MR. ALLAN (Gateshead): I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter, or competent to take part in the discussion on its technical side, but I should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board this question: the Bill provides that the Local Government Board shall have the power of making "rules and regulations with respect to public vaccinators," and then it goes on, and any rules or regulations made by the Board with respect to vaccination." I want to ask why the word "vaccinators" is not used in the last case instead of "vaccination"? Under these words it would be competent for the Local Government Board to frame any rules or regulations "with respect to vaccination." That, surely, would not be sanctioned by Parliament. 66 *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I would point out that the words quoted by the honourable Member refer not to the vaccination officers, but to public vaccinators. in order to protect the community, you ought to vaccinate all susceptible persons all persons who are likely to spread small-pox. What I would suggest is that the Local Government Board should have the courage of their convictions. If vaccination is a protection against this terrible disease, then they ought to insist upon re-vaccination. They ought to insist that every person who is liable to spread this disease should be vaccinated and re-vaccinated when necessary. It is their duty to do that. If they know that that is a protection, and the only protection, and they fail to bring a Bill into this House to enforce that protection, they are neglecting their duty. If it is not a protection, they have no right to enforce it only on those who cannot afford to pay. I venture to say that this Bill is absurd; it is unjust, it is ridicu lous. It justifies the contention that the Local Government Board is anything but clear in its own mind upon this matter. If vaccination is necessary for protection from small-pox, even the conscientious objector ought not to be allowed to escape from vaccination by the payment of one fine. or two fines. If vaccination is not necessary, then I say the infliction of a fine is persecution, and is utterly indefensible. If the Local Government Board mean to give up compulsion as impracticable-which is really what this Bill comes to let them give it up frankly and entirely, and rely upon persuasion. If they offered to pay medical men something for every person vaccinated, whether in the course of *MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, their private practice, or at public institu- N.): I do not wish to enter into the tions, I venture to say that that would extremely technical matters that have lead to a greater extension of vaccination been raised in the course of this Debate, than will the provisions of this Bill. but I think this House reflects the views There is a very old saying that you will of the country in feeling that it is not catch many more flies with treacle than prepared to do away altogether with the with vinegar. No one, except the honour- present vaccination laws. The mere able Member for the Scotland Division, fact that the present state of the law has given a whole-hearted support to gives rise to some abuses, and to a great this Bill. It is a Bill that is too ridicu- deal of mal-administration or nonlous to satisfy anyone; it does not satisfy administration, has undoubtedly been the medical profession, and it will not re-established, and many of us have been move the opposition to vaccination. It will aggravate rather than allay that opposition; evasion of the law will be encouraged, and the result will be that you will get fewer persons vaccinated than ever. Mr. Whittaker. 66 MR. ALLAN: Then the phraseology of the Bill is erroneous. the Local Government Board may make It implies that "any rules or regulations with respect to vaccination." It would be possible, I Local Government Board to make any maintain, under those words for the rules or regulations they choose, and comthe phraseology of the Bill is wrong, or pel guardians to carry them out. Either it confers upon the Local Government Board powers which they have no right to have. eagerly awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission in order to discover the means of ensuring that the law should not be set openly at defiance by the very bodies who are entrusted with the administration of that law. I believe resistance to which gives some little mind; but I confess I see great difficulty this Bill is an attempt to bring the law into better harmony with the general views entertained in the country, and to do away with abuses by providing better means of vaccination, by providing for domiciliary visits, and by lengthening the period allowed for vaccination. But I do feel that clause 2, which deals with the provision against repetition of penalties, does not quite convey what it is repre-nated, that would commend itself to my sented to mean. If we intend really to do away with repeated prosecutions, I hope that will be made quite clear. What I desire is that those who have conscientious objections to vaccination shall be free from the penalties they have at present to undergo. I think the penalties now imposed tend to stir up opposition to vaccination among people who otherwise would not object to it. Martyrdom has a great attraction for numbers of people, and the very imposition of penalties, 23. (Division List No. 91.) Allhusen, Augustus H. E. Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.) Cohen, Benjamin Louis Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse in framing such a clause. However, I think that the exact meaning and intention of Clause 2 ought to be made plain. That can, no doubt, be done when the Bill gets into Committee. Agreeing with the general scope of the Bill, I intend to vote for the Second Reading. AYES. The House divided:-Ayes 237; Noes Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield- Doughty, George Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Flynn, James Christopher Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) Goldsworthy, Major-General Hayden, John Patrick Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) Howell, William Tudor Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth Labouchere, Henry Lafone, Alfred Lambert, George Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Macartney, W. G. Ellison McLaren, Chas. Benjamin O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool) Royds, Clement Molyneux Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. Warr, Augustus Frederick Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- Question put, an! agreed to "That the Bill be now read a second time." Bill read a second time. Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc." (Mr. Chaplin.) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) TELLERS FOR THE NOESMr. Thomas Bayley and Mr. Steadman. great many of us have voted for this Bill believing that it would reduce the penalties, and so was in favour to that extent of those who opposed compulsion, but we did so with the intention of moving Amendments in Committee, and really I do not think it is reasonable of the right honourable Gentleman now to take the Bill entirely out of the hands MR. LABOUCHERE: I protest against of the House, and send it to a Grand the course proposed by the right Committee. I certainly should not have honourable Gentleman. This is a voted for the Second Reading of the matter upon which a very strong Bil' if I had supposed that the Governview is entertained by honourable ment contemplated such Members on both sides of the House. A procedure for a moment. course of MR. PHILIP STANHOPE (Burnley): |bers are absent to-nignt, not knowing I have taken no part in this Debate, that this Bill would come on, whose conalthough a great number of my con- stituencies are keenly interested in the stituents (and I daresay this will apply subject. The honourable Member for to many Members of this House) hold a Keighley represents a division, the very strong view with regard to this whole board of guardians of which went Bill, and desire that Amendments shall to prison rather than administer the be introduced into it. As Amendments vaccination laws. There are other concan be made in Committee, I did not stituencies in the same position. I venthink it right to oppose the Second Read-ture to say that to send this Bill to the ing. But the moment it is proposed to Grand Committee would be a flagrant send the Bill to a Grand Committee, and to take away from us the possibility of discussing the Measure in Committee of the whole House, the matter stands on a very different footing. In the first place, the Grand Committee to which it is proposed to refer this Bill is, I believe, already overburdened with work. breach of the spirit in which these Grand Committees were constituted, which is to carry on the discussion of the details of Bills in regard to the principle of which there is general unanimity. It would be grossly unfair to the constituencies, who feel so keenly upon this question, to A remove the discussion of the Bill large number of Bills have already been from the floor of this House. In referred to it, and the consequence is the constituency I represent the board that this Bill will not receive all the of guardians have refused, and rightly, attention it deserves at the hands of the in my opinion, to prosecute for breaches Committee. I for one--and I think of the Vaccination Act. This will be many others take the same view--will a gross breach of the rights of local selfcertainly oppose the sending of this Bill government. They will feel it to be to a Grand Committee. We are strongly of opinion that it ought to be discussed in full Committee of the whole House, so that honourable Members whose constituents take strong views on certain points of detail should be able to have their Amendments fully discussed. most unfair that their representatives should be deprived of the opportunity of discussing the details of this Bill on the floor of the House in the usual manner. SIR W. FOSTER: During the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the *MR. CHANNING: It has been a well- Bill I stated that I was not satisfied understood rule, with regard to sending with all its details, and I said I should Bills to Grand Committees, that only vote for the Second Reading in the hope Bills should be dealt with in that way that the Bill would be amended in Comwhich are practically non-controversial. mittee. I think there are several ways Now, anyone acquainted with the state in which the Bill could be improved in of opinion on this subject in many consome of its details; but, Sir, as I am stituencies in this country will know anxious that I should get those Amendvery well that this Bill is highly contro- ments made to the Bill, I shall certainly versial. Therefore it is