HC Deb 06 June 1893 vol 13 cc317-9
* MR. HOPWOOD (Lancashire, S.E., Middleton)

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority the Board of Customs make the following requirements a condition precedent for the appointment of boatmen, &c, who are in other respects fit for the nomination they have received, namely— Have you had the small-pox? When were you last vaccinated? It is understood that a candidate who has not been successfully vaccinated within the last seven years will be refused admission to probation by the Board of Customs"; is there any law compelling re-vaccination; when was the practice adopted; and, in the absence of any law, will he use his influence to abolish indirect compulsion to a medical remedy not unanimously approved of?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby

I consider that it is very desirable that persons, whether in public or domestic service, should be protected from small-pox, both for their own sakes and for those by whom they are surrounded. I should certainly, for the safety of my own family, desire that those who live in my house should be vaccinated, and, if necessary, re-vaccinated; and I am not prepared to recommend a different practice in the Public Service. The Order as to vaccination has been long in force. The Order as to re-vaccination is dated 1881. I do not intend to deal with cither of them.

* MR. HOPWOOD

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if it is enforced in the higher ranks of the Service? Can the Chairman of the Board of Customs be called on to forfeit his position for neglecting to comply with the condition? SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not know, but I should strongly recommend the Chairman of the Board to be re-vaccinatod.

* MR. HOPWOOD

In consequence of the sportive replies of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter at the earliest possible moment, and point out that the condition referred to in my question is unjustifiable.

MR. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination concerning prosecutions for contumacious refusal to carry out vaccination was a spontaneous one on the part of the Commission, or whether it was a reply to a question addressed to the Commission from the Government; and whether he has any reason to believe that the Royal Commission considered the question to be one of urgency requiring to be dealt with before their Report was presented on the whole matter submitted to them?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fife, E.

The hon. Member in the first paragraph of his question asks me information as to what took place in the time, and, as he suggests, at the instance of, the late Government, of which he was himself a Member. I have no official knowledge on the subject; but I find that on February 29, 1892, Mr. Ritchie, the President of the Local Government Board, of which the hon. Member was Secretary, stated in this House that he had communicated with the Commissioners and had learnt from them that the matter would receive their consideration. As to the second paragraph, the Report speaks for itself. The Commissioners unanimously state that they have arrived at their conclusions quite independently of the question whether vaccination should continue to be compulsorily enforced, and I cannot conceive why they should have presented their recommendations, as they have done, in an Interim Report, unless they thought the matter one of urgency, fit for immediate legislation, and entirely independent of the larger questions submitted.

MR. HOPWOOD

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to an inquest held at Uttoxeter on the 17th of May, concerning the death of Thomas Henry Nash, a child nine weeks old, and the verdict of the jury that death was attributable to pyæmia or blood poisoning from vaccination?

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,) Derby, Ilkeston

The Local Government Board have obtained copies of the depositions taken at the inquest, and have sent them to the Vaccination Commissioners, whose practice it is to investigate any case of the kind referred to. The verdict of the jury was that Thomas Henry Nash did die from pyærnia, after 24th day of vaccination, and, from the medical evidence, such pyæmia would most probably arise from the vaccination having run together and caused much matter and inflammation.

* DR. MACGREGOR (Inverness-shire)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that blood poisoning may arise from any surgical operation, however skilfully performed?

SIR W. FOSTER

Yes, Sir; any slight abrasion of the skin may lead to pyæmia equally with vaccination.