, there a separate principle of assessment and a separate valuation prevailed, and a separate valuator was appointed, so that the expense of collection amounted to a formidable additional tax. The main object of the Valuation Act of 1854 was the accomplishment of reform in this matter, by mitigating the expense of the collection, and in some degree counterbalancing the weight and incidence of the heavy taxation. The Act of 1854 provided for taking up the gross valuation year by year, and the assessment was based upon it. The Committee that sat in that year upon this subject disposed of the question raised by his hon. Friend—he meant the question of how far it was possible or desirable, while the gross rental was the subject of valuation, to lay down a system or schedule of deductions to be made on different kinds of property, and the conclusion which the Committee came to was what he believed the House would now arrive at—namely, that it was neither possible nor desirable to frame such a system. The Valuation Act of 1854 left the principle of deduction where it found it, with this exception—that it made the gross rental the basis for all local assessments. That was one step gained, providing one certain foundation on which assessments should be taken. It was not necessary that each parish should have its own valuator, and a county valuator was appointed to have the general supervision of all the parishes in the county. The next step was equally important. An Act was passed rendering it optional for counties or boroughs to employ the Government assessor to make out the valuations. He knew that advantage to a great extent had been taken of this provision. Some of the largest counties and boroughs had employed the Government assesssor; and this course involved not the slightest expense to those counties and boroughs. He found in the evidence before the Committee that no complaint from any quarter was ever heard as to the way in which these officials discharged their duty. Following out the subsequent statutes he bad indicated, the next thing was in imposing assessments to take the gross rental as the rule. This had been done as regards the prison and police rates; and he found also in the evidence before the Committee, as far as he could learn, that there had not been one complaint from any quarter whatever in regard to making the assessment upon the gross rental. He apprehended that the present Bill was brought forward because the railway interest was discontented as to the way in which the parishes made the deductions in reference to the poor rate. The poor rate still continued to be levied on what he could not help regarding as the vicious principle of each parish making deductions on the property assessed. It had been found that where no deductions were made there were no complaints; but wherever deductions had been made, there had been constant complaints. The complaints had been inquired into, and the House had now a Report upon them. But the Report, instead of being in accordance with the evidence, proposed even to undo all that had been done, and to draw an impassable line between Imperial and local taxation. The Imperial taxation was taken on the gross rental; and people who complained of the injustice of that seemed to forget that the income tax was assessed on that principle and no other. Until 1806 or 1809, the principle of making deductions from the gross rental was adopted; but it was found to work inconveniently, and from 1809 up to the present time, the income tax, whenever it had been levied, had been assessed upon the gross. A great deal had been said in the examination of the witnesses about justice; but it seemed to him that taxation was a subject on which abstract justice was impossible. When local taxes are laid on the value of property, the real object was not so much to ascertain the precise amount received by the proprietor as the ratepayer's ability to pay, and his interest in the locality subject to the tax. The principle of taking the value of the property which a man held in a particular parish or county had nothing whatever to recommend it, except its convenience. Take the instance of a millowner, who employed 150 people in his mill. That mill, perhaps, brought him in £5,000 a year; but he was assessed on the value of the buildings on a rental of £200 a year. His next door neighbour had, perhaps, a property worth £200 a year, and was assessed at that amount; and thus both men would have to pay a similar amount, although one might derive £5,000 a year from his property, and the other only £200. It would in the end, however, really become as symmetrical as any principle or system of assessment which could be devised. In Scotland, they had at one time another mode of assessment far nearer abstract justice, but which they had abolished. It acted on the same principle as an income tax; for the millowner who obtained £5,000 a year from his mill would have to pay upon that sum, because that was the income which he derived from his property; while the man next door who owned property which, was only worth £200 a year, would only have to pay upon that amount. That system was a gread deal nearer abstract justice than was the other; but then the expense which it occasioned, and the vexation and delay created by the inquiries which had to be made, ultimately led to the abolition of the system. So much for the principle of the Bill. The Committee had two matters brought specially before them—first, as to the general principle of allowing deductions; and secondly, supposing deductions were to be allowed, on what footing they were to be made. He had a Report of the proceedings before the Committee before him. There was a great deal of evidence on the first of these heads, altogether of a most distinct and conclusive character, to show that no change was necessary. There were twenty-nine witnesses examined; of these, fourteen consisted mainly of witnesses representing special interests, such as railways, canals, and mills, and included two witnesses to English practice, and one to the law on the subject. The other fifteen were witnesses of skill and experience in the actual work of assessment, being the assessors or public officers employed in that department in the most populous burghs and counties in Scotland. He might say these last witnesses were unanimous against the principle of the present Bill. The clerk of supply of Lanarkshire, the assessors both for the city and county of Edinburgh, the collector of the parish of Govan, the assessor and the clerk of supply in Aberdeenshire, the public officers of Elgin, of Ayrshire, and Kirkcudbrightshire, and lastly, the assessor for the great community of Glasgow, Mr. Donaldson, who had more experience in this matter than probably any other official in Scotland, were clear and decided in condemning it; and yet the Committee, in the face of evidence which really presented no element of doubt or conflict, report in direct opposition to it. In these circumstances he felt it necessary to oppose the Bill, because he thought it was founded upon a mistake, and that it ought not to be carried out. If he were asked what it was he wished to have done, he should say he wished to see all assessments placed upon the gross rental; and he would even move further, and say that all the collections ought to be placed in the hands of one man. Some reference had been made with respect to deductions in England, and he might say, with regard to the borough of Liverpool, that he found it in the evidence of one gentleman who was examined that there were three separate systems or principles of deduction made there. There was a deduction of 20 per cent made in certain townships in Liverpool, including Everton and West Derby, upon the gross estimated rental of houses at and under £10 a year, while there was a deduction of 5 per cent made in other townships, including Toxteth Park, and in the parish of Liverpool a deduction of 1 per cent. So that in the borough of Liverpool they found from the evidence that the deductions might vary, not according to the class or description of property, but according to the parish or township in which it was situated, from 1 up to 20 per cent. These were the views upon which he opposed the Bill; and if he were to go a step further, he should say that if they carried it, they would be making an absolute injustice by Act of Parliament. There were so many considerations which varied the real nature of property, such as position, age, use for which it was adapted, &c, that they could not legislate generally upon it. For the reasons he had given, he was sorry to say he could not assent to the second reading of his hon. and learned Friend's Bill.

