MR. JAMESasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether Joseph Abel was, on the 31st ultimo, fined by the Faringdon justices 20s. with costs, 8s. 6d. and 21s. as a fee to the clerk to the Guardians as prosecuting solicitor, for refusing to have his child vaccinated; if he will state under what statute the fee made payable to the clerk to the Guardians is levied; and, whether, as the defendant has, during the last eighteen months, been fined £19, and still refuses to comply with the Law, he will endeavour to stay these proceedings?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHThere is no official information on this subject, but I have no doubt that the facts are as stated in the Question, and there is little to add to the Answer I have previously given in reference to the case. In reply to the second Question, I have no doubt that the fee of 21s. was levied under Jervis' Act, which is applied to prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts. Under that Act every complainant has a right to appear by attorney, and the Justices are empowered to order the defendant to pay to the complainant such costs as to such Justices may seem just and reasonable. I should add that it is the Vaccination Officer in these cases who appears as the prosecutor, and not the Guardians. I have already informed the Guardians of my views regarding repeated prosecutions; but the matter is one in which they must 465 exercise a discretion, and I do not consider that it is my duty, or, indeed, that I have any right to interfere further.