HC Deb 24 May 1907 vol 174 cc1271-91

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

SIR JOHN BATTY TUKE (Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities)

, who was indistinctly heard, moved the rejection of the Bill. He had, he said, many object to the Bill, not the least of them being that it was neither one thing nor another. It would meet the views neither of the vaccinators nor of the anti-vaccinators, and would afford increased opportunities for evading the law, thus constituting a danger to the public health. While not wishing to discuss the methods by which the controversy as it affected the conscientious objector had been conducted, he might be permitted to say that, if it had been conducted on the high level adopted by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, the whole position would have been much better than it was to-day. He contended that the Bill, if passed, would have the effect of increasing the agitation and the number of the extremists. He believed it would not affect the honest objector to vaccination, for he was at present willing to sacrifice himself and to take some trouble to vindicate his opinions. The really honest conscientious objector was not numerically dangerous. But unluckily, even the honest conscientious objector dragged in his train a large number of persons who had no settled convictions on the subject, such as ignorant or careless parents and guardians; and that was the class that was really dangerous and for which this Bill was devised. The result of such persons merely making a declaration before a Commissioner of Oaths, without giving reasons for belief, would be that in a short time the Vaccination Acts would become useless as a public health measure. The 85 or 90 per cent. of vaccinations which took place under the present law would be reduced to 50 per cent. or even lower. The anti-vaccination societies would spread it abroad that the Acts were practically dead, and literature would be scattered over the country. Possibly those societies might retain the services of Commissioners of Oaths for the express purpose of arranging times and places where the declarations might be made, and it was possible they might arrange for domiciliary visits from door to door for the purpose of getting people to make the declarations. It might become an actual business, as the Commissioner of Oaths would receive from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. for merely signing his name. He objected to the proposal to put it into the power of the registrars of births and deaths to supplement their incomes by handing, along with the certificate of birth, a leaflet indicating that vaccination might be overrated. Other means might be adopted, but such as he suggested would render the whole thing a farce, and the work of the last thirty or forty years would be thrown away, along with the experience gained by the investigation of a strong Commission, and the results of observation gained in this and other countries. Then we should stand alone among civilised nations. As a humanitarian he could not let the Bill pass, for, as had been well said, it would result in infanticide by omission. There were mysterious influences governing epidemics of infectious diseases. They thought they were done with the plague in Europe, but they had been disillusioned by the epidemic of 1900. The same might be said of spotted fever, and typhoid and diphtheria startled them from time to time. It was true to say that at the present time smallpox was in abeyance, but as surely as the sun would rise to morrow, smallpox would reappear in our midst to work its deadly power amongst us. If the Bill passed, it would find us not only unprotected, but a community unprepared to cope with the pest. A large section of the community would be unvaccinated, and when an epidemic arose there would be a rush of persons to be vaccinated, and then it would be found that the local authorities were not able to meet the demand. Within the last few years, in areas in which smallpox had broken out, people had been seen standing at the doors of vaccination establishment much in the same way as people were accustomed to take up positions outside the doors of a theatre. He often wondered whether the anti-vaccinists had ever seen an epidemic of smallpox among an unprotected community. If they had gone through that experience, as he had on more than one occasion, he thought they could not fail to realise the horrible condition of things that ensued from the outbreak of smallpox. It was also urged against the practice of vaccination that sanitation was a more effective preventive against the disease of smallpox. No one was more willing than he to grant local authorities greater powers in the enforcement of sanitary precautions, but at the same time hon. Members should look at the experience of other countries. Of all European countries, Germany presented the most valuable series of object-lessons. Sanitation there was still very inferior to our own system and practice. In certain large cities in Prussia there had been, no doubt, a great improvement in that respect, but in the small towns the state of affairs was bad indeed. In Germany smallpox could not be said to exist, for the death rate was represented by a small decimal. At the same time occasional oases did arise. Those were almost invariably on the eastern frontier where people from unvaccinated Countries came in. But when the disease did cross the frontier it did not spread. The cases were only sporadic. There was now an epidemic at Metz; but the Conditions were not yet known and could not be cited on either side. But he was told that around Metz there were thousands of labourers from Italy, Rumania, and Russia; and, if he were a betting man, he would readily wager that the people whom the epidemic had touched belonged to that unprotected class. With few exceptions, all civilized countries adopted vaccination with great advantage; and in those circumstances were the Government justified in bringing forward this Bill, which sapped the very foundations of the Vaccination Acts? At the instance of a small section of the community, the President of the Local Government Board was throwing the responsibility on to the shoulders of the illiterate; but in the long run the responsibility must be his. But it must be admitted that the time had come for a revision of the working of the Act; and he would suggest that the Bill should be abandoned and a small representative Committee appointed. Such a Committee might arrive at a modus vivendi which would be the foundation of a Bill acceptable to all sides. But if this Bill were passed all consideration of the subject would be in abeyance for many years. He begged to move.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