said, that the great principle of the Bill was to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England in reference to the subject in question. He did not consider the measure at all so unreasonable as the Lord Advocate seemed to suppose. The people of Scotland were much indebted to his right hon. Friend opposite for that most valuable measure, which had been enacted some few years ago, for the establishment of the valuation roll, by which the annual value of all property in the country was recorded in the clearest manner. That measure would ever be honourably associated with his name. But so far from this Bill tending to interfere with the operation of the measure of 1854; he (Sir James Fergusson) ventured to say that it would remedy the few little defects of that Act. The grievance complained of by various interests was that the gross assessment was made, not upon the clear annual value of the property, but upon the value determined by certain deductions. His right hon. Friend had characterized the whole system of local taxation, whether in Scotland or in England, as something approaching to barbarism; but it should be remembered that, though there might be some things incidental to local taxation which might be anomalous, still there was much that was anomalous that was found convenient in working; and it was not sufficient to condemn a system to say that it was not formed upon the utmost conditions of symmetry and theory. Was it better to sweep away the whole of an existing system, or to alter it where alteration was necessary? He thought it was better to make the necessary alterations. He could not believe that the House would legislate in an exceptional manner with regard to Scotland in this matter. In 1865 the subject was examined by a Select Committee, and if the evidence then taken was insufficient, it was the duty of the Government, who were represented on that Committee, to have perfected it, and not now to complain, when the Report was being considered, that the evidence was partial. Various skilled witnesses who were called before that Committee stated that they could see no difficulty in making these deductions, except in the labour which it would involve, and that difficulty would decrease each year as the system came into operation. He was surprised to hear his right hon. Friend state that the income tax was levied on the gross valuation, and quote it as a precedent for local assessments on the same principle, because it was well known that the income tax was levied on the net profits of railways, and not their gross earnings. A great injustice existed with regard to those descriptions of property. As to its being said that there was no dissatisfaction felt with the existing system, he admitted that the inconvenience only applied to particular classes of property; but the Bill would assimilate the assessment to the system which prevailed in England; and if it was thought right to continue the assessment on the gross valuation in Scotland, he wished to point out that there was nothing in the Bill or before the House which would prevent its being altered to that system. Nothing would be easier than so to alter that Bill in Committee as to empower the local authorities in each county to determine the rate of deductions which should be made from each description of property, when rated at its gross value for the purposes of assessment. It would only be necessary to leave out the second and third clauses in this Bill, and to make an alteration in the fifth and sixth, and the object would be effected—keeping the gross valuation as the basis on which the calculation should be made. The Committee in their Report had laid out certain percentages as grounds of deduction which appeared to him to be fair and equitable. He thought, therefore, that the Bill was well entitled to be read a second time; and it could only be refused on grounds which were not very popular in this House—the ground of perpetuating distinct and separate systems in different portions of the Empire.

said, he was a Member of the Committee which sat last year. He could not but regret that the subject had again been pressed upon the attention of Parliament after what had taken place last Session. It appeared to him that the only mode of arriving at a valuation of property which should be at all satisfactory, was one that would rest upon the gross value. The Land Valuation Bill, which had been introduced by the Lord Advocate in 1854, had been attended with great advantages. He (Mr. Leslie) had watched with the greatest interest the working of that Act, both in his own county and in others, and he ventured to say that nowhere was its operation complained of. He would oppose the present Bill because he believed that it rested on an injudicious basis, and that it would work mischief.

said, that with the object of supplying an accidental omission on the part of the Lord Advocate, he moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.

said, that he was convinced, by the admirable statement of the Lord Advocate in 1864, of the propriety of making some such change in the law as that now proposed, and he thought it rather hard that the learned Lord should now, in a speech far inferior to that in point of argument, ask the House to reconsider that statement. The reply of the hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) to the learned Lord's present speech was most satisfactory and conclusive.

said, he was in favour of the principle of the Bill.

said, the hon. Member for Greenock alluded to only one source of opposition to his Bill—that of private companies—the fact was that the opposition arose from various sources, and, as far as he could understand, its advocacy came from one source only—that of the railway companies. If it was necessary, from the peculiar nature of railway property, that it should be subject to exemption from the general rule, by all means let their case be considered, and let a separate Bill be brought in for their interests; but why should the whole valuation system of Scotland be disturbed to suit their interests, when no other parties wished for a change? Far from there being one source of opposition only, he had himself been requested to oppose it on the part of the justices of the peace of the largest and most important county in Scotland, on the part of the corporation of Glasgow, the greatest and most important corporation of Scotland, and on the part of the Convention of Royal Burghs.

said, that he could not admit that the House was asked to enter upon a new course. On the contrary, they were following up the provisions of the Act, which took the valuation out of the hands of local bodies, and placed it in the hands of a general assessor appointed by Government. As the object desired was to ascertain the real value of property, he was not aware that that object could be attained in a better way than by allowing the deductions enumerated in the Bill.

said, that the Bill was altogether uncalled for. It would, if passed, cause great dissatisfaction to people in the south of Scotland.

said, he had intended to move the second reading that day, understanding that no objection would be made to it. The provisions had been fully discussed by the benchers of the four inns of court, and the Amendments suggested by them he had adopted. Other Amendments had been introduced at the suggestion of common law barristers and others, and the Bill as it now stood had been introduced with the consent of the Attorney General. As, however, he understood that some Members objected to the measure, he proposed, in the absence of the Attorney General, to postpone the present stage till that day week.

said, he considered the Bill one of the most extraordinary inroads on the constitutional government of the country as regarded the administration of justice which had ever been attempted. Here was a body of men coming to that House seeking powers of indefinite inquiry and of examining, on oath, the whole community under pains and penalties on the subject of that inquiry. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would, on reflection, between this and next Wednesday, see cause for not proceeding further with the Bill.

