§ LORD HERSCHELL,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in recent cases, persons committed to prison for breach of the Vaccination Acts have not been treated as criminals, and not as persons committed to prison for nonpayment of a sum of money, said: My Lords, I am led to put this question to Her Majesty's Government owing to an answer which was given some time ago to a question put by my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. The answer that was then given by my noble Friend Lord De Ramsey to that question was understood by me certainly to be to the effect that persons committed to prison for breach of the Vaccination laws were treated as persons committed for nonpayment of sums of money, and that their treatment was the same as that of debtors. I expressed my satisfaction with that answer, and stated that I was glad that was now the treatment to which those persons were subjected. Since that time, however, I have received various communications on the subject, alleging that since that time persons committed to prison for breaches of the Vaccination Laws have had to sleep on the plank bed and have been made to pick oakum; and that question having arisen with regard to one person and his treatment in a particular gaol, the Home Office have stated, in answer to an inquiry, that the imprisonment was in respect of the non-payment of a penalty for disobedience to a judicial order under Section 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, and that the instructions given were that the prisoner should be treated as a convicted criminal prisoner not sentenced to hard labour. Those instructions seem to me to be quite inconsistent with the answer given in this 384 House by the noble Lord, unless there is some distinction drawn between the treatment of some vaccination offenders and other vaccination offenders, because certainly the treatment of a convicted criminal prisoner not sentenced to hard labour is not the treatment usually meted out to persons imprisoned in respect of the non-payment of a sum of money. At least that is what I understood when I expressed my satisfaction with the answer of the noble Lord. The matter is of some importance, because I find the only point on which those not opposed to vaccination and those who are opposed to vaccination are pretty well agreed, is that it is inexpedient to add to the punishment of detention in prison for breaches of Vaccination Laws, the treatment as a criminal of the person so convicted. The reason why those opposed to vaccination are opposed to this course is obvious, and I need not refer further to that; but the reason why those who are favourable to vaccination are opposed to such a course is that it does not really tend to increase the number of persons vaccinated; while, on the other hand, it certainly does intensify and extend the area of the opposition to vaccination; and therefore, it is a proceeding with which neither those who are opposed to vaccination nor those who are favourable to it are satisfied. If this be the practice, and if it be possible for the Home Office by any regulations to alter the practice, I would certainly, speaking entirely impartially as between those in favour of vaccination and those opposed to it, urge upon Her Majesty's Government the great inexpediency of the treatment of those persons as convicted criminals, which I believe does no good to the cause of vaccination, but, on the contrary, does a good deal of harm.
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYMy Lords, I regret, if through any doubtful expression in my answer last May, I led the noble and learned Lord to believe anything but what is actually the true state of the case. My answer was correct as I am informed, and I have but to repeat it to-day, but I will endeavour to make my meaning perhaps a little clearer than it was on the 11th May last. The noble and learned Lord suggested just now that there is a division in the way in which the 385 prisoners are treated. That is so. If a conviction takes place, and a fine is imposed, and is not paid, then that prisoner is treated as an ordinary criminal; but the difference occurs here: that where the default is in respect of costs only, the prisoner is treated as a debtor.
§ LORD HERSCHELLThe difference is between cases where a fine has not been paid, and cases where there are costs only, and no fine?
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYYes, that is the difference. The noble and learned Lord knows very well, I have no doubt, that a case of this sort can be found; a case was tried by Lord Justice Lindley in 1884 bearing exactly on the question which has now been twice put to me. I do not know whether I have explained the matter sufficiently. I have no more details, but if it is desired I should answer further, of course I will.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI do not, of course, press the matter if the noble Lord is not prepared now to make a further statement on the subject; but what I should like to suggest to him is, whether the Home Office would consider the expediency, if it is possible, in the case of those persons who are imprisoned even upon the imposition of a fine which they have not paid for breaches of the Vaccination Laws, of treating them as debtors or persons committed for non-payment of money; that is to say, of treating such prisoners, not as convicted criminals, but in the same way as if it were only a question of costs.
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYAs far as I understand it, the matter rests in this way: when a man is in prison, what is he in prison for? Is he in prison for neglecting to pay the fine imposed upon him, or for neglecting to pay the costs, which, I believe, is called, "disobedience to an order"? If he is in prison for neglecting to pay a fine he is in one class, and is treated accordingly; and if he is there for not paying costs he is in another, and is treated as a debtor.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWe perfectly understand the explanation which the noble Lord has given; but what my noble and learned Friend wants to know is something else—not an explanation of the two kinds of convictions, but whether or not the Home Secretary can order, and if he can, whether or not he considers it would 386 be highly expedient to do so, as I certainly think it would, that in cases where prisoners had been fined, not merely where they have costs to pay, for not complying with the Vaccination Laws, those prisoners should be treated as debtors?
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYI am not prepared to answer that at this moment. I must ask the noble and learned Lord to give me notice of the question.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI will ask the question on a later day.