seconded the Motion. He regretted that a matter of such grave importance should be discussed in so thin a House. This Bill would settle nothing. It was regarded by the anti-vaccinists as an instalment leading up to the larger policy of the abolition of the Vaccination Law. He wished to know whether the Government accepted that policy or not. He was quite sure the President of the Local Government Board would not say that he was opposed to compulsory vaccination.

*MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

He says there is no such thing as compulsory vaccination.

*MR. CAVE

said he could not agree with the hon. Member. He could not conceive that anyone who had looked at the figures would willingly do anything to diminish the efficacy of the Vaccination Acts. The figures relating to the London epidemic of 1901 were conclusive. It was beyond dispute that, whereas the great majority of the people of this country were vaccinated in 1901, the great majority of those attacked in the epidemic of that year were among the unvaccinated; and the death rate was very much higher among the unvaccinated cases than among the vaccinated. It was beyond controversy from those figures that vaccination was a real protection against attack, and against a fatal termination to attack when it did occur. The overwhelming opinion of this country and elsewhere was in favour of vaccination. But, assuming that it ought to remain compulsory, was this Bill necessary or desirable? Was the present system satisfactorily administered? There had been cases in which magistrates exceeded their powers, but he believed that those cases were very rare indeed, and the cases which had occurred were repeatedly brought forward and, as he thought, magnified by those who were wholly opposed to vaccination. Admitting that there were a few such cases, he thought that an easy remedy might be provided by giving to the applicant a right of appeal, either to the Local Government Board or to some other authority; and also that the certificate of exemption should have effect, not throughout the child's life as at present, but only for a certain number of years. The effect of the Bill was to make it much easier to obtain exemption. He quite admitted that the persons who now claimed exemption came within the category of conscientious objectors; but, if they made the process as much easier as the Bill proposed, they would have persons in all classes, either from mere carelessness or from unwillingness to; undergo the trouble incident to vaccination, signing the declaration, and the number of exemptions would be very seriously increased. If that were so, the President of the Local Government Board was taking upon himself a grave responsibility. He believed that, by the Bill, they were running a risk of exposing the people to a serious increase of the very dangerous and loathsome disease of smallpox.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'" (Sir John Batty Tuke.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN-BURNS,) Battersea