said, the Bill substantially in its present shape had been carried through Parliament, as far as that House was concerned, last year. The Bill had met the assent of a Committee composed of the benchers of all the Inns of Court. There was no innovation of principle in- volved, the only object of the Bill being to establish a better tribunal for the investigation of complaints against barristers. Having had the honour of serving on the bench of Lincoln's Inn in an inquiry which lasted for many days on the conduct of a barrister, he had come to the conclusion that there was great room for amendment. This Bill appeared to provide what was required in that respect by giving certain powers which were absolutely necessary to enable any Court to decide satisfactorily on such inquiries. This being a new Parliament, it was certainly open to it to oppose the principle of the Bill; but the measure really involved no new principle.

said, he differed from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman). The Bill had never been fully discussed. The name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had been on the back of the Bill as formerly introduced. It was not on the present Bill. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) had seceded from it, On the first reading he (Mr, Locke) spoke against it, and would have divided the House on its introduction, but there were then so few Members present that he should have had very little support. By constituting the benchers of the Inns of Court a court of law to inquire into questions, perhaps of domestic arrangement, they might create an extremely offensive power. He thought the Bill extremely objectionable and altogether unnecessary.

said, that so far as he could see, the Bill merely enabled the benchers to exercise in an effectual manner the powers which they at present possessed. He thought no ground had been shown why this Bill should not be considered in Committee.

said, that before moving that the Deputy Speaker do leave the Chair, perhaps it would be convenient that he should make some statement to the House as to the scope of the Bill under consideration, not having had that opportunity on the second reading. He should not have allowed the Bill to reach this stage without that statement had he thought it involved any important new principle; but, although there appeared to be an apprehension that some new principle was involved in it, that was altogether a delusion. The Bill in the first place was a consolidation of the Acts which related to vaccination It consolidated provisions which were now dispersed over six different Acts of Parliament. It also introduced some Amendments, which he would explain to the Committee; but, before doing so, as the subject of vaccination had not for some time been discussed in the House, he would give a short and rapid sketch of what had been the course of legislation regarding it, and the effect on the public health at each stage of progress. The first attempt to deal with the enormous evils of small pox was made by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in 1718. Inoculation was first tried on seven condemned criminals; and the result being satisfactory, in 1722, two of the Royal Family were, by the order of King George I., inoculated. Its success being placed beyond all doubt, inoculation for some time became very popular; but it was discovered that every inoculated person while labouring under the disease was himself the centre of infection, and Sir Gilbert Blane calculated that the effect of inoculation had been to raise the percentage of deaths in small pox from 74 to 92 per cent per thousand of the total mortality. But at the close of last century, Dr. Jenner made his immortal discovery, by which, perhaps, more misery had been prevented by the alleviation of pain and the preservation of life than by any other discovery that had ever been made. In 1802, a Committee was moved for in that House to inquire into the value of Jenner's discovery. They made a Report, in which they expressed a very strong opinion of its merits. In 1806, Lord Lansdowne, being then Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved an Address to His Majesty, praying that the College of Physicians might be requested to make further inquiries. They took twelve months to do so. They consulted all the chief medical bodies of Scotland, England, and Ireland, and presented a most able Report, to the effect that the discovery was a most valuable one, that it might be safely applied, that its effects were wholly advantageous, and in no respect injurious. In 1808, the first action of Parliament was taken. The National Vaccine Establishment was founded, and the sum of £2,000 a year had from that day to this been voted to it. Nothing further was done by Parliament, the matter being left to voluntary agency, till 1840, when the 3 & 4 Vict, was passed, which made vaccination optional, and authorized the payment of the public vaccinator by the Board of Guardians. That continued, with what effects he would proceed to describe, up to 1853, when the present legislation came in force. The compulsory Act of 1853 was introduced, not by Her Majesty's Government, but by Lord Lyttelton. It was carried through the House of Lords without a division; and was introduced here by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). Again, it was carried without a division, and had been the law of the land ever since. From time to time, since the passing of the Act, there had been occasional protests against it, not proceeding from any public body, but from individuals who objected on principle to vaccination. Then came the inquiries which were instituted by Sir Benjamin Hall. He directed a Report to be prepared by Mr. Simon, whose work was the standard work on this subject—a work conveying the fullest instruction in a most interesting form. Mr. Simon had in 185G referred four questions to all the medical societies in Europe, to all the principal foreign Governments, and to 542 physicians of different countries, selected on account of their known eminence and experience. With the permission of the House, he would read these Questions and Answers. The first Question was this—

"Have you any doubt that successful vaccination confers on persons subject to its influence a very large exemption from attacks of small pox, and almost absolute security against death by that disease?"

Their Answers to that Question 540 were distinct in having no doubt. One distrusted vaccination, but would gladly inoculate his own children with small pox. The other (Dr. Hamernik, of Prague) regarded both inoculation and vaccination at best but harmless trifling. The second Question was—

"Have you any reason to believe or suspect that vaccinated persons, in being rendered less susceptible of small pox, become more susceptible of any other infective disease or of phthisis, or that their health is in any other way disadvantageously affected?"

In reply to this, not one maintained that any injury arose from vaccination properly administered. Mr. Stone gave the following statistics of Christ's Hospital for more than a hundred years:—Average of boys during first fifty years, 550; during last fifty years, 800. In the first period, during which none were vaccinated, there were thirty-one deaths from small pox. In the last period, from 1801 to 1850, in which all were vaccinated, one only had died of small pox. The annual death rate from other diseases in hospital had greatly diminished. The third Question was—

"Have you any reason to believe or suspect that lymph from a true Jennerian vesicle has ever been a vehicle of syphilitic, scrofulous, or other constitutional infection to the vaccinated person, or that unintentional inoculation with some other disease, instead of the proposed vaccination, has occurred in the hands of a duly educated medical practitioner?"

To this all but a very few answered in the negative. The fourth Question was—

"Do you (assuming due provisions to exist for a skilful performance of the operation) recommend that, except for special reasons in individual cases, vaccination should be universally performed at early periods of life?"

