§ Lord Boringdonstated, that in the session of 1813 he had brought in a Bill to prevent the spreading of infection by the inoculated Small-pox, which was withdrawn. He had introduced another bill last year; which, after having undergone a good deal of consideration, was also withdrawn; the noble and learned lord opposite having stated that the offence was punishable at common law. This opinion had among the unlearned occasioned great surprise; it did not appear that any indictment for the offence had then been preferred, and he had therefore pledged himself to bring in another bill of the same description as the former bills, this session. That pledge he would have redeemed, if matters had stood in the same situation; as it was not to be endured that persons should be allowed with impunity to spread infection by a disease which might so easily be prevented by vaccination, which was approved by the best physicians, and sanctioned by Parliament. Lately, however, in a case where eight persons had lost their lives, owing to the indiscretion of a mother, who exposed her child when it had the inoculated small-pox, an indictment had been preferred at common law, and the offender convicted and punished. He trusted, therefore, that when it was known in all quarters of the country, that the offence exposed the party to a heavy punishment at common law, the practice of bringing children inter public places when they had the innoculated small-pox would be discontinued. If the recent judgment of the King's-bench-should not be found to produce that effect, he should still feel it his duty to bring in a bill for that purpose; but under the present circumstances he did not feel himself called upon at this moment to proceed farther.
§ Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the judgment of the King's-bench,- in the case alluded to, did not lay down any new law. It was a thing perfectly well known among lawyers, that the offence was punishable at common law; certainly, the opinion which he had given last year, could have created no surprise among them, and he 184 believed it would be found, that this was by no means the first indictment which had been preferred for similar offences.
§ Earl Stanhopebegged the noble and learned lord to explain himself. Mere inoculation was the promulgation of an infectious disease; and he wished to know if it were meant to be asserted, that under the statute that was punishable? The fact was, that inoculation was not discovered until long after the passing of the Act. It did not appear to him per se illegal.
§ Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that in the next term he should be called upon to decide upon the precise case. He would, however, anticipate his judgment so far as to say, that inoculation, with proper precautions of secluding the patient and preventing the spreading of the infection, was not illegal. The abuse of the practice only was criminal.
§ Earl Stanhopeadded, that he did not think any court of law could decide otherwise: if it did, he should have thought it dis duty to bring in a bill that would give them such a trimming as they had never before received.
§ Lord Boringdonobserved, that he believed that only one prosecution and conviction had taken place under the statute.
§ Lord Ellenboroughwas of opinion, that other cases might be found on the books, of the same kind, under the same statute.