grossly unfair support the Motion of the right honourto those constituencies-I do not say able Gentleman opposite. In the Divithey are the majority of constituencies sion against the Second Reading only in this country, I do not say they are 23 honourable Members were to be found even a large number, but they are, at to vote against the Bill. If the Bill is any rate, a considerable number, and referred to a Grand Committee, we shall I think it is very unfair to them that have added to the Grand Committee cerany attempt should be made to remove tain Members representing the views this Bill from fair discussion on the held on this question in different quarfloor of the House by honourable Mem- ters of the House, and I hope that I bers who are interested in it. I would should have before the Grand Committee also draw the attention of the right a larger body of support for my Amendhonourable Gentleman and of the House ments than I should on the floor of the to the fact that many honourable Mem- House itself. Having voted for the Second Reading, and being desirous to get the Bill amended, I shall certainly vote in favour of the proposal to refer it to the Grand Committee. MR. BAYLEY: It was certainly the general understanding, on this side at any rate, that the Bill was to be discussed in Committee of the whole House. This is a Bill making acts criminal acts which were not crimes before, and its details require most careful consideration. If the right honourable Gentleman had told us before the Division on the Second Reading took place that the Bill was to be sent to a Grand Committee, I venture to think that the numbers in that Division would have been very different. This is a question affecting the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects, and there are Amendments which we are going to move, and which we have been expecting to be able to move in Committee of the whole House, but which we shall not have the right to move upstairs. Under those circumstances, I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and let us discuss the Bill fairly on its merits in Committee of this House itself. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The Motion I have made no doubt affords a very convenient excuse to honourable Members for the very remarkable manifestation of opinion which has just been expressed on this question, but I am afraid it will not avail them. It may be hard lines on the honourable Gentleman opposite who divided the House against the Second Reading and failed to find more than 23 supporters. He is perfectly well aware that if the Bill is committed in the ordinary way to Committee of the whole House, it will have no possible chance of becoming law during the present Session. Under these circumstances the honourable Member must not be surprised if I decline to accept his proposal. It is my desire to see this Bill passed into law, and the Division which has just taken place proves that that is the general desire on the part of the House. I believe the numbers in that Division quite reflect the feeling of the House, and in order that the Bill may have a chance of passing into law this Session I shall do everything in my power to refer it to the Standing Committee. Sir W. Foster. The MR. S. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid.): Like the right honourable Gentleman, I also desire that the Bill should pass into law during the present Session, but it is on that very ground I object to its going to a Standing Committee. right honourable Gentleman who has just addressed the House is not a member of the Grand Committee on Law, and he may not be aware how full up that Committee is with work. Such an important Bill as this will have no chance of passing through the Committee and coming back to the House in time for its becoming an Act during the present Session. I object to the Bill going to a Standing Committee on principle. It has become a great deal too much the fashion to refer important Bills to the Standing Committees. The effect will be before very long to abrogate the Committee stage of Bills in this House altogether. If that is going to be done, let it be done openly. I venture to say that it is not quite fair, in a case where there is such strong opposition to a Bill as there is in this case undoubtedly, that no notice should have been given to the House before the Second Reading that it was the intention to refer it to a Grand Committee. I know that several honourable Members who desired to be present during the Second Reading discussion have been absent to-night simply because they hal no idea that the Seventh Order of the Day would be reached. I think it ought to be considered to be the duty of the Government with regard to any Bill of this class, if it is their intention to move that it be sent to a Standing Committee or any Committee other than that of the whole House, to put a notice on the Paper to that effect. There is no notice to that effect on the Paper in this case, and I think my honourable Friends who are protesting against this Motion are quite justified in doing so, and if they go to a Division, although I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, and desire to see it passed, I shall vote against this proposal of the Government. DR. CLARK: This is the second Bill that we shall have sent to the Grand Committee on Law to-day. I am a Conservative in my view with regard to the privileges of this House, and I |