All but two were favourable. He thought the House would see this inquiry was as exhaustive and complete as ingenuity could devise. But what had been the effect on the public health? Sir Gilbert Blane had stated that, so far as could be ascertained, the average annual death rate in small pox in England and Wales during thirty years previous to the introduction of vaccination was 3,000 per million of the population. The average of three years (1838 to 1840), when vaccination had become to a great extent diffused, but before any public provision was made for its gratuitous performance, was 770. The average of nine of the years (1841 to 1853) when public vaccination was gratuitously provided, but vaccination was not obligatory, was 304 per million. The average of the ten years (1854 to 1863) during which vaccination had been to a certain extent obligatory, was 171; and if the last year for which Returns had been made were included, the rate, instead of 171, would be 190 per million. One reason for these inquiries was the alarming increase which had taken place during the last few years in the deaths by small pox in England and Wales. In 1861 the number of deaths had fallen to 1,320, but rose in 1863 to 5,964, and in 1864 to 7,684. The House must recollect that these deaths by no means represented the evil inflicted on society by this dreadful scourge. A distinguished French physician, M. de la Condamine, in 1756, calculated that about one-fourth of the human race were suffering more or less from the effects of small pox, which showed themselves in blindness and deafness, entire or partial, scrofula, and other terrible forms of disease. With respect to the mortality among the vaccinated and un-vaccinated, the evidence was very complete. Perhaps the most capable witness on this point was Mr. Marson, for very many years in charge of the Small pox Hospital. Mr. Marson stated his conclusion, the result of 15,000 cases, in these words—

"That the fatality of small pox, when it attacks the unvaccinated, is 350 per 1,000; that its fatality to such vaccinated persons as it infects is, taking them indiscriminately, 70 per 1,000; but, distinguishing vaccinated persons into two classes, those (1) who have been vaccinated in the best known manner, and those (2) who have been badly vaccinated, the fatality of small pox, if it infects the former, will be 5 per 1,000; if it infects the latter, 150 per 1,000; that the risk of the one will be thirty times the risk of the other."

Or, to state it differently, if attacked by small pox, one in three unvaccinated would die; one in seven imperfectly vaccinated; while only one in 200 would die if well vaccinated. But Mr. Marson's observations do far more than establish in a general way, in concurrence with others, the modifying power of vaccination. They have a merit peculiarly their own. They show conclusively that the degree of modifying power is in the exact ratio of the excellence and completeness of the vaccination as shown by the cicatrices; in other words, that it was directly as the amount of vaccine-marking and as the character of the marks. The following would show this at a glance better than any detailed statement:—

"Number of deaths per cent in each class respectively—1. Unvaccinated, 37. 2. Stated to have been vaccinated, but having no cicatrix, 23·57. 3. Vaccinated—having one vaccine cicatrix, 7·73; having two vaccine cicatrices, 4·70; having three vaccine cicatrices, 1·95; having four or more vaccine cicatrices, 0·55; having well-marked cicatrices, 2·52; having badly-marked cicatrices, 8·82. 4. Having previously had small pox, 19."

He thought those facts—and the examinations throughout Europe, very carefully conducted, had been attended by similar results—would establish, not only the immense security which vaccination afforded against small pox, but that, if rendered complete, the security would be still greater; and, therefore, it was the duty of the House to provide for the full advantages of a thoroughly effective system of vaccination. He would now state what were the defects of the present law which it was proposed to remedy. During the last few years inquiries embracing the whole of England and Wales had been made by competent medical men, some of whom were well known in the profession, and had published works on the subject—Drs. Seaton, Stevens, Buchanan, and Sanderson—and their reports had been published with the annual Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council. The statements which satisfied the Government that some further legislation was necessary were that 13 per cent of the children at public infant schools were still unvaccinated, and that of 3,350 deaths from small pox which occur annually in England, 56 per cent were those of children under five years, and 70 per cent those of children under ten. In the course of the inquiries, the arms of nearly 500,000 vaccinated children were examined; of these, one in eight had been perfectly vaccinated; not more than one in three could be considered as well protected; and in more than one case out of four the vaccination had been of a very inferior kind indeed. The main causes of imperfect and inefficient vaccination were ascertained to have been the frequency with which practitioners, instead of attempting fully to infect the system, had been satisfied with insertions of lymph sufficient to produce only one, two, or three ordinary vesicles, instead of four, the number which constitute perfect vaccination; the want of due attention to the selection of the lymph used in vaccinating; want of care in the performance of the operation, and the great and unnecessary extent to which the use of preserved and conveyed lymph was substituted for arm to arm vaccination. Two of the gentlemen named—Dr. Seaton and Dr. Buchanan—were authorized to inquire into the terrible outbreak of small pox which occurred in London in 1863, fatal to upwards of 2,000 persons. Observations made on upwards of 50,000 children in various national and parochial schools, workhouses, &c, showed that some of the children had never been vaccinated, that the large majority had been vaccinated in various manners and degrees, that of every 1,000 children without any mark of vaccination 360 had scars of small pox, while of every 1,000 who had evidence of vaccination only 1·78 had any such traces. Owing to these reports, very careful inquiries were made into the manner in which the Act had been carried out throughout the country, and the result had been the discovery of several defects in the working of the law. The principal defects arose from the improper arrangement of districts for vaccination, and from the way in which public vaccinators neglected to fulfil their contracts. Under the Act of 1853, the duties of the Boards of Guardians as to vaccination were as follow:—To divide the unions where necessary into vaccination districts; to contract with a legally qualified medical practitioner or practitioners for the vaccination of each district; to appoint such stations and fix such times for their attendance in the different districts as may enable the contractors efficiently to perform their duties and afford the greatest facilities to the public for obtaining vaccination, and in the words of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 100, s.1—

"To take the most effectual means for giving from time to time to all persona resident within such district due notice of the days and hours at which the medical officer or practitioner contracted with for such purpose will attend at such place to vaccinate."