On a previous occasion, on 25th April, 1906, the House will remember that I promised, on behalf of the Government, four or five points with regard to the question of vaccination, both with regard to certificates of exemption and the administration of the Act, and I believe it will simplify the proceedings this afternoon and lead to brevity in debate if I recapitulate what was promised and what the Government intend to do. The first thing we promised was a reduction in the cost of vaccination, which, it is generally agreed, has, in recent years, been unduly inflated. Only the day before yesterday I issued a Vaccination Order that carries out to the full the pledge I gave on 25th April. Then we promised some form of statutory declaration in lieu of the existing exemption certificate; and this Bill gives effect to that promise. Then we promised that we would do our best to secure uniformity of action by the magistrates pending the adoption of the other measures promised, and in May of last year the Home Secretary issued a circular advising magistrates not only to be more discreet, but more reasonable and uniform in the practice of administering the Act. I then said that we would do our best to consider the advisability of transferring the administration of vaccination from the boards of guardians, who, in my judgment ought never to have had this duty, to the public health authorities, in whose purview I think that this duty more reasonably comes. Personally I am strongly favourable to that being done as soon as circumstances will allow. Everyone sees that the Poor Law system is now in the melting pot. The Poor Law Commission is sitting, and until that Commission has reported I cannot carry out what I would like to do, that is, transferring the administration of this Act, with cognate functions and duties, from the boards of guardians to public health authorities so soon as it can be done. I believe that the general opinion of medical men is, whatever their view with regard to vaccination, that the sooner we codify the public health functions and duties which are now distributed over a large number of bodies, some of which in my opinion are not qualified to discharge them, the better it will be. Then I promised that I would consider the suspending of vaccination from early infancy to some sensibly later period. On this point I have the approval of the hon. Member for Sleaford and the Homeric yet approving nod of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities, but until those two sides of opinion reconcile themselves more amicably on other phases of the vaccination question than they do on this particular point, I cannot see my way at this moment to redeem my promise, although I am considering the question of suspending vaccination to a later period, and I am personally in favour of it. I am pleased to see that even the Jenner Society recommend suspension and postponement with some unanimity, and I see no reason why we should not trend in that direction. The Government has done its best to keep faith and to fulfil the promises that were made on 25th April of last year. Before I deal with the Bill may I say that it is a subject of congratulation to everybody that the terrible scourge of smallpox is growing smaller by degrees and beautifully less. It is cheering to know that in 1906 in England and Wales there were only twenty-one deaths from this particular disease, while in the great City of London, with nearly 5,000,000 people, there were only twenty-seven admissions and not a single death last year. That, of course, we can all be pleased about, but the rival advocates of different theories will interpret it variously. I do not intend this afternoon, however, to indulge in any medical controversy with the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities. My promises do not pledge me to rake over the ashes of either the statistical or argumentative controversies with hon. and learned Members who on the medical side are better qualified than I am to take their several parts. I am here to justify the Bill which is before us, and as briefly as I can to say what it is. Its object is to effect an alteration in the system of obtaining exemption from the penalties for neglecting to have a child vaccinated. The Bill is intended to secure that object by substituting a statutory declaration for the certificate of conscientious objec- tion as required by Section 2 of the Act of 1898. It is interesting and important at this moment that the House should realise what happened when the Act of 1898 was passed. The Government of that day had to meet the general opinion of the House, and they decided that some provision should be made for the conscientious objector. Under Section 29 of the Act of 1867 there was a penalty of 20s. for neglecting to have a child vaccinated, and there was another penalty of 20s. for disobedience to a justices' order under Section 31. The Government in 1898 proposed to limit the penalties to one prosecution. The House then said that they did not go far enough, and the right hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division proposed a clause for the conscientious objector which he had good reason for subsequently withdrawing in favour of a new clause brought in by the Government itself. That clause became Section 2 of the Act of 1898, and it is not material at this moment that I should read it. Discussion arose as to the precise form of the clause, especially as to the word "satisfies." It seems to me that those who are responsible for the insertion of the word "satisfies" are, from different points of view, more or less responsible for the necessity of amending the Act as this Bill seeks to do. Since 1898 in regard to the administration of that clause, all that was predicted at the time as to its operation has come to pass, and the right hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division, and the hon. Members for Bethnal Green, and Northampton can claim that they were more prescient than were the framers of the Act of 1898. What has come to pass? Owing to the presence of the word "satisfies" we have a state of things which I venture to say is not respectful to the law, is a nuisance, and should be abated as soon as possible. Even the hon. Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey admits that some of the magistrates have exceeded their powers. In my judgment, they have not only exceeded their powers, but they have gone far beyond that description of the misuse of their powers, and of their exalted position, by doing things which were not contemplated by those who framed the Act of 1898. Let me give one simple illustration of what I mean. Here we have a case in April, 1906, of a refusal of three applications for exemption, at Dorchester Police Court. The Chairman dismissed a fourth application with the remark that he knew the benefits of vaccination, for he had seen them all over the world, and he would never grant a certificate of exemption from vaccination. That admirable weekly paper, Truth, makes it a practice to pillory nearly every week the magistrates who indulge in this extra judicial function of misinterpreting the word "satisfies," and provoking resistance to the Vaccination Act, which, if it had been more reasonably and more fairly administered, would not have received the amount of abuse which it now gets. But we go from the action of the magistrates, of which this is a typical example, to the sober and responsible periodical The British Medical Journal. In March, of 1907, they said— We have for some considerable time held the view that, the methods adopted by some magistrates towards those applying for certificates are vexatious and likely to foster opposition. That confirms the general view of the Government that this sort of thing cannot be allowed to go on much longer. It became so intolerable that the Home Office had to quote in two consecutive circulars which the Department issued some words, wisely and weightily addressed to the magistrates by the present Lord Chief Justice, asking the magistrates to do their duty in a way that would not give offence to applicants who wanted to be exempted. The first complaint is that parents are compelled to attend the Court in order to obtain a certificate of exemption, and are more or less placed in a quasi-criminal position. Many people object to go to Court, in regard to what, after all, is more or less a matter of opinion. Secondly, they say that they ought not to be subjected to the necessity of going before the magistrates as they now are; and that, thirdly, they ought not to be asked, as they frequently are, after they have satisfied other conditions, to produce the certificate of birth of the child, a proceeding which costs 2s. 7d. These are the three chief objections to the Act as it stands; and this Bill substitutes a statutory declaration of objection by the objector before a Commissioner for Oaths, or before a Justice of the Peace or before a stipendiary magistrate. This declaration is in a simple form, and is embodied in the schedule to the Bill. I do not think that anybody can say that it is not sufficiently clear. Here is the form of the declaration— I, A. B., in the parish of so-and-so, in the county of so-and-so, being the parent or person having the custody of the child named C. D., who was born on such a date of such a year, hereby do solemnly and sincerely declare that I conscientiously believe that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child, and I make this solemn declaration, believing the same to be true, by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835. Dated this day, declared before me," etc.— —a Commissioner for Oaths, or Justice of the Peace, or other officer authorised to receive a statutory declaration. On delivery of this, within seven days after making the declaration, to the vaccination officer, the applicant becomes, entitled to exemption from penalties without going before the Court. He is, moreover, exempt from the stamp duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will generously waive, and then so far as the applicant is concerned, the matter is at an end. He will have to pay the small fee which is necessary under the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835, which fee varies from 1s. to 2s. It may be objected that the Bill will make the way of conscientious objectors too easy. That is a point which has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities, but, if he looks up the literature of the subject, he will find that his predictions to-day are a kind of replica of those which were made in 1898. On reference to the figures, we find that the percentage of objections since 1898 has been practically the same. In 1898 they were nearly 5 per cent. of the total vaccinations, that is to say, they went from 3 to 4, and to 4.8 per cent., so that the predictions which were made have not been verified to the extent that it had been thought they would be. I can only add that this Bill is the logical consequence of the illogical findings of the Royal Commission itself, of the Act of1898, and of the illogical character of the original Act of 1867. It may well be said that we ought to build on a logical basis. But the English people are not a logical people, and I sincerely trust that they will never become so theoretically logical as some would like them to become, and that they will never codify their action to such an extent that they will deprive themselves of that power of initiation and that liberty and capacity for experiment of which this Act is one of the most illuminating illustrations. I can only say that the Royal Commission itself contemplated a statutory declaration of some kind, and in the alternative they wished to call the parent before the local authority. I venture to say that to ask the father to go before the local authority is, from the point of view of the parent, more inconvenient and, perhaps, more irritating to him, than to go before the Magistrate or the Commissioner for Oaths. If you cannot satisfy the modern justice of the peace you will not satisfy the local authority, which might be acting through a single officer, or through a Committee, or through the full body. In my judgment, the local authorities for this purpose would be more unsatisfactory than the magistrates. The hon. Member for the Kingston Division suggested that if the magistrates exceeded their powers, a limited form of appeal should be allowed; but I think he will find it very difficult to invent any tribunal to whom such an appeal could be made. If we decided that it should be a committee of either the parish, urban, or county council, it