SECOND READING. (Hansard, 14 July 1874)

§ LORD WALSINGHAM

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he thought it required very little explanation from him to render clear to their Lordships the ground upon which it was introduced, and, in short, to secure for it the assent and approval of the House. Experience of the working of the existing Vaccination Acts had disclosed certain anomalies in the law as it now stood, which caused the Local Government Board to submit a case for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. That opinion had shown most clearly the necessity for some alteration which should prevent the possibility of such circumstances occurring as might be beyond the power of the existing authorities to deal with in a satisfactory manner. He must remind the House that although there were many who dissented from it, it had been a principle generally recognized in modern legislation, that vaccination should be made compulsory. The Act of 1867, in Section 27, provided that the Registrar of each district should make a half-yearly report to the Guardians of his union or parish of all cases in which the certificate of vaccination had not been duly received by him, and that the Guardians, after due inquiry, should cause proceedings to be taken against persons who had neglected to comply with the provisions of the Act. The Act, at the same time, empowered the optional appointment by the Guardians of a vaccination officer, by whom these proceedings were to be taken. By another Act, passed in 1871, Section 27 of the Act of 1867 was repealed, the appointment of the vaccination officer was made compulsory upon the Guardians, and the Registrar was required to send his lists direct to him, instead of to the Guardians, as before. Nevertheless, it seemed clear that it was not intended by the Act of 1871 to relieve the Guardians from the responsibility of instituting the necessary prosecutions—a duty distinctly imposed on them by the Act of 1867—inasmuch as power was given in Section 5 to the Local Government Board to make orders and regulations 1614 in these matters in the same manner as in matters relating to the relief of the poor. And it was considered at the time that this provision would be sufficient to enable the Local Government Board to prescribe the duties of Guardians and their officers for the purpose of enforcing vaccination. Now, it was well known to their Lordships that many parents had a conscientious objection to vaccination, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons had expressed the opinion that in such cases repeated prosecutions were impolitic. A clause was, therefore, introduced into the Bill of 1871, providing that no parent should be liable to viction for neglecting to have his child vaccinated, if he had been previously adjudged to pay the penalty of 20s. for the offence, or had been twice adjudged to pay any penalty for any such offences in respect of such child. That clause was struck out in their Lordships' House by a majority of 1, after having passed the House of Commons, upon the ground that it would destroy the principle of compulsory vaccination; and a subsequent Bill, containing a similar clause, was withdrawn from the other House in 1872, in consequence of the numerous Petitions from various Boards of Guardians against it. It was in no way contemplated by the Bill to encourage prosecutions to the extent of persecution, but to leave a fair discretion to be exercised in cases of conscientious objections, so long as it might not be considered too seriously to interfere with the existence of a proper regard for the principle of compulsory vaccination. Shortly after the passing of the Act of 1871, in pursuance of the authority therein apparently given to them, the Local Government Board issued an order directing vaccination officers—unless specially authorized to take independent action—that they should submit all cases of default to the Boards of Guardians under whom they acted, and be guided by their instructions; but some Boards of Guardians, acting under the inspiration of the Anti-Vaccination League, had recently refused to instruct their officers to proceed against persons for neglecting to have their children vaccinated. Upon a careful consideration of the law upon the subject, which he had attempted very briefly to state to their Lord-ships, certain questions arose which made it doubtful what were the exact 1615 relations existing upon these matters between the vaccination inspectors, the Boards of Guardians, and the Local Government Board, as to the extent or limit of the authority which each could claim as compared with that of the other two, or of either one of them. It was open to doubt—first, whether, after the repeal of Section 27 of the Act of 1867, it was still the duty of the Guardians to prosecute defaulters; and if not, whether, under the power given by Section 5 of the Act of 1871 to the Local Government Board to prescribe regulations, they could oblige the Boards of Guardians or the vaccination officers to give effect to the provisions of the law. Secondly, whether, if that part of the directions to vaccination officers which now required them to apply for the instructions of the Guardians with respect to prosecutions were withdrawn, it would be the duty of the officers to take proceedings in the absence of instructions, or even if actually forbidden by them. Such were the points submitted for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised that it was not now incumbent upon the Guardians to prosecute; that the power of the Local Government Board to issue orders did not apply to proceedings by the Guardians or their officers for enforcing obedience to the law; that it was the duty of the vaccination officer to prosecute without any order from the Local Government Board or the Guardians; and that it was not clear that the Local Government Board could take any proceedings against an officer who might be forbidden by the Guardians to prosecute in particular cases. They had, therefore, this strange anomaly presented to them, that it was now the duty of a servant of the Guardians to institute prosecutions without consulting the authorities under whom he acted, and perhaps even contrary to their express instructions; that this officer had absolutely no funds at his disposal for the purpose of performing such duties, and that although the Guardians were empowered to pay these expenses, he had no means of recovery in case of refusal. Moreover, that the Local Government Board had no means of enforcing obedience to their instructions. The object of this Bill was to get rid of these anomalies by enabling the Local Government Board to prescribe rules and regulations for placing the relations 1616 between the Guardians and their officers on a proper footing, in accordance with the intention of the Act of 1871, and, at the same time, to clear up the difficulty with regard to the costs of prosecutions. He trusted it would be accepted as a measure rendered necessary by the unsatisfactory condition of the existing law as interpreted by the Law Officers of the Crown, and that their Lordships would consent to give the Bill a second reading.