The strict duties of the contractors in regard to vaccination were to attend at the station at the times specified by contracts, there and then to vaccinate those who come and to inspect the results on the eighth day; to register the vaccination and the result of the inspection, to give a certificate, if successful, to the parent or person in charge of the child, and to send a duplicate to the registrar of the sub-district in which the operation was performed. Under certain regulations, these duties might be performed by deputies. The Reports of the inspectors had shown that almost universally the subdivision of public vaccination was pushed to such an extent that the objects of the Act were defeated. They had shown that, as a rule, the attendances contracted for were such as would make habitual good arm to arm vaccination rare or impossible that often they were several times as numerous as the births in the same district, so that, even if every born child came to the public vaccination station, there would have been many fruitless attendances for each one vaccination performed. They had shown the division of districts to be such that the number of infants requiring to be vaccinated within one contractor's province was scarcely ever more than enough—very often far less than enough—to maintain first-rate continuous vaccination at even a single station, with a single weekly attendance. Notwithstand- ing that, the contract subdivided that amount of vaccination among several stations, and often bound the contractor to give at each station an amount of attendance which he must at once discover to be fruitless. That, under these circumstances, the contractor soon came to disregard a contract which he could not carry into effect, and the vaccination of his district was then carried on under no other law than his individual notions of fitness or personal convenience. Details to this effect abound in each inspector's Report, and the general result might be very briefly stated. Among 694 vaccination districts, with regard to which this matter was inquired into, only sixty-four were found where the contractor professed to follow regularly the plan of public vaccination prescribed by his contract. In at least 458 of the districts the places of public vaccination prescribed by contract were confessedly quite disregarded. In 252 of the districts the local registrar of births, in serving upon parents the statutory notice to have children vaccinated, either did not notify any fixed appointments for public vaccination or notified different appointments from those which the guardians had contracted for. These statements he (Mr. Bruce) quoted from the fourth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council. They showed that even if the system had been properly devised, its requirements had been grossly neglected. He was bound to say that the guardians were not exclusively in fault, but that something was due to the erroneous advice given by the central authorities, themselves ignorant of the manner in which the system could be effectually carried out. In 1840, when public vaccinators were appointed for gratuitous vaccination, the advice given was that the districts should be small, it being conceived that the vaccinator would therefore be more easily accessible to the people. But it was found by experience that it was absolutely necessary that there should he a proper correspondence between the number of children who were presented for the first time and the number who had been previously vaccinated; that good vaccination was only possible upon a great scale; and that where it was from arm to arm, unless the lymph were taken from a child within a certain period, it became weak and inefficacious, and the child vaccinated therewith did not derive all the benefit otherwise obtainable. The principal object of the Bill was to give the Poor Law Board power to re-arrange the districts as often as they should think proper, and also to revise the contracts, so as to remedy the defects stated. Another object was to secure more complete registration. That was only a means to an end, but it was a great one, and important results might follow the adoption of a complete system. It was proposed to increase the pay of registrars from 3d. to 4d.: 1d. to be paid on entry, and 3d., as now, on the completion of the vaccination. At present the certificate of vaccination was sent to the registrar, not of the district in which the birth took place, but of that in which the vaccination was performed, so that there were no means to show that a child whose birth had been registered had also been vaccinated. The Bill provided that the certificate of vaccination should be sent to the registrar of the birth. Hitherto the medical practitioner, not being a public vaccinator, had been bound to send to the registrar a certificate of vaccination without payment; the Bill proposed to cast the duty of transmitting it upon the parent or guardian. It did not propose to alter much the position of public vaccinators; their rate of payment would remain as before; but they would be obliged to act for fixed districts, instead of having a sort of roving commission over a whole union, They would also have to perform and they would be paid for duty performed at workhouses, which they were not at present. A good deal of dissatisfaction had been expressed with the rate of payment; but, after due consideration, it was not thought necessary to increase the burden imposed upon the ratepayers. Increased facilities were to be given to guardians to enforce the law. At present, before a person could be convicted of disobeying the Act it was necessary to prove service of notice upon the parent or guardian; that necessity—the proof being frequently of considerable difficulty—it was proposed to abolish. When a penalty had been once imposed, however trifling, the guardians hitherto could not prosecute for continued neglect; it was proposed to give them power to take further proceedings. In principle the Bill would make every man responsible for the non-vaccination of his child; and as every child born since 1853 and not vaccinated remained unvaccinated in defiance of the law, there would be no hardship in enforcing the law against all parents who had disregarded it in the case of all children not above thirteen years of age. The proposed amendments of the law would, he believed, conduce to greater efficiency in vaccination, both as to quantity and quality, without unnecessary interference or undue pressure upon the rates. A number of petitions which had been presented did not go so much against the Bill as against the principle of vaccination. One objection was, that it had been made the means of introducing into the system other diseases than small pox. On this point Dr. Seaton said—

"Those who have had most to do with the performance of vaccination, on the one hand, and those who have been most concerned in the treatment of infantile disease, on the other, concur in the belief of the non-communicability of disease by vaccination, Mr. Marson, in the performance of 50,000 vaccinations and more, 'has never seen other diseases communicated with the vaccine disease, nor does he believe in the popular reports that they are so communicated.' Such, also, was the experience of the late Mr. Leese, whose opportunities of observation were scarcely, if any, less. Dr. W. Jenner stated some years ago that at University College Hospital and at the Hospital for Sick Children he had had, in six years, more than 13,000 sick adults and children under observation, and that in no case had he reason to believe, or even to suspect, that any constitutional taint had been conveyed from one person to another by vaccination. Dr. West's experience of 26,000 infants and children under his care in seventeen years is to the like effect; in stating that he has seen nothing in that time to make him believe that vaccination excites cutaneous eruptions in any but very exceptional cases, he refers such exceptional eases to a disposition in the children themselves, brought out by the vaccination as it might have been by teething. And Professor Paget, speaking from his large experience among children in the out-patients' room at St. Bartholomew's, and enumerating some of the causes which develop cutaneous diseases in young children, says, 'Now, vaccination may do, though I believe it very rarely does, what these several accidents may do—namely, by disturbing for a time the general health, it may give opportunity for the external manifestation and complete evolution of some constitutional affection, which, but for it, might have remained rather longer latent. This is,' he adds, 'the worst thing that can with any show of reason be charged against vaccination; even this can very seldom be charged with truth.'"

