HL Deb 11 May 1891 vol 353 cc460-5
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,

in rising to call the attention of the House to certain portions of the evidence printed with the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will provide debtors' treatment instead of criminal treatment for persons imprisoned under the Vaccination Acts; and also to ask how so many illegal sentences of hard labour came to be passed and carried out without interference by the Home Office, said: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence, as I am suffering from the prevailing epidemic. The respect which I feel for the noble Lord who was Chairman of the Vaccination Commission would not allow me to put down this notice without first ascertaining that he had no objection to it, and if he will allow me to say so, the reading of this Report has only increased my respect for him, owing to the skilful and impartial way in which the noble Lord conducted the investigation. I believe in vaccination if it is properly carried out with calf lymph, and I do not wish in the least to strengthen the hands of the anti-vaccinationists. I do not propose to go into medical details, but will confine myself strictly to the administrative question, that is, the treatment of those who, unfortunately, have been imprisoned for infringement of the Vaccination Acts. It cannot be denied that those parents who, either from what they have seen or heard, or perhaps have themselves experienced, refuse to have their children vaccinated, are better parents than those who insure their children in several Insurance Offices, or who hand them over for adoption for a lump sum without asking any further questions, and with whom up to the present time the Legislature has not interfered. Without going into the evidence, and without any medical knowledge, it might be assumed that after vaccination became compulsory it had to be cheap, and it must have the proverbial accompaniment of cheapness, and that neither the skill of the practitioners nor the quality of the lymph would be as good as it was at the time that vaccination was voluntary. Dr. Richard, Thorne's answers to Questions 702 and 703 of the first Report point to this defective method of vaccination. He says you know what to expect from some of the sixpenny doctors in London. I wish to refer to Question 6268 and the answer, which quotes the Bishop of Manchester, speaking in 1881 as to the bad effects of making vaccination compulsory within 12 weeks of birth; and in order to show what some medical men are capable of I will read the answer of a doctor, No. 1738, in which he states that he had vaccinated five of his own children within 24 hours of birth: he added, "It will stagger the Commission when I mention it." I wonder one of the Commissioners did not say to him that he appeared to be risking committing manslaughter gratuitously. In order to show, from the evidence given before the Commission as appearing by the Report, that parents refusing to obey the Vaccination Laws have such grounds for their conduct as should exempt them from treatment as criminals when imprisoned, it may be stated that of the 28 witnesses examined by the Commission who had stood out against the Vaccination Laws, 16 said they refused to allow their children to be vaccinated because they knew of 24 cases of children dead or injured by vaccination. These 28 witnesses had been subjected to 413 prosecutions, and had paid amongst them £385 16s. 2d. in fines and costs. Eight of these witnesses had been imprisoned and treated as criminals, that is to say, fed on bread and water, they picked, oakum, wore prison clothes, and slept on a plank bed. In short, they received the-treatment which some persons think too. severe for inciting to crimes of outrage-and violence. One of the witnesses at. Question 6568 mentions Owen Coom, who was imprisoned in March and starved, and who died in August of the same year; and he adds— I mean to say that under this Act some of the best and most excellent parents have been most cruelly treated in prison. Joseph Harrison, at Question 6202, says that when imprisoned in Wandsworth Gaol he was first put in the criminal ward, he was then removed by the Governor to the debtors' ward, and after the Governor had communicated with the Home Office, he was again replaced in the criminal ward, and treated as a criminal, and then, in answer to the next, question, he describes the treatment he received. It would appear from this uncertainty of the Governor of Wandsworth Gaol that there is nothing in the Act which prescribes such treatment. Besides the injustice of treating these careful parents as criminals, an injury is done to the bonâfide criminals, and the salutary effect of their sentences must be diminished by leading them to think from the equality and similarity of their treatment that their offences are no worse than that of those parents who objected to vaccination. With regard to the illegal sentences of hard labour of which I have given instances, I would cite the case of one man, Joseph Abel, who was committed with hard labour, but the sentence was not carried out, as his brother paid the fine. Then at Question 5606 it appears that Mr. William Guest was imprisoned with hard labour, and eight days of his sentence were remitted on account of the