§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether during this month 712 in the Bradford West Riding Court there have been some dozen persons, resident in Cleckheaton, Scholes, Wyke, and Hunsworth, fined for breach of the Vaccination Laws, and whether these defendants severally pleaded the conscientious objection that vaccination was injurious to the health of their infant children; whether Charles Hayward, of Ashworth, was, on the 31st January, 1888, fined for the 27th time for refusing to have his two children vaccinated; and, whether the total fines and costs imposed on Charles Hayward, who is in a humble condition of life, amount to £44 18s.?
§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)I am informed by the Clerk to the Justices that during the present month 21 persons resident within the North Bierley Union, which includes Cleckheaton, Hunsworth, and Wyke, were proceeded against for neglecting to cause their children to be vaccinated. None of the persons appeared either personally or by solicitor, and no one attended on their behalf. No statement was made before the Justices as to the conscientious objection of the parents to vaccination, except that the vaccination officer stated that an Anti-Vaccination Society had been formed, and that he believed that some of the parents that were summoned were members of the Society. The Local Government Board have received no complaint of the proceedings in any of these cases. As regards the case of Charles Hayward, I am informed that he has been fined for the non-vaccination of two of his children 25 times, and that the penalties imposed amount to £22 10s., and the costs to £22 9s. As regards these repeated proceedings, the Guardians have informed the Board's Inspector that they consider that there is no hardship in the case, as Hayward's fines are paid by the Anti-Vaccination Society for Kent. Hayward, I believe, is employed at the works of the South Eastern Railway Company.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)asked, whether it was not the fact that Hayward had been fined twice, and even thrice, within the limits of the same borough; and whether such prosecutions were not inconsistent with a General Order of the Local Government Board?
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was a matter entirely within the discretion of the Boards of Guardians to exercise their jurisdiction in such matters in the way they thought best.