grandfather, things turned for the worse, and the English nation became more and more despicably sottish, until the great religious revival under Wesley, Whitefield, and the Evangelicals made a change for the better. It is thought that we are not at present in quite so bad a state as in the reigns of the early Georges, down to the close of our American War. But how is it that the successive ministries, ever since Charles II., have shown none of the zeal against drunkenness which was so active before the Commonwealth? How is it that since Lord Grey's Reform Act a series of ministries, Whig and Tory, have been callous, cold, and practically unconcerned at the steady and formidable increase of an evil which a Parliamentary Committee of 1834 denounced in terms of burning indignation; and that, while unable to deny the enormous magnitude of the mischief,-while perfectly aware that the magistrates in nearly every great town scandalously neglected the duty of repressing the dangerous trade, -yet not on one occasion for two hundred years past has a Lord Chancellor been known to reprove a magistrate for this neglect of duty, much less to displace, or threaten to displace him? Why did the ministries under James I. and Charles I. show a spirit so different from that of later ministries? Is there possibly any connection between this notable fact and another notorious fact, namely, that under Charles II. the Parliament gave to the king's Exchequer a new revenue from the Excise, which became more and more profitable, as did the duties on wine which are called Customs? So great has this source of revenue become, that it now exceeds thirty-three millions sterling in the year. But we are suddenly checked: we are reproved. No one ought to impute motives! It is outrageous to suggest that ministries connive at drunkenness in order to get revenue! Well; no doubt, to impute bad motives gratuitously is very wrong; yet if we may not speculate on motives, there can be no moral criticism. We are told that we ought to be charitable; but blindness is not charity. The charity here entreated or required of us is unhappily superfluous; for the ministries, and Parliament too, knew officially, from about 1826 onward, that, by the unlawful connivance of our Indian authorities, opium was smuggled into China for the sake of revenue to the Company. The ministries also connived, and hereby implicated themselves in war with China. Three wars with that injured country they fought, caused mainly by this opium traffic, which by dint of war they have compelled the Emperor of China to legalize. When challenged in Parliament ! by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, the late ministry did not dare to defend the morality of the opium traffic: all they could say for it amounted to this, that they could not afford to lose the revenue from it! Moreover, spirit shops have been introduced into India, to the disgust of Moslems and Gentoos, for no possible reason but to swell the revenue. It is therefore not charity, but mere simplicity, to doubt that from desire of revenue the successive ministers for two centuries back have connived at the magistrates' neglect of duty. If a Lord Chancellor were now as energetic as a Lord Keeper under Charles I.,—if he were to threaten whole benches of magistrates with removal unless scandalous drunkenness vanished,-we should need no new legislation; the existing laws are quite severe enough, if only there were the heart to execute them. No barbarism in England has been longer assailed than this uncivilizing vice. None has been cherished more obstinately by those whose duty was to control it. Unless the English nation brace up serious determination to extirpate both this and our other deadly barbarisms, good intentions and pious wishes will be unavailing to avert the natural results of vice in the people and folly in the governors. DE COMPULSORY VACCINATION. Written by request for a Public Meeting. 1884. EAR SIR,-You invite me to send forth from your platform my thoughts concerning our Compulsory Vaccination. I can only treat it from its moral, constitutional, and legislative side; and on all I deeply and unhesitatingly condemn it. (1.) As the rightful power of every King, so the rightful power of every Legislature, has limits notorious to common sense. No one may forbid Perfect Health, any more than command Vicious No one may command the infusion of Disease into a healthy body even as a punishment, that is wrongful. Again : No legislator may delegate his legislative vote, and make himself a mere voting-tool obedient to a medical expert. acts. (2.) By recommending Re-Vaccination the Medical Faculty confess that Vaccination has not permanent virtue: yet they cannot tell us how long it lasts. Eminent men declare that it cannot be depended on at all, at the precise time when (if ever) it is most needed; that is, in a season of prevalent Small Pox. Nature tries to throw off the Vaccine ulcer, and the stronger the vitality, the quicker it is thrown off, and normal health is regained. What then says the wise Surgeon? Re-vaccinate him!! This virtually avows, that the patient is to be permanently kept in real unhealth, in order to avoid possible disease! And an eminent advocate of Vaccination plainly confesses their aim to be the maintenance of an artificial state. (3.) Has not Parliament the wit to know, that the Medical Faculty thrives on public unhealth, and starves on public health; and therefore their advice ought rather to be listened to with cold suspicion than with modest deference. (4.) Vaccinators keep the Small-Pox register; and their Tables prove that in years of worst Small-Pox there is somewhat less Total Mortality. By no argument but that of Figured Tables do they plead for Vaccination; and lo! their own figures prove that (if they can prove anything) Small-Pox is an effort of Nature that saves us from something worse; and that no Government ought to concern itself about this disease more than about every other. To obviate it by extirpating its causes, is good sense; to infuse a new disease without caring to extirpate the causes of the existing disease, is a want of common sense. (5.) Nor only so; but to leave the causes of Small-Pox unchecked, and study to avert the coming out of the disease to the surface, is against all received principles. Nature tries to throw morbid matter out; Physicians dread this, while unable to deny that it lessens Total Mortality. A great Chemist has told Parliament that Vaccination saves 80,000 lives yearly. Indeed!!! (6.) When first it was asserted that Syphilis might be propagated by Vaccination, the doctors vehemently denied the fact, and Medical Writers declared (as in the Times), that if such a thing could be proved, Vaccination could not stand. But when it no longer could be denied, the doctors were not at all ashamed of the insults they had poured on Anti-Vaccinators; but, as if to smother us by pompous words, have only become more insolent and more dogmatical. (7.) Parliament has no right to infuse anything into the blood of the healthy how much less to infuse filth of which no expert can know the ingredients? and pretend to do it for health, and give no guarantee than it is not deadly poison ! (8.) Parliament has not defined what is Vaccination. Experts quarrel about it. It is a mere name, yet is imposed by law ! (9.) The Doctors by their zeal for Re-Vaccination betray their distrust of Vaccination, while boldly praising its virtues to their dupes, and not their silliest dupes, the educated classes.Yours truly, F. W. NEWMAN. TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDInburgh. |