A statement had been widely circulated that syphilis had been introduced into the system by vaccination. Millions of children had been vaccinated in the last sixty years, but not a single case had occurred in which it had been proved that syphilis had been communicated. A case was 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 medi- cal knowledge. No such case, so far as the most careful medical research could discover, had happened in this country. He did not think it necessary to argue the general question of vaccination. He had read many letters objecting to the compulsory system, but the House and the country were in favour of compulsory vaccination, and the only question was as to the best machinery for enforcing the law.

said, he believed that in many parts of the country there was a strong wish and disposition to see the question of vaccination put upon a footing more satisfactory than that it at present occupied. They had listened with interest to the speech just made, but he was afraid it contained many statements which would not pacify people's minds. One remarkable statement was that there had been an examination of 500,000 children belonging to the humbler classes. They were the class who were principally affected by what was called compulsory vaccination. Of the number so examined, only one in eight were found to have been perfectly vaccinated. This fact involved the further fact that seven out of eight were imperfectly vaccinated, or not vaccinated at all. The Bill provided that all children under thirteen not perfectly vaccinated were to be laid hold of and vaccinated again. ["No!"] He might have read the Bill wrongly, but he read it so. If only one in eight had been perfectly vaccinated, great doubt would come upon many people's minds as to what the others might have been vaccinated with—what the virus or lymph might have been that had been put into them. The right hon. Gentleman said that if you catch a child at a particular time the lymph is not good. This Bill contained no provision to obviate what was greatly complained of in the country—namely, the want of security not only that a medical man had necessary skill and experience, but that he obtained the proper lymph, or whatever it was that was necessary for the operation. Under the Bill you might catch a boy twelve years old and compel him to drink, but there was no statutory provision to prevent his being compelled to drink poison. This was the great defect in the Bill.

said, that under the Act of 1858 (the Public Health Act) every public vaccinator had to submit to an examination at one of the fifteen examining stations, and, in order to supplement the supply of lymph, the National Vaccine Establishment issued 200,000 charges of good lymph every year.

said, he was aware of these facts; but he must still ask, what became of the matter taken at a certain time from a child's arm? The failure in seven cases out of eight must arise from the arrangements as to districts preventing interchange between one vaccinated and one wanting to be. It was no answer to speak of the quantity of lymph which had been supplied. He might be wrong, but he knew the public impression was that there had been great difficulty in getting good vaccine, and he did not find in the Bill any security for the quality of the vaccine. If vaccination were to be compulsory, the question was, would the Bill improve the manner of doing it? One of the great blots upon the Bill was, that it failed to provide the security he had indicated. He believed that no service was well done unless it were well paid for. That was his firm belief, although the view might be a low one, and he believed that one of the main reasons why vaccination had been less successful than it otherwise might have been was that the public vaccinators had not been sufficiently paid. Time was of value to everybody, and medical men and lawyers thought more of it than others. When a man went three or four miles to a place where a lot of children were gathered together and was only paid a small sum per head, we knew very well that it was in human nature he would be apt to discharge his duties in a perfunctory manner. He believed that if they would pay men to do the work better they would have it better done. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) said they would not, but he believed that if they did not pay better they would not have the work one jot better done. Parents could gather a great deal for themselves on this subject, and their belief as to the way in which the work was done was one reason why many children were not vaccinated. It might be, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that a certain question was put, and that it was answered in a particular way, but that was because the question was a particular one—namely, whether anything mischievous happened when vaccination was properly performed? Of course there could be but one reply, in the negative, to that. But the mischief happened when the operation was improperly performed. Of course, it would be done unconsciously; the medical man had to do things in a hurry, and was paid very little. They all knew that when they wanted anything of this kind done the medical man told them a fine cock-and-bull story about waiting until he found a healthy child; and then it was all right and it was done. That implied that all persons ran some risk, and, although it might be said there had been no ca3e for sixty years in which disease had been communicated, they would not make him believe that medical men would take all these pains in cases where they were well paid, if there were not some grounds for doing so. They might not, perhaps, believe that any particular form of disease would be manifested, but complaints were made in his own county and neighbourhood that after vaccination children had been affected with some rash, or something or other. They could not all have had that in their constitution. When all the children were in the same boat, the fact carried a conviction which all the medical men in the world could not remove. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bruce) properly said, it was an abomination for any medical man to take the vaccine matter from a child otherwise diseased. Undoubtedly it was, but it was possible that a medical man might not know that the child from whom he took the matter was diseased; and that was the more likely to be the case when no particular notice respecting the examination of the child had been given to him. If a medical man asked the parents questions as to whether their children were suffering under disease, he would very likely incur the risk of receiving a slap in the face from the mother for his trouble in the matter. The clause requiring parents whose children had not been vaccinated by the public vaccinators to send in certificates of that fact was, he thought, rather complex and hard. He hoped that when they dealt with the clauses of the Bill that would be considered, and that provisions would be introduced for securing proper lymph and adequate payment for the work to be done. Another point he would mention was that the Bill in its present state would bring things to a dead lock if a Board of Guardians and the Poor Law Board happened to be awkward together.

said, he saw many defects in the Bill, which would require careful consideration in Committee in order to render it advantageous to the country. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) that the remuneration proposed to be given to the persons who were to carry out the provisions of the Bill was not adequate for the duties to be performed. There were, however, far more important objections to the Bill, which was most loosely drawn up, and which in its then shape would never be a satisfactory measure. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) in introducing the Bill made a very interesting and able speech, in which he went through the history of the laws relating to vaccination which had been passed since 1802 down to the present time, and which were to be repealed by the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman called the Bill a Consolidation Bill, whereas its very first clause proposed to repeal the major part of the six Vaccination Laws which had been passed during the reign of Her Majesty. He had told them that the present system was not satisfactory, and that four medical officers had been visiting different parts of the country during the last four years for the purpose of obtaining information upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had read a condensation of the Reports of those medical officers, which had been sent to the Privy Council and had been published, and which showed the existence of a most alarming state of things. It appeared from the Poor Law Reports of 1862 that of the 702,181 children born in that year only 437,693 were successfully vaccinated.

said, that was the number of children registered as vaccinated.

