Report from the Select Committee on the Vaccination Act (1867) : together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index.

Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Vaccination Act (1867)

Date:: 1871

Credit: Report from the Select Committee on the Vaccination Act (1867) : together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

26/558 (page 2)

$Mr. and the same child?—I believe so; in one case J. Candlish, the child was sent away out of the jurisdiction of m.i*. the magistrate to avoid vaccination ; I mention that fact as an evidence of the strong feeling in •28 February f}ie mjIK] 0f the parent who was at the trouble of 1^71* sending his child to Sheffield to escape the action of the law. 8. Are the Committee to understand that you have so far examined into that case that you have no doubt of the substantial correctness of that statement ?—Not the slightest; I have it from direct communication with Mr. Toulson himself. 9. Will you give another case?—I would men- tion besides the case of James Lawton, news- agent, of North Whittington near to Chester- field ; 1 have the facts of his case down to the present time; he is now in the county gaol of Derby, and I have a copy of his conviction ; it is, I think, the 10th conviction. 10. Within what time?—Within a period of 12 months; the date of this conviction is the 28th of January of the present year, in which occurs a matter strange to me as a magistrate ; there are two convictions on the same day, one for a penalty of 20 s., and the other for costs ; in one case there is a penalty of 20s., costs and court fees 1 l. 17 s. 6 d.; in the other case there is fur costs, distraint, execution, and other items, 2 /. 7 s., the one conviction being four weeks’ imprisonment, the second conviction one week. The second conviction was to take effect after the expiration of the first imprisonment. 11. Are the costs connected with the first case of conviction ?—They are. 12. What reason have you for supposing that that is the tenth conviction ?—I have the most conclusive evidence upon that point; I presented a few days ago a petition to the House of Com- mons from this James Lawton, proceeding from the gaol at Derby, in which he sets out the fact that lie has been 13 times summoned and 10 times convicted. On that I wrote to the gover- nor of the gaol asking if he would supply me with the facts in that particular case, and I have his letter before me, in which the governor sets out that Lawton was once summoned and the case adjourned ; one summons was abandoned ; one was dismissed; there were 10 summonses and seven convictions in respect of one child, Sophia, and three summonses and convictions for another child, Frederick, making 13 in all. In the earlier cases Lawton paid the fines; I have a record of four payments at least; then it is stated to me, and I have reason to believe, that these repeated payments went beyond his means. His goods were then distrained, and in one case of distraint they took away a child’s chair, a nursing chair, two common chairs and an American clock. The effects on which distraint could be made became exhausted, and he has since been sent to prison, and his conviction is now before the Committee. I would mention in reference to this man, Lawton, that he is a man of good repute in his neighbourhood; he is 52 years of age, he has been for 33 years a member of a Christian church, and I belie\e very nearly as many years a teetotaller ; that is the informa- tion that I have respecting him, on which I thoroughly rely, because I have it from other sources than himself; I believe it would be almost impossible to adduce a stronger case of the power of a man’s conscientious conviction than is adduced in the penalties which he has paid, and in the sufferings which he has endured. In the three or four communications which I have had from Lawton, I recognise the letters of an intelligent and fairly educated man. 13. How many cases have you had brought before you altogether of repeated penalty ?—A very large number; but I could not tell.how many. I should think more than 50. It is, perhaps, not a fit suggestion for me to make from this chair, but I was going to suggest that you, Sir, as Chairman of this Committee, should move the House of Commons for a return of the actual number of convictions and penalties. Mr. C. F. Lane, of Grantham, writes as follows: “ A ill you kindly allow me to state my case^ Having lost one child, a fine little fellow, as I am persuaded, through vaccination, I felt com- pelled, in the case of my present child, to resist the compulsory vaccination. In January last I was summoned before the magistrates, convicted and fined in the full penalty and costs, which I wil- lingly and cheerfully paid, rather than run the risk of having my child’s blood poisoned. Yes- terday week I was again summoned, and again fined in the full penalty. Unless, Sir, your Bill is allowed to pass, what am I to do ? I am a young man just commencing business, and cannot afford to pay 34 s. eyery two or three months. I must either stifle my parental convictions and have my child poisoned, or be ruined by con- tinuing to refuse. They have threatened me again.” Another case, that of Charles 'Wash- ington Nye, of Chatham, presents some special features, as stated in the “Co-operator,” a weekly publication, issued by Henry Pitman, at Man- chester. 14. I suppose we are to understand, that ex- cept where you are making a quotation, you make yourself responsible for the correctness of what you state ?—I may say that Henry Pitman, of Manchester, is personally known to me. He has been known in the literary world, too, for some years as the editor of this paper, and I am perfectly sure that anything which he puts for- ward here, under the signature of any person whatever, is the bond fide production of that person. This is a weekly publication, and a large portion of the facts which I am going to men- tion, I quote from this as being more convenient than the scattered documents. Mr. Nye writes as follows : “ In December last I was sent to the Canterbury gaol for 14 days, for not having one of my children vaccinated. I had to assist the criminal prisoners in the prison work. At the end of my sentence I was turned adrift to go to Chat- ham, 28 miles, in the best way I could without a farthing in my pocket; since then I have been favoured with three summonses and a magistrate’s order to have the child vaccinated. I treated the Vaccination Act with the utmost contempt, and I have good cause to do so. In 1866 I had two of my children vaccinated and they never had a month’s health after it ; they are in their graves now.” 15. I understand that that extract which you have read from that work you believe to be a correct one ?—I have not the slightest doubt of it. 16. How have those cases come to your know- ledge ?—The case which I am now mentioning to the Committee came to me by a communication about the middle of last year from the person himself, which I have not with me, but I recognise the facts as stated in this book which I have before me$