would at times be more inaccessible to the parent than would the Commissioner for Oaths, the justice of the peace, or the stipendiary magistrate, and, personally, it appears to me that the hon. Member for Kingston by his suggestion has contributed in no way to showing us a road out of our difficulty. Rather, he has shown us how complicated this particular matter is. Then the point arises, who shall be the person who shall be entitled to take the statutory declaration? I have given great consideration to this, and I am satisfied that in the big towns it may be the stipendiary, in the country it must be the justice of the peace, and everywhere it must be the Commissioner for Oaths. It has been suggested that we should have the registrars instead of the Commissioners for Oaths and the magistrates. Personally, I see no reason for this. The registrar in no sense or form is connected with vaccination, and it is undesirable, in my opinion, to create any more vested interests in connection with vaccination. The point with me is what will lead to the most harmonious administration of the Act—which means, who are the largest body of people who should be called upon to carry out this work. There are about 2,000 registrars in England and Wales, and there are from 10,000 to 12,000 solicitors who are commissioners for oaths, and, if hon. Members are in favour of this Bill, or of something that goes beyond it, then they will find it infinitely more convenient to have 10,000 or 12,000 commissioners for oaths, who are five times more numerous than the registrars, and, therefore, to that extent, are more accessible to those intending to apply for exemption. I rule the registrar out altogether; I prefer the 10,000 or 12,000 commissioners for oaths, who will get the fee of 1s. 6d. Then I add to the commissioners for oaths the 17,000 or 18,000 magistrates; and, in my opinion, for the successful working of this Act, it is necessary to take the line of least resistance, and I therefore think that it will be much better to have 30,000 centres for applicants than to have only 2,000. For this reason I rule out the registrars. In all cases where the magistrates or the justices of the peace receive a fee, they will not receive it personally, neither will the clerk, but it will go into the county fund and be used for some public purpose. The registrar has now the duty of registering the child for another purpose, and that is my strongest objection to his coming in. He has to register the child within six weeks of its birth, and, if he is allowed to do it for another purpose, he will be anxious to register the child for both purposes within six weeks. Anti-vaccinators, as well as those who are in favour of vaccination, I think agree that it would be better to have the child vaccinated near the expiration of four months rather than within the expiration of six weeks. Therefore, that point weighs with me. Another point which weighs with me in the administration of this Act is that we ought not to have any officer, however important his functions may be, to whom the granting of a statutory declaration would mean an increase of his professional business. It is exceedingly important to satisfy all sections in this controversy, and I think that the commissioners for oaths, the magistrates, and the justices of the peace should be regarded as neutral persons who will impartially carry out the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835, and receive their fees for the statutory declaration and for no other purpose. If the registrar wore to be called in for fees, then it would be to his interest to discourage or persuade an applicant. The Bill gives the parent a free choice and a simple way of exercising it. I prefer to take the broader and better view that the magistrates, justices of the peace, and the commissioners for oaths are twelve times more numerous than the registrars and, therefore, proportionately more accessible, which is a very important point in the administration of this Act. I have decided, therefore, that the statutory declaration is better in the hands of the magistrates, justices of the peace, and commissioners for oaths, than it would be in the hands of the registrars of births, deaths, and marriages. I sincerely trust that there will not be said of this Bill three or four years hence what was said and predicted of the Bill of 1898. I believe that the nuisance which has grown up under the Act of 1898 is intolerable and cannot be allowed to continue. The conscientious objector resents being insulted in court, and he asks a more convenient way of claiming exemption. I consider that this is a simple and useful Bill for the achievment of that object, and I commend it to the House in the hope that it will be received with hearty sympathy and be read a second time.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said he welcomed this Bill as being better than nothing, and he regretted that the Government had not seen their way to abolish the penalties altogether. The present position of matters was really very anomalous and absurd. Parliament was induced to pass the Vaccination Acts by the solemn declaration of the medical faculty that vaccination would be an absolute protection against smallpox, but nobody put forward that contention now. He was sorry that the Government had not been bold enough to go so far as to remove the neglect of vaccination altogether from the purview of the criminal law. Taking the Bill for what it professed to be, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would be prepared to accept Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion promised that a statutory declaration by either parent should be sufficient, but that was not the effect of the Bill. With regard to the persons before whom the declaration was to be made, it was not suggested that the registrar should be introduced in substitution for the other persons named, but in addition. He thought it would be a great convenience to a parent if, when he went to register the birth of his child, he could at the same time make the statutory declaration. He noticed that the Bill provided that the statutory declaration was to be made within four months. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing, at any rate, to extend that period, if not to strike the limit out altogether.

