§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)asked the Secretary of State for the Home De- 861 partment, If his attention has been called to the case of the Rev. Thomas Maine, a Baptist minister of Ashton-under-Lyne, who, on the 9th of February, was summoned before the magistrates for neglect to have his child vaccinated; whether it is a fact that the summons was signed and issued by Dr. Cork, a public vaccinator for part of the borough of Ashton; and whether, when Mr. Maine appeared, Dr. Cork and also Mr. John Fletcher, a member of the prosecuting Board of Guardians, sat as magistrates on the Bench; whether Mr. Maine raised the objection that two interested persons were sitting in judgment on him; and whether this objection was ignored; and, whether, having regard to the decision of the Queen's Bench in 1879, on the case of "Betts and Co. v. Milledge, Robins, and others," Justices of Weymouth, he will take means to prevent in such cases the possibility of trial by a Bench partly composed of magistrates having a professional or official interest in the success of the prosecution?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)I have received a Report from the Justices as to the case of the Rev. T. Maine, of Ashton-under-Lyne. The summons was signed and issued by Dr. Cooke (not Dr. Cork); but he is not a public vaccinator for any part of the borough of Ashton, or for any other Place. Dr. Cooke and Mr. Fletcher (not Mr. John Fletcher, who was Chairman of the Board of Guardians when the order to prosecute was made) sat as magistrates on the Bench when the order to vaccinate the child was made. Mr. Fletcher is, I understand, a member of the Board. Mr. Maine did not raise the objection then. He did so on a subsequent occasion a month later, when he was fined for not complying with the order. On this latter occasion none of the magisstrates present were members of the Board of Guardians. Had he objected on the former occasion, I am informed by the Justices' clerk that Mr. Fletcher would, no doubt, have retired from the Bench. I have already called the attention of the Bench to the Question of the hon. Member and the case cited, and I do not think any further interference on my part is necessary.