But we have yet another example of an extremely well-vaccinated town in this epidemic—Warrington, an official report on which has just been issued. It is stated that 99*2 per cent, of the population had been vaccinated, yet the comparison with unvaccinated Leicester stands as follows:
| Epidemic of 1892-3. | Leicester. | Warrington. |
| S.P. cases per 10,000 population | 19.3 | 123.3 |
| S.P.„ deaths per„ 10,000„ population„ | 1.4 | 11.4 |
Here then we see that in the thoroughly vaccinated town the cases are more than six times, and the deaths more than eight times, that of the almost unvaccinated town, again proving that the most efficient vaccination does not diminish the number of attacks, and does not mitigate the severity of the disease, but that both these results follow from sanitation and isolation.
Now let us see how the Commissioners, in their Final Report deal with the above facts, which are surely most vital to the very essence of the enquiry, and the statistics relating to which have been laid before them with a wealth of detail not equalled in any other case. Practically they ignore it altogether. Of course I am referring to the Majority Report, to which alone the Government and the unenlightened public are likely to pay any attention. Even the figures above quoted as to Leicester and "Warrington are to be found only in the Eeport of the Minority, who also give the case of another town, Dewsbury, which has partially rejected vaccination, but not nearly to so large an extent as Leicester, and in the same epidemic it stood almost exactly between unvaccinated Leicester and well-vaccinated Warrington, thus:
| Leicester | had | 1.1 | mortality per 10,000 living |
| Dewsbury | had„ | 6.7 | mortality„ per„ 10,000„ living„ |
| Warrington | had„ | 11.8 | mortality„ per„ 10,000„ living„ |
Here again we see that it is the unvaccinated towns that suffer least, not the most vaccinated. The public of course have been terrorised by the case of Gloucester,
