§ MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether it be the fact that Mrs. Ann Jarvis, the widow of a soldier, was, in January last, fined at the Eastbourne Petty Sessions for the non-vaccination of two children, and ordered to pay £1 15s., including costs; whether she excused herself, on the ground of the belief of her late husband and herself, that one of their children had been formerly destroyed by vaccination; whether he is aware that such a belief was declared by the ex-President of the Local Government Board, Mr. J. G. Dodson, to be a sufficient excuse; and, whether Mrs. Jarvis, having been, since January, married to another man named Meredith, was, in default of payment, on the 22nd instant, taken by constables to Lewes Prison, without demand upon her husband, and while he was away at work, and leaving several young children uncared for?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELLWe have made inquiry as to this case, and from the information with which we have been furnished it appears that when Mrs. Jarvis was actually on the way to the medical officer for the purpose of having her children vaccinated she was met by a resident in Eastbourne who has acted as honorary Secretary of the local Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League, and that he persuaded her not to go, and promised that if she was fined he would pay the fine. In consequence, proceedings were taken against her, and she was ordered to pay 35s., including costs. We are assured that Mrs. Jarvis did not excuse herself on the ground that one of her children had been "destroyed" by vaccination. As regards the statement of the late President of the Board, we assume that a reply given in the House on the 28th of November, 1882, is referred to. The reply was to the effect that it was no legal defence to a summons under the Vaccination Acts for parents of children attacked with erysipelatous disease after vaccination to urge their fear of similar risk to their other children. He was not prepared to 349 assent to the view that, because one child may have suffered owing to mala praxis, or some accidental circumstance, all the other children should be deprived of the protection which vaccination affords. At the same time, it was open to the Justices in any such case to impose a nominal fine, or decline to make an order for the vaccination of the child; and he should hope that if any such case occurred it would be considerately and tenderly dealt with. Distress warrants were issued on the 6th of October, Mrs. Jarvis having married in the meantime; but as the police found no sufficient goods whereon to levy, an order of commitment was made on the 21st of November. During the interval the Superintendent of Police had one or more interviews with the husband as to the payment of the amount; but his reply was that he supposed the resident in Eastbourne above referred to would pay, as he had promised to do so. When Mrs. Jarvis was apprehended she was taken to the police station, pending the departure of the train to Lewes. Her husband was sent for; but he did not arrive until after she had left. We are informed that, according to her own statement, her children were well taken care of while she was in prison.