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
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

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.

    31/558 (page 7)
    be the results of this inquiry, that would be my view. 90. Tn view of the enormous discrepancy be- tween the rich and the poor, in the case of a fine would you be disposed in such cases to impose something more than a fine, namely, a temporary term of imprisonment for all as a means of equalising the evidence of the law ?—I think not. It would iu my mind imply far too much crimi- nality on the part of the offender to commit him to prison direct without the option of a fine, and a criminality which I could not recognise. 91. Alderman Carter.] I suppose you know that it is the board of guardians that usually takes action, and not the magistrates ?—4 es that is so. 92. So that it depends upon the following of the guardians’ order, rather than of the magis- trates’order; it would depend more upon the guardians of the district to which the man had removed than upon the magistrates of the district, would it not?—Yes, for initiating proceedings. 93. Mr. Cave.'} In those cases which you men- tioned as having come under your own know- ledge, of people feeling convinced that their children had been injured by vaccination, and had died from it, do you know whether they said that from their own idea, or from the testimony of a medical man?—No doubt whatever it is the personal belief of the parents in those cases, and as to the medical testimony, I dare say they can get that too. 94. You have considered protection in the three lights: no protection, general protection, and perfect protection. Supposing that the protection of vaccination was general, do you not think it would be the duty of the Legislature to enforce it?—I wanted to convey the idea of partial, but imperfect protection, as distinguished from abso- lute and certain protection. 95. I think you spoke of general protection, that is to say, not universal, but efficacious in most cases?—That was not the idea which I wished to convey. The alternatives which I brought before my own mind were these : either that vaccination must be perfect protection or only partial protection. By “ partial,” I do not mean that there is absolute protection in any particular case and no protection in another, but that vaccination may ameliorate the conditions under which the small-pox may be taken. 96. Then, perhaps, you would not like to say whether you think that vaccination is a protec- tion which is efficacious with respect to the majority of cases?— I would not venture upon a professional opinion. 97. Upon the supposition involved in my question, would you not consider that the Legis- lature ought, in its duty to the public, to enforce it?—With moderate sanctions, probably so. 98. Would it not be its duty to enforce it ab- solutely ?—Not seeing the number of conscien- tious intelligent people on the other side. 99. 01 course one very much respects conscien- tious people; but do you think the Legislature ought to consider the scruples of individuals iu the case of danger to the public?—Inasmuch as the case supposed implies danger in a degree, and in a degree only, the severity, or otherwise, of the action of the Legislature would necessarily depend upon the degree in which the danger arose. 100. Supposing we decided from evidence before us, that in a very large majority of cases 0.37. vaccination was efficacious, would you not then consider that the Legislature ought to disregard the conscientious scruples of the minority on account of the danger which the public would run?—No, because I do not see the danger. You assume the effectiveness of vaccination. If vac- cination is effective there is no danger except to the unvaccinated. 101. I assume only that it is effective in the case of the majority, and not in every case, and that the want of vaccination is dangerous as causing small-pox?—I think that the Legislature by enforcing vaccination, would be infringing one of the most sacred obligations of man to take care of his own child, if the father of that child believed that he was endangering the life of his child by submitting it to vaccination. 102. Do you think that however mistaken that individual might be, and however dangerous to the public his mistake, as we might be convinced, might be, yet that we ought to consider his conscientious belief rather than the general good of the public ?•—-Yes, I think so ; and I say that without any hesitation, first as a matter of prin- ciple, and secondly because I know no way by which you can practically give effect to your compulsion. 103. You think that no absolute certainty of danger to the public would justify a forcible in- terference between a man and his child?—If there were absolute danger to the public that would be upon the basis of the inefficiency of vaccination ; and if vaccination be an inefficient process, there must be great wrong in enforcing it; the danger can only be in inefficiency, and if it is inefficient there is a destruction of the basis on which to repose a compulsory law. 104. Lord Robert Montagu.} Your evidence, it seems to me, has consisted of examples of con- victions for disobedience to the Act?—Yes. 105. Some of those examples you have given of your own knowledge, and some of them you have given on the authority of newspapers and other periodical publications?—Yes, from what I have a right to regard as my own knowledge, from the communications of persons in direct contact with the persons who have been pun- ished. 106. Then none of them are actually of your own knowledge, but it is only that you have re- ceived communications from the persons ?—None from personal interviews, but several from direct personal communication. 107. Of those examples which you have given to the Committee, some you have given on the authority of letters which you have received from friends of the persons, and some on the authority of certain newspapers, and other perio- dical publications?—Yes, and some from letters from the persons themselves. 108. You have justified your giving instances from newspapers and periodical publications by this analogy: you say you present a petition to the House of Commons, believing it to be gen- uine ?—Quite so. 109. As a Member of many years’ standing, you are, of course, aware that all those petitions go before a Committee of Petitions, and that that Committee of Petitions examines each petition with the greatest care and scrupulousness ?— Yes. 110. Ha ve we a right to assume that you have taken very great pains to ascertain the genuine- ness of those facts which you put before us?— a 4 Yes, Mr. r. Candtish, M.P. 8 February 1871.