said, that the words of the Report were that only 437,693 children were successfully vaccinated. The right hon. Gentleman said that the great object of the Bill was to obtain good vaccine matter for vaccination, but the Bill did not mention when the matter was to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) had with justice laid great stress upon that point, as the medical officer of the Privy Council had stated that the vaccine matter, if not taken from the child on a particular day, became pernicious, and instead of doing good rather tended to create disease. [Mr. H. A. BRUCE: No!] The right hon. Gentleman said "No!" but the medical officers in their Report to the Privy Council stated that to be the fact; and, moreover, it was well known that country practitioners were compelled to take the matter from the arm on a particular day, or otherwise it became useless, if not pernicious. Another object of the Bill was stated to he the enforcement of the performance of the duties of the contractors and the medical practitioners, which were at present often neglected, and, in fact, its intention was to give the country a complete system of vaccination, which the Act of 1853 had failed to do. No doubt, if these objects could be attained, the Bill would be most beneficial to the country, but he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who would be responsible for the proper working of the Bill? No doubt in one of its last clauses it contained what he might almost call the offensive regulation that the registrars, who were to be so badly paid—they would only receive 3d. or 4d. for each child vaccinated—were to fulfil the duties of informers as to the children in their districts who were not vaccinated. This was very hard upon men who received such inadequate remuneration for their services. Again, in another clause at the end of the Bill, magistrates were required to send for their neighbours' children, and to examine their arms, in order to ascertain from the marks whether they had been properly vaccinated. This was a pleasant office to be imposed upon country gentlemen. He doubted whether any but the stipendiary magistrates would perform it. He could only express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of these subjects, should have permitted such a clause to be introduced into the Bill. Beyond those clauses the Bill contained nothing to show who was to be responsible for its proper working. Of the thirty-three clauses of the Bill, at least ten or twelve could never pass through Committee, or if at a late hour some evening they should pass, the whole Bill would be rendered inoperative if not prejudicial. He would, for instance, compare Clause 9 with Clause 26. Clause 9 enacted—

"No payment in respect of vaccination shall be made out of the common fund of any union, or out of the poor rate of any parish, or out of any other public or parochial fund, where the Poor Law Board shall not have approved of a contract for the performance thereof, or after they shall have determined any such contract; and every payment made contrary hereto shall be disallowed by the auditor in the accounts of every Board of Guardians, or of the overseers, or of any officer who shall have made the same."

On the other hand, Clause 26 was to the following effect:—

"The guardians of any union or parish may pay out of their funds all reasonable expenses incurred by them in causing notices to be printed and circulated as to the provisions of this Act, and in and about inquiries and reports as to the state of small pox or vaccination in their union or parish, and in taking measures to prevent the spread of small pox and to promote vaccination upon any actual or expected outbreak of that disease therein, and may compensate any officer appointed by them to prosecute persons charged with offences against this Act, or otherwise to enforce its provisions."

Thus Clause 26 gave a power to the Boards of Guardians the exercise of which Clause 9 expressly forbade, except in cases where contracts had been made. Again, by Clause 14—

"The registrar of births shall, on or within seven days after the registration with him of the birth of any child not already vaccinated, give a notice, according to the form in the Schedule hereto annexed marked A, or to the like effect, to the parent, or in the event of the death, illness, absence, or inability of the parent to the person having the custody of such child, if known to him, requiring such child to be duly vaccinated according to the provisions of this Act, and specifying the days, hours, and places where the public vaccinator of the vaccination district wherein such child resides, or the vaccinator of any station duly authorized by the Lords of Her Majesty's Council, will attend for the purpose of performing the operation, and such notice shall be accompanied with forms according to those in the said Schedule marked B, C, and D."

He held a letter in his hand pointing out the difficulty of carrying those clauses into effect. Surely it would be much better if the forms B, C, and D, were to be given to the medical officer and not to the parent or person having the custody of the child, by whom they would be sure to be mislaid. Clause 23 referred to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley)—namely, as to the amount of remuneration which persons were to receive for working the machinery of the Bill. He trusted that the House would, in its wisdom, on a matter of such grave importance—where it was impossible to overestimate the misery which would result from improper vaccination—direct that the persons carrying out the provisions of the Bill should be sufficiently remunerated for their labours. He understood that before Easter a deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill to bring the subject of the remuneration of registrars and medical practitioners particularly under his notice, and that the right hon. Gentleman had led those gentle- men to believe that he was prepared to deal with the matter in a liberal spirit. Looking at the Bill, however, he should suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had altered his mind upon the point. He also saw that the Bill directed that the parent of every child should take it to the public vaccinator, to be vaccinated within three months of its birth. In 1863, when he was the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he had introduced a Bill for the purpose of enforcing compulsory vaccination in Ireland. In that Bill be extended the time for compulsory vaccination to six months, which, in his opinion, was quite early enough for the purpose, and it had worked well. But this Bill enacted that the children should be taken to be vaccinated at the age of throe months, so that a child born in the month of October would have to be carried in the depth of winter to the medical officer, who, in many parishes, lived several miles distant. The Bill further made it imperative that the child should be brought before the vaccinator on the seventh day after the vaccination. In Ireland it was eight days, and medical men were generally of opinion that the eighth or ninth days were the best. He did not make these objections to the Bill with the view of obstructing the passing of such a measure, but with the intention of putting it to the House, whether there was not in this Bill matter which required very careful consideration, and whether it would not be better to postpone the Committee upon the Bill until the right hon. Gentleman had had time to re consider its provisions. What was required was a Bill which would give the country a complete system of vaccination, which he was afraid the present Bill would not do.

said, he regretted that the Bill had been so carelessly drawn up that it was impossible to shape it properly, either during the discussion that was then going on, or in Committee. One grave defect in the Bill was that it did not provide for the purity of the lymph to be used, as, if it were clearly understood that none but healthy lymph would be used, the chief objection of the lower classes to vaccination would be removed, The subject of vaccination was one of such vast importance that it demanded the fullest deliberation and inquiry before any steps were taken in the matter, and under these circumstances he did not hesitate to say that the subject should be postponed until a Bill could be drawn up, founded upon the recommendations of a Select Committee. He felt this so strongly that he could not in justice to himself, and to the millions affected by this legislation, do less than move that the Bill be now referred to a Select Committee.

