§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether James Bamford was sentenced by the magistrates of Newport Pagnell, on or about 10 February, to 28 days' imprisonment in Northampton Gaol for refusal to have his two children vaccinated; whether two of the magistrates on the bench were clergymen; whether James Bamford was arrested at his work in Kettering, and handcuffed; whether the practice of handcuffing in such cases has been condemned by successive Home Secretaries; whether Bamford is subjected in gaol to precisely the same treatment as if he had been condemned for theft or assault; and, whether he will consider the practicability of making some discrimination in prison treatment between ordinary criminals and conscientious recalcitrants against the Vaccination Laws?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)James Bamford was on the 2nd of February sentenced to pay a fine for not complying with an order of the Justices to have his two children vaccinated. In default of payment he was committed to prison for two consecutive periods of 14 days. Two of the magistrates were clergymen. Bamford was arrested in the street at Kettering. He voluntarily accompanied the police officer to the station, and was not handcuffed. He was there met by an officer of the Bucks Constabulary, who thought it necessary to put a handcuff on his left hand, as the prisoner was a young and active man, and had left Buckinghamshire to evade service of the summons. It has been the opinion of the Home Office for some time that handcuffing should not be used unless there is fair ground for supposing that either violence may be used or an escape at tempted. Bamford's treatment in this case has not been the same as it might have been if he had been convicted of theft or assault. He has not been "tasked" or put to hard labour of any kind. It is true that this is the second proceeding against Bamford for non-compliance with the Vaccination Acts. I do not see my way to modify the prison treatment of a person who has disobeyed the law on the ground that such disobedience proceeded from con- 1574 scientious motives, the bona fides of which it would be difficult to ascertain.