§ MR. H. LEEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Lord Chancellor, after submitting to the Town Council of the Borough of Southampton the name of James Seward Pearce, the Sheriff of the town and county of Southampton, now declines to add his name to the Roll of Borough Magistrates; and whether the ground of objection is the opinion Mr. Pearce holds in relation to compulsory vaccination, and the fact of his having been fined for non-compliance with an order under the Act; and, whether the Government purpose to make this a disqualification in the case of all justices of the peace who hold similar views?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had communicated with the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and the Lord Chancellor stated that the grounds of his objection to Mr. Pearce did not relate to any opinion entertained by that gentleman, but to the fact that he had been twice convicted and fined by the borough magistrates for offences against the Vaccination Act. Of these facts the Lord Chancellor was unaware when he signified to the Town Council of Southampton that Mr. Pearce was a fit and proper person to be appointed a borough magistrate. The offences of which Mr. Pearce had been guilty were subsequently brought to the notice of the noble and learned Lord, who naturally came to the conclusion that a gentleman who had not himself recognized the duty of obeying the law was hardly a suitable person to add to the roll of borough magistrates.