said, that he seconded the Motion. He wished to advert to the dangers likely to arise from the use of unhealthy lymph. If the lymph were not removed within a certain time, it fermented and became putrid, and then, in the words of an eminent medical gentleman, it became as dangerous as the cut of a dissecting knife. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would permit this matter to go to a Select Committee. It was a question of science, and could only be advantageously considered in Select Committee.

said, he believed that the course recommended by the hon. Member for Marylebone to refer the question to a Select Committee was the best that could be adopted, as there were many points in the Bill which required full and careful consideration. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the proposition. The town which he represented had suffered much from this disease, and a number of suggestions had been made to him. There was a general opinion that the law at present was a dead letter.

said, he saw no objection to the question going before a Select Committee, provided no evidence was to be taken on the subject, which would throw the matter over this Session. Everything in connection with vaccination was well known, and if evidence were taken before the Select Committee, the only effect would be to give every person an opportunity of coming forward to ventilate his crotchets upon the question. The machinery of the existing system was far too complicated, a great deal of trouble being thrown upon the local authorities, in addition to the cost of £16,000 per annum. It would be an improvement of the system were the Privy Council to take the whole responsibility and management. Although the remuneration of medical practitioners might be ample in large towns, yet in country districts, where but few children were vaccinated at one time, he did not think the amount proposed to be allowed them was sufficient. He disapproved the clause relating to re-vaccination, as he believed that under it any grown-up person might be compelled to be re-vaccinated against his will.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that no evidence should be taken before the Select Committee, as "crotchets," as he called them, of medical men on this subject deserved careful consideration. He confessed that from all he heard from medical men, both English and foreign, he doubted the efficacy of the present system of vaccination, and therefore trusted that full inquiries would be made before a system of compulsory vaccination was forced upon the country.

said, that he had been intrusted with a great many petitions against this Bill. He could not help being struck by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill, that the present system had entirely failed in effecting its object. The Bill before them, besides being inaccurately drawn up, bore too much of the stamp of the official departments in which it had been prepared. Those departments had given great powers to themselves, but had not taken sufficient care to guard the public from the dangers likely to arise from the working of the Bill. He hoped that care would be taken, if compulsory vaccination were enforced by penalties, that public vaccinators should also be liable to penalties in case the vaccination were not done properly. As there were a great many people who believed that vaccination did just as much harm as good, he trusted that the inquiry of the Committee upstairs would not in any way be fettered. If they agreed to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs, that Committee could soon see whether they would be able to dispose of the Bill without further information. The best way was to leave it to the Committee to decide whether they should take evidence or not, and if it were necessary, a Motion could be made to allow them to take evidence.

said, he believed that the scale of remuneration to the medical officers was in many cases too low. He hoped the Bill would provide that no expense or trouble be spared to procure the proper vaccine, and thus to remove much of the prejudice which existed against vaccination among the lower classes.

said, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, especially as throughout the whole-of the discussion it had not received the support of a single Member. He would also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better, at the present moment, to withdraw the Bill, which was generally acknowledged to be defective in many of its clauses, and to introduce a fresh measure at no distant date, founded upon the recommendations of the Select Committee to which it was proposed to refer the Bill.

said, he could not agree in the suggestion that the Bill should be withdrawn altogether, but he heartily joined in the request made to the Vice President of the Council that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. His constituents thought there should be more inquiry before there was more legislation.

said, but for his unwillingness to interfere in the discussion, he should have risen long ago to state that he was willing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Although he did not wish that the power of taking evidence should be limited—being desirous of making the machinery as perfect as possible—it must be distinctly understood that they did not in any way go into Committee upon the principle of the Bill. As far as legislation could effect that result, the securing of the proper quality of vaccine had already been provided for, the fullest direction having been given to the medical officers on the subject. Any failure that had attended the efforts in this direction had been caused only by the want of power on the part of the central authorities. It was to secure better arrangements being made that this Bill was brought in. With regard to the suggestion which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth that the Bill should be dropped, he would have been quite prepared to show in Committee that the clauses which the right hon. Baronet regarded as defective were in reality not open to that charge. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Which clauses?] All of them. The clause refering to the seventh day, following the day on which vaccination was performed, in reality left the matter in the same position as it was now, and no medical man in the country would have dreamt of proposing any alteration in this respect. There appeared to be an opinion rife in some quarters that it was intended to take powers by this Bill to re-vaccinate adults, but that was not the case. The Bill gave power to issue regulations limiting the practice of re-vaccination but not enforcing it. The House seemed to have forgotten, with reference to the payment of public vaccinators, that the scale fixed by the Bill—of 1s. 6d. and 2s. 6d. in different cases—was the minimum payment to be made, and that the boards of guardians were empowered by the measure to fix a just and equitable scale. He fully admitted that in rural districts, where the minimum only was paid, the remuneration would frequently be inadequate. But the guardians had power in those and in all cases to increase the rate of payment, and in populous districts even the minimum secured by the Bill was generally considered sufficient. However, he would be extremely happy to have the assistance of a Select Committee on the Bill.

said, he begged to move a Vote of £660,000 for the purchase of a site and for other expenses in con nection with the new Courts of Justice. During the last Session an Act was passed providing for the erection of the new Courts of Justice. The expense was met by taking £1,000,000 from one of the great Chancery accumulated funds, by an appropriation of £200,000 as the value of the present Courts at Westminster, and by the imposition of a Rent of Courts Fee on suitors. It was provided that the expense in the first instance should be paid out of the Votes, and that the Exchequer should be recompensed out of the different funds. Accordingly, last year a Vote of £700,000 was taken for the purchase of the site. Owing to a difficulty in obtaining the site most of that money was not expended, and the Government now applied to the House to re-vote the amount not drawn.

said, he trusted that care would be taken to secure the best architectural talent of the country, in accordance with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck).

said, that since that proposal had been made the Courts of Justice Commission, who had originally considered the question of architectural competition, had held no meeting, and consequently he was unable to give his hon. Friend any information upon the subject. In a few days, however, a meeting would be held, and the proposal would receive due consideration.