HC Deb 15 February 1895 vol 30 cc823-5
*MR. C. H. HOPWOOD (Lancashire, S.E., Middleton)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has made an order that, in the National Schools under his and his clergys control, no child shall, during the prevalence of small-pox, be admitted to such schools unless such child has been vaccinated, or, if over seven years, re-vaccinated; what authority has the prelate so to order; what law is there to compel re-vaccination in anyone; and, whether the law recognises that some children are unfit, by their constitution or ill-health, to undergo vaccination?

MR. J. MORLEY

I am not aware that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has made any order to the effect stated in the question of my hon. Friend. But I am aware that he has within the past few days communicated with the clergy under his control, suggesting the adoption of prudential means, under competent medical advice in each case, to guard against the spread of the smallpox epidemic, and asking them to confer with the teachers of the schools under their management, and arrange what steps should be taken to secure the effective vaccination of children of seven years of age and above. The general object of these communications, which, of course, are not mandatory, is to ensure, with the advice of the Sanitary Officers, due precautionary measures against the epidemic in the crowded schools in the City of Dublin and its suburbs. There is no law in Ireland compelling re-vaccination, except in the case of a child when the original vaccination was unsuccessful. The Vaccination Acts enable vaccinators in Ireland to certify, for sufficient cause, that a child is unfit to undergo vaccination when presented for that purpose and to postpone the operation.

*MR. HOPWOOD

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the father of a child does not agree with what the Archbishop proposes, would that be a sufficient ground for excluding the child from school?

MR. J. MORLEY

It is not a question of agreement or disagreement between the Archbishop and the father of the child, but it is a question between the father of the child, the managers of the schools, and the law of the land.

*MR. HOPWOOD

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the practice has been, with regard to schools in England, that the Authorities have no right to insist on this as a condition precedent to the child receiving education?

MR. J. MORLEY

I cannot answer any number of questions that may be put on the subject. So far as I can see, the action of the Archbishop in this case was perfectly natural.

MR. T. SEXTON (Kerry, W.)

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the parents of Dublin are extremely thankful to the Archbishop, and whether any case has turned up in which a parent has disagreed with the action of the Archbishop; and whether it would not be soon enough to determine the question when such a case has occurred?

MR. J. MORLEY

Judging from the Dublin newspapers of all opinions, the people are very glad of the action of the Archbishop.

*MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not consider it satisfactory that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin does not labour under the anti-vaccination mania of the hon. and learned Member?