- Email: [email protected]
The vaccination bill, 1898
340
THE
VACCINATION
l tttjlic T H E V A C C I N A T I O N B I L L , 1898. III. TI-IE Grand Committee on Law commenced the consideration of this Bill on the I4th ult., and by the 2ist had disposed of four amendments, but were still considering the first clause. T h e first proposal made by Mr. Channing was that the Bill should be in force for three years only, on the ground that its proposals were experimental. W e fail to see which of the proposals can be so described, but we are inclined to think that the whole Bill may perhaps be justly so defined. As Mr. Logan stated when speaking to another amendment, the nlttmate result of the B!ll will be the abandonment of compulsory vaccination and for an experiment of such a character three years may, or may not, be more than sufficient, according as the infection of small-pox be, or be not, introduced at a sufficient number of places. Gloucester abandoned compulsory vaccination and paid the penalty. Ultimately Mr. Channing's amendment was negatived by a majority of seven out of 35 voting. Mr. Carhle then proposed the substitutton of a six months' age limit in heu of twelve as proposed by the Bill. His arguments were that it was desirable to have the same statutory limit in England as in Scotland, and that with the agelimit extended to twelve months the difficulues already experienced in tracing defaulters would be enormously increased. Sir Wm. Priestly, in supporting the amendment, adverted to the fact that many infantile ailments occurred between the ages of six and twelve months, and pointed out that) owing to the greater restlessness of childrert above the age of six months, the chances of bad results were increased. The amendment was accepted by Mr. Chaplin and agreed to by the Committee. T h e next amendment, proposed by Mr. Gedge, was a bribe to secure the vaccination of children, he proposing that the person bringing a child to be vaccinated should receive the sum of one shilling. H e thought that such proposal would do away with nine-tenths of the " c o n scientious objection.s," which indicates that he has but a poor opinion of the sincerity of such objections. T h e proposal was rejected by the Committee, permission to withdraw it being refused. Sir Walter Foster then proposed to add to Clause 1 the following sub-clauses : - 2. Where a child is by this Act required to be vaccinated within a certain time (hereinafter called the appokJted time) the parent or person having the custody of the child may, not less than two months before the expiration of the appointed time, make in the prescribed
BILL,
~898.
form a statutory declaration of conscientious objection to the vaccination of the child, and if the statutory declaration is within seven days after its date delivered to the registrar of births for the district in which the child resides, the registrar shall register the same, and shall, if required, deliver to the parent or other person making the declaration, a certificate of such registration, and shall also send a copy of the certificate to the public vaccinator of that district, and thereupon an order shall not be made or proceedings taken with reference to the non-vaccination within that appointed time, of the child mentioned in the certificate. 3. The parent or other person registering a statutory declaration under this section shall, if he requires a certificate of such registration, pay to the registrar the prescribed fee for a certificate of registration. To our mind the whole of the arguments put forward in support of this proposal, based chiefly on one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, were swept away by Mr. Chaplin's account of a recent occurrence at Barton Regis. The guardians of that district, doubtless deeming themselves independent of if not superior to the law of England, some eighteen months ago issued a circular to vaccination defaulters inviting such of them as held conscientious objections to submit a declaration, duly witnessed by a magistrate, to that effect , intimating that such declaration would receive a favourable consideration. The result has been that during the last six months of 1897 , out of some 300 defaulters, 183 made declarations of objection, that many persons who formerly had their children vaccinated as a matter of course, now ranged themselves among the objectors, and that the demand for the forms of objection drawn up by the guardians was daily increasing. Mr. Chaplin pointed out that if a similar procedure were provided by law, the whole energies of the Anti-Vaccination League would be devoted to the multiplication of objectors, and that the proposal, which on the surface appeared to be plausible and to favour the spread of vaccination, would in the end mean practically the abandonment of vaccination. The Committee after a long discussion rejected the proposed amendment by a majority of two out of 5 ° votes. We make no doubt that the Anti-Vaccination League regarded the practice initiated by the guardians of Barton Regis as an earnest of that wise moderation which the League expected Parliament to exercise. We are, however, inclined to thank the guardians for their very valuable object lesson on the perniciousness of such system, and for the very effective argument which has been placed at the d)sposal of the supporters of vaccination.
