§ MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mary Emma Cryan, described as a domestic servant, heard before justices at Leeds on the 23rd of May last, on a summons for an order to vaccinate her child; whether it be the fact that it was stated in her defence that the child was not in her custody, but was with her husband, its father, in Ireland; whether, notwithstanding, the justices made the order with costs, or three days imprisonment, saying, as reported in the " Leeds Express " of May 24th, "If you cannot obey it, that will be a good defence; " whether she had not been already prosecuted in respect of the same child, and made the same defence, to the knowledge of the vaccination officer prosecuting in both instances; and, whether such an order can legally be made without evidence that the defendant has the custody of the child required to be vaccinated?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHMy attention was first called to the case by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Notice of the Question, and I have since made inquiry on the subject. It appears to have been stated at the hearing of the case that the child was not in the custody of Mary Cryan, the person summoned, but was with its father in Ireland. I find, however, that the Guardians have reason to believe that this statement is untrue, and there were also suspicious circumstances with regard to the registration of the child's birth which, by means of these proceedings, they seemed to have desired to elucidate. It is the fact that the Justices made the order that the child should be vaccinated, and that one of them said "that if the defendant could not obey it that would be a good defence." I understand that the defendant has been prosecuted on two former occasions, and do not doubt that the same defence was made on those occasions. Upon the facts, so far as I have been able to ascertain them, I cannot say that the Justices were not empowered to make the order; because section 11 of the Vaccination Act, 1871, clearly contemplates that proceedings may be taken against a parent, although the child may not be in the Union at the time. I should add, however, that the defendant did not herself appear before the Justices, and no evidence was given or tendered on her part to show that the child was not within her custody or power.