SIR HENRY CRAIK

said he was sure the House was very thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the very clear explanation he had given of the objects of the Bill. Although he spoke with no professional knowledge, he felt it impossible to remain silent on this question, in view of the fact that such a large proportion of his constituents were interested in medical science. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had given many reasons why the Bill should be considered as an extremely moderate one, but in view of certain utterances which had come from the opposite side of the House, and from hon. Members below the gangway, he felt that there were considerable dangers to be apprehended beyond those which the right hon. Gentleman had indicated as the limitations of the Bill. He felt that this Bill was a concession to prejudice and ignorance. As it was now drafted, it left no discretion whatever to the commissioner for oaths or justice of the peace, and, therefore, it seemed to him a matter of very little importance in whose hands the duty was placed. He objected to the substitution of a secret signature to a declaration before a commissioner for oaths for a statement of conscientious objection in the light of publicity with the aid that publicity gave to distinguish between ignorance, carelessness, or prejudice and a conscientious belief. How far was concession to go? Granting that there were conscientious beliefs having real and solid foundations, he feared that mere wantonness, idle- ness, carelessness, and prejudice would largely enter into the action of many for whose good this legislation was devised. Let the really conscientious objector have the courage of his opinions, and not place himself in the hands of agents of anti-vaccination societies, who knew how to work up adherents to their cause. The signature before a commissioner would save some little trouble, and he feared there would be a very serious diminution in the percentage of vaccination, and a serious increase in the number of those who conceived themselves to be conscientious objectors. Should not the investigations of science have some weight in the sanitary administration of the country? Surely it was not too much to say that it was unwise to yield to the pressure of those who were in opposition to the fixed conclusions of the great mass of scientific medical opinion.

SIR F. BANBURY

said he shared the feeling that was expressed very strongly in 1898, that the Act of that year went too far in concession to prejudices against vaccination. Amongst a large number of the inhabitants of these islands there was a strong feeling that smallpox was such a very serious disease, and vaccination had been so thoroughly proved to be a preventive to that disease, that the Government were not doing their duty when they allowed a loophole—although it was very carefully fenced round—here provided for. He had expected to hear a few words in defence of the Bill from the anti-vaccination minority, but presumed that, in the face of the great majority of the House, including the President of the Local Government Board, who believed in the full efficacy of vaccination ["No, no"], they feared to advance opinions where they could be thoroughly sifted and dealt with. He challenged the statement of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that the theory that vaccination and re-vaccination was a protection against smallpox had been given up, and he conscientiously believed that vaccination was necessary for the health of the community. It was with regret and surprise he found the right hon. Gentleman yielding to the pressure of the hon. Member for Sleaford and his friends, and warned him that this concession would only be made the jumping ground for further demands. The chief reason advanced in support of the Bill was that certain magistrates had administered the Act in a manner which was not right. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted an instance where the chairman of a bench of magistrates had said that vaccination was necessary, and under no circumstances would he grant an exemption. He did not know what the other magistrates on that bench could have been thinking about, and he ventured to think that the chairman of no other bench of magistrates in the country would have made such a statement. In the vast number of cases all that magistrates required was that the applicant should go into the witness-box, take the oath, and then state that he had a conscientious objection to vaccination because he believed it would be prejudicial to the health of his child. Speaking from the point of view of one who thoroughly believed in the efficacy of vaccination, he admitted that the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, on the face of it, did not seem to be a very great innovation. There appeared to be some reason in the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman that going to the police court savoured somewhat a criminal procedure regard to what was, after all, a civil matter. Vaccination cases were taken before the ordinary police business began. The applicants for exemption orders were not detained for more than a few minutes, and it seemed to him that there was a very great protection in compelling the conscientious objector to go before a public court. If the conscientious objector believed in the failure of vaccination, he should not be ashamed to say so in open court, or to have his name in the papers. But if these proceedings had not to be gone through, there might be a great number of people who, to save a little expense and trouble, and for a variety of other reasons, would avail themselves of the hole and corner procedure provided for by the Bill. He did not wish to cast any aspersion on the machinery provided by the right hon. Gentleman, but there could be no question that it would be more or less a hole and corner procedure. Doubtless a considerable amount of trouble was entailed on the mother by the vaccination of the child, and it might be expected that a great number of people would evade that trouble by availing themselves of the procedure under the Bill. An hon. Member had expressed dissatisfaction that the mother could not obtain an exemption order without the consent of the father. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not give way on that point, because the father was the proper person to decide whether or not his child should be vaccinated. He was not saying that the mother had not the interest of the child at heart. [An HON. MEMBER: What is to be done where there is no father?] The living parent or guardian would get the exemption order. That was already provided for under the Bill. When a child was vaccinated it suffered a certain amount of pain, and the mother had to do the nursing, and, that being so, it should not be forgotten that there would be a great temptation on the part of the mother to say "Oh, I don't want to be troubled with this. I fancy it will be all right. I know a case where the children have not been vaccinated and there has been no evil result." When the hon. Member for Sleaford and his friends came along with their delusion the prejudices of the parents were intensified. He felt strongly against the Bill, because he looked upon it as merely the thin end of the wedge, and feared that the result would be the abolition of compulsory vaccination. He would, therefore, vote in favour of the Amendment. He might point out that the only man of science in the House was strongly

