§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the proceedings for attachment against the Keighley Board of Guardians, in consequence of a resolution passed by them that, in applying the compulsory powers under the Vaccination Acts, they would take into consideration the circumstances of each particular case, were taken by his authority or sanction; whether such proceedings are in accordance with the spirit and intention of his circular letter of instructions in March last to the Evesham Board of Guardians, in which he left large discretionary powers to them as to the manner and circumstances of applying the Act, on the ground that repeated prosecutions would produce mischievous results and excite sympathy with the prosecuted and a more extended opposition to the Law; and, whether six or seven of the Keighley Board of Guardians have been sent to gaol under the attachment?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHThe proceedings, Sir, for the attachment were taken by my authority and sanction; but it is not accurate to say that they were taken in consequence of the resolution as quoted in the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Guardians had refused to enforce the provisions of the Vaccination Acts in their Union, and there were great numbers of children who had not been vaccinated. The Local Government Board applied to the Court for a mandamus against the Guardians to compel obedience to the law, and, after a full argument, a mandamus was granted, requiring the Guardians to give directions to the vaccination officer to proceed against persons in default. The Guardians thereupon passed a resolution in obedience to the writ, instructing the vaccination officer accordingly, and this resolution was embodied in their return to the writ. The Guardians, however, have recently passed another resolution, rescinding all portions of resolutions which could be construed into general orders to prosecute, which is what they 1140 are required in the first instance to do, and instructing the vaccination officer that the Guardians reserve to themselves the dispensation of the Vaccination Acts. It was impossible to regard this resolution otherwise than as an act of disobedience to the mandamus, with which the Guardians had previously undertaken to comply. In consequence of this the Guardians were called upon to answer for the contempt of Court involved in their proceedings, and, after hearing all the parties, the Court, without hesitation, made the rule absolute for the attachment, the Chief Justice observing that it was about as gross a case of contempt as he had known for a long time. These proceedings are in no sense at variance with the spirit and intention of the letter to the Evesham Guardians, which does not apply to original prosecutions, but to cases where persons have been already fined for not complying with the law. The Guardians who were in contempt have not, so far as I am aware, been sent to gaol; and, in point of fact, the writs, though authorized, have not yet been executed, and it is to be hoped that, having been fully reminded of their duties by the High Court of Justice, they will yet see the propriety of giving the necessary directions for the enforcement of the law.