sentence being illegal. Then at Question 6690 the evidence states that Mr. George Bainborough was also imprisoned with hard labour, and in consequence the Magistrates paid to him £40 compensation, after a writ had been issued. It is probable that other illegal sentences of hard labour have been passed besides these 'three cases which were brought before the Royal Commission, and some explanation is wanted as to why the Home Office did not check such sentences by a circular or public notification. I will conclude by moving for a Return of the number of cases of hard labour, with the names of the Magistrates who passed the sentences, and of the clerks who advised them. As I was not able to give notice of this question before, and the noble Lord who answers for the Home Office may not be able to give me an answer offhand, I must possibly be satisfied with having now formally brought the matter forward, and I will repeat the Motion after the Recess.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I hope the noble Lord will do as he proposes, and give notice of this Return for which he asks. If I understand him rightly, he asks for the names of the Magistrates and Justices clerks who have unintentionally imprisoned such persons as he mentions with hard labour. I am aware that in one or two instances that has occurred, but, of course, the noble Lord will not expect me to assent to that Return without consultation with the Secretary of State. I will ask the noble Lord to excuse me from following him into the pros and cons of the vaccination question, and I will on the present occasion confine myself to answering his question. I think the noble Lord rather takes it for granted that the cases of sentences referred to in the Report were illegal. In all the cases but one they were strictly legal. The one case which was exceptional was George Bainborough, who was, withoutdoubt, illegally sentenced to 14 days' hard labour. The noble Lord has very properly quoted that case; but as regards the others, I have not been able at all to agree with his remarks. In that case George Bainborough appealed to the Magistrates, and the noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that £40 was paid in compensation. In the 5th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act it is laid down that where imprisonment is adjudged in default of payment of a fine such imprisonment shall be inflicted without hard labour, except where the hard labour is authorised by the Act on which the conviction is founded. The Vaccination Acts do not contain any provision as to hard labour, and prisoners, therefore, cannot be legally subjected to that treatment. Special rules have been made by Parliament in the Prison Acts as to the employment of prisoners; but no prisoner who is sentenced under the Vaccination Acts can be compelled to undergo any labour of this sort. Such a prisoner is treated under the ordinary rules for regulating the treatment of prisoners who are sentenced to simple imprisonment. Simple imprisonment, as the noble Lord knows, means imprisonment without hard labour. Under the Prison Act of 1855, such a prisoner may be compelled to work, and may be punished by alteration of diet for neglect of work, but the Prison Commissioners are empowered also to make rules as to the nature and amount of the employment, and such a thing, for instance, as oakum picking is an authorised employment. I hope the noble Lord follows the difference between imprisonment with hard labour and simple imprisonment. Prisoners who are not convicted of offences, but merely committed to prison for noncompliance with an order of the Judge to pay a sum of money, are now treated as debtors under the rules framed by the Secretary of State, and are subject to the special rules applying to debtors' prisons. I hope I have answered most of the points raised by the noble Lord in his question, but. if he will give notice, on a future occasion I shall be glad to give him any further answer he requires.

LORD HERSCHELL

My Lords, I only desire to say that I am very glad to hear the statement which the noble Lord has just made as to the regulation under which persons so committed are now committed as debtors. I think that even those who are of opinion that vaccination ought to be made compulsory, and obedience enforced by fine, or, in default of payment of the fines, by imprisonment, may well consider that in dealing with persons so committed it is in the highest degree expedient in the interest even of compulsory vaccination not to impose upon them the code of degrading prison punishment which was prescribed and considered necessary in times gone by. The statement of the noble Lord, showing that this is no longer done, is to my mind very satisfactory. I do not know whether he is able to state from what date that has been the case.

LORD DE RAMSEY

The noble and learned Lord is aware that part of these regulations are by Act of Parliament, and that the Secretary of State has the power of passing other rules, which have to be laid on the Table for 40 days and are confirmed by Act of Parliament.

LORD HERSCHELL

I mean the date from which these persons have been treated as debtors?

LORD DE RAMSEY

I think it will be found that it has been so since 1877. I will hand the noble Lord the document which I think he wants.