AYES.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Higham, John Sharp Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Holland, Sir William Henry Rees, J. D.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Holt, Richard Durning Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Barnard, E. B. Hyde, Clarendon Rickett, J. Compton
Barnes, G. N. Idris, T. H. W. Ridsdale, E. A.
Bellairs, Carlyon Illingworth, Percy H. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln;
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Jackson, R. S. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Jardine, Sir J. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Black, Arthur W. Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Boulton, A. C. F. Kearley, Hudson E. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Bowerman, C. W. Kekewich, Sir George Rowlands, J.
Bright, J. A. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brooke, Stopford Kitson, Rt. Hn. Sir James Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Laidlaw, Robert Sears, J. E.
Byles, William Pollard Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Seaverns, J. H.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Lambert, George Shaw, Rt. Hon, T. (Hawick B.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Lamont, Norman Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cheetham, John Frederick Lehmann, R. C. Stanger, H. Y.
Cherry, Rt. Hn. R. R. Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Cleland, J. W. Levy, Maurice Straehey, Sir Edward
Clough, William Lewis, John Herbert Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras W Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Summerbell, T.
Cooper, G. J. Lough, Thomas Thorne, William
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Lupton, Arnold Torrance, Sir A. M.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Toulmin, George
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. Verney, F. W.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) M'Callum, John M. Walters, John Tudor
Duckworth, James Maddison, Frederick Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds. S.)
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness Markham, Arthur Basil Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Marnham, F. J. Waring, Walter
Elibank, Master of Masterman, C. F. G. Watt, Henry A.
Everett, R. Lacey Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Norton, Capt. Cecil William Weir, James Galloway
Gilhooly, James O'Grady, J. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Partington, Oswald Whitehead, Rowland
Glover, Thomas Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax
Goddard, Daniel Ford Pearce, William (Limehouse) Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n
Gurdon, Sir William Brampton Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Hart-Davies, T. Price, C. E (Edinb"rgh,Centra1) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Hedges, A. Paget Radford, G. H. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Pease.
NOES
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bull, Sir William James Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Carlile, E. Hildred Craik, Sir Henry

against the Bill. The right hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division, who was also an expert on the matter, had not been able to get up and say a word in favour of the Bill. When one expert was against the measure, and another could not say anything in its favour, the House had, he thought, strong reason for throwing it out.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 1 2, Noes, 14. (Division List No. 175.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kimber, Sir Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Fell, Arthur Randles, Sir John Scurrah John Batty Tuke and Mr.
Fletcher, J. S. Rawlinson, John Frederieck Peel Cave.
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.