THE
VACCINATION
l tttjlic T H E V A C C I N A T I O N B I L L , 1898. III. TI-IE Grand Committee on Law commenced the consideration of this Bill on the I4th ult., and by the 2ist had disposed of four amendments, but were still considering the first clause. T h e first proposal made by Mr. Channing was that the Bill should be in force for three years only, on the ground that its proposals were experimental. W e fail to see which of the proposals can be so described, but we are inclined to think that the whole Bill may perhaps be justly so defined. As Mr. Logan stated when speaking to another amendment, the nlttmate result of the B!ll will be the abandonment of compulsory vaccination and for an experiment of such a character three years may, or may not, be more than sufficient, according as the infection of small-pox be, or be not, introduced at a sufficient number of places. Gloucester abandoned compulsory vaccination and paid the penalty. Ultimately Mr. Channing's amendment was negatived by a majority of seven out of 35 voting. Mr. Carhle then proposed the substitutton of a six months' age limit in heu of twelve as proposed by the Bill. His arguments were that it was desirable to have the same statutory limit in England as in Scotland, and that with the agelimit extended to twelve months the difficulues already experienced in tracing defaulters would be enormously increased. Sir Wm. Priestly, in supporting the amendment, adverted to the fact that many infantile ailments occurred between the ages of six and twelve months, and pointed out that) owing to the greater restlessness of childrert above the age of six months, the chances of bad results were increased. The amendment was accepted by Mr. Chaplin and agreed to by the Committee. T h e next amendment, proposed by Mr. Gedge, was a bribe to secure the vaccination of children, he proposing that the person bringing a child to be vaccinated should receive the sum of one shilling. H e thought that such proposal would do away with nine-tenths of the " c o n scientious objection.s," which indicates that he has but a poor opinion of the sincerity of such objections. T h e proposal was rejected by the Committee, permission to withdraw it being refused. Sir Walter Foster then proposed to add to Clause 1 the following sub-clauses : - 2. Where a child is by this Act required to be vaccinated within a certain time (hereinafter called the appokJted time) the parent or person having the custody of the child may, not less than two months before the expiration of the appointed time, make in the prescribed
BILL,
~898.
form a statutory declaration of conscientious objection to the vaccination of the child, and if the statutory declaration is within seven days after its date delivered to the registrar of births for the district in which the child resides, the registrar shall register the same, and shall, if required, deliver to the parent or other person making the declaration, a certificate of such registration, and shall also send a copy of the certificate to the public vaccinator of that district, and thereupon an order shall not be made or proceedings taken with reference to the non-vaccination within that appointed time, of the child mentioned in the certificate. 3. The parent or other person registering a statutory declaration under this section shall, if he requires a certificate of such registration, pay to the registrar the prescribed fee for a certificate of registration. To our mind the whole of the arguments put forward in support of this proposal, based chiefly on one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, were swept away by Mr. Chaplin's account of a recent occurrence at Barton Regis. The guardians of that district, doubtless deeming themselves independent of if not superior to the law of England, some eighteen months ago issued a circular to vaccination defaulters inviting such of them as held conscientious objections to submit a declaration, duly witnessed by a magistrate, to that effect , intimating that such declaration would receive a favourable consideration. The result has been that during the last six months of 1897 , out of some 300 defaulters, 183 made declarations of objection, that many persons who formerly had their children vaccinated as a matter of course, now ranged themselves among the objectors, and that the demand for the forms of objection drawn up by the guardians was daily increasing. Mr. Chaplin pointed out that if a similar procedure were provided by law, the whole energies of the Anti-Vaccination League would be devoted to the multiplication of objectors, and that the proposal, which on the surface appeared to be plausible and to favour the spread of vaccination, would in the end mean practically the abandonment of vaccination. The Committee after a long discussion rejected the proposed amendment by a majority of two out of 5 ° votes. We make no doubt that the Anti-Vaccination League regarded the practice initiated by the guardians of Barton Regis as an earnest of that wise moderation which the League expected Parliament to exercise. We are, however, inclined to thank the guardians for their very valuable object lesson on the perniciousness of such system, and for the very effective argument which has been placed at the d)sposal of the supporters of vaccination.