§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that the Banbury Board of Guardians passed a Resolution, on the 6th day of November, "That this Board do not in future direct prosecutions against those persons who object to have their children vaccinated;'' and, if it is true that an outbreak of small-pox took place lately in that town?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, it was a fact that in November last the Banbury Board of Guardians passed such a resolution as that referred to in the Question of the noble Lord. The subject was brought under the notice of the Local Government Board, who immediately pointed out to the Guardians that the resolution could have no legal force or effect, because it was in defiance of the provisions of the law. It was also true that in the spring of this year an outbreak of small-pox occurred in the Banbury district; and the Local Government Board thereupon called the attention of the Guardians to the serious responsibility which they would incur by continuing to neglect putting in force the Law upon the subject and providing facilities for vaccination and re-vaccina- 126 tion. It did not appear that the Guardians had rescinded their resolution, and the question arose what course should be pursued in order to enforce obedience to the law. There was some difficulty in the matter in consequence of a doubt as to the proper course to pursue. The Law Officers of the Crown had advised the Local Government Board that the vaccination officers were bound to carry out the requirements of the law, even in the face of such a resolution of their Guardians as that referred to. This seemed to be a position in which the vaccination officers ought not to be placed, and a short Bill had been prepared and submitted to the other House of Parliament, which would set all doubts aside for the future. He had no doubt that when that Bill came down to that House it would be speedily passed into law, and the difficulty would thus be got over.