HC Deb 18 August 1887 vol 319 cc950-2
MR. BARRAN (York, W.R., Otley)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the cases of Jesse Stead, Thomas Bottomley, and Frederick Fawcett, who were summoned to appear before the West Riding Magistrates, sitting at Otley on the 29th of July, for non-compliance with an. order made on them requiring the defendants to have their children vaccinated; and, whether, if the statement is true as stated, that the magistrates refused to hear Mr. J. H. Farthing, who appeared on behalf of the defendants, he will take steps to see that justice may be done in their cases, and prevent, as far as possible, the infraction of the 11th section of the Vaccination Act, which provides that the defendant in any proceedings under the prescribed Act may appear by any member of his family, or any other person authorized by him on his behalf?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

Yes, Sir; my attention has been, called to this case, and I have received a Report from the Justices upon it. I am informed that Mr. Farthing was fully heard on behalf of the defendants when the case first came before the Justices. On that occasion orders were made that the children should be vaccinated within a month. When, the summonses for non-compliance with these orders were heard on the 29th of July no medical certificate of unfitness, and no other evidence showing a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the orders, was produced or given; and, under those circumstances, the Justices declined to hear Mr. Farthing again on the general subject of the objections to vaccination. There does not seem, therefore, to have been any material infraction of the 11th section of the Vaccination Act.

In reply to a further Question,

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that if parents did not comply with an order they were summoned to show cause why they did not do so, and they were entitled to assign any reasonable ground of excuse for not having complied with the order, such as that a child was not in a fit condition to be Vaccinated. But it was not a reasonable ground of excuse that a parent had a conscientious objection to vaccination.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

Have the magistrates a right to assume what will be the character of a defence to be offered by a defendant who has not complied with an order?

MR. MATTHEWS

Clearly not.

MR. BARRAN

Are the magistrates justified in refusing to hear a person appointed by defendants before they know the line he is going to take?

MR. MATTHEWS

I have said nothing of the sort. On the contrary, I think they are bound to hear all that the Statute requires to be heard.

MR. BARRAN

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the magistrates to the effect that, as far as appearances go, they violate the law by refusing to hear Mr. Farthing.

[No reply.]