Third (-Fourth-Fifth) Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of vaccination; with minutes of evidence and appendices.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Vaccination.
Date:
1890-1893
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Third (-Fourth-Fifth) Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of vaccination; with minutes of evidence and appendices. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    14/850 (page 4)
    Ecu. W. Fox. 6948. Have you noticed that ttey are sent ?—Yes ; the notices are always sent. We have for the union a 19 Feb. 1890. vaccination committee. 6949. Of which you are a member ?—No ; I am not a member of the committee. I have been, but I am not a member just now ; and wc have an ofiicer naped Brown, whose duty it is to send out all these notices, and to report to the vaccination committee. 6950. Are you aware whether he does his duty or not ?—I believe he does, as far as sending out notices is concerned. 6951. {Clialrman.) I understand all the steps are taken, down to that of prosecuting, which step the guardians do not take ?—Yes; the Forms _A. and B. are always sent out in due course, but there it stops. 6952. (Mr. Meadows White.) Have you a public vacci- nation officer, who is called the public vaccinator in the Act of Parliament, in your union ?—We have several public vaccinators ; we have one in Halifax, one in my own immediate district, the Eipponden district; another one in EUand, another one in Sowerby Bridge, another one at Brig House ; there would be altogether, I should say, from eight to a dozen. 6953. (Mr. Pidon.) Have you ever been prosecuted yourself?—Yes, I have. 6964. Was that in Halifax?—No, it was at South Eston. 6955. Have you had any child born in Halifax ?—I have not; all my children were born at the same place, South Eston. 6956. {Sir Edwin Galsworiloy.) You mentioned the cases of children of your brother, who had been vac- cinated, and had been in three or four cases successfully vaccinated ?—Yes. 6957. Have any evil results whatever followed from the vaccinatii m in the other cases ?—Not in those 6958. What was the age of the child that was sup- posed to have died from vaccination ?—It would be about three months, not more. 6959. How many guardians are there in the Halifax Union ?—Thirty-six. 6960. How many are for and how many against vac- cination ?—could not answer that question positively, but there is a decided majority against compulsory vaccination. 6961. On the Board?—Yes, on the Board. Many are against compulsory vaccination who are in favour of vaccination; some of them believe in the merits of vaccination itself, but they refuse to compel others ; they ask that the Act should be left optional Avith the parents. The witness withdrew. Mr. J. n. Matthews. Mr. John Henry Matthews examined. 6962. (Chairmxtn.) You are a machinist at Enfield Lock ?—Yes. 6963. You have four children living, I believe ?— Yes. 6964. And have lost one ?—^Yes. 6965. The first child you had, the one you lost, died from eczema, I believe ?—Yes. 6966. Did the two next children also have it ?—Yes. 6967. As well as the fourth child ?—Yes, all of my children have had it. 6968. Did your doctors tell you that under those circumstances you ought not lo have the children vaccinated?—^Yes, every doctor who has seen them said so. 6969. The first were born at Finsbury and Tottenham, were they not ?—Yes, the first three. 6970. And there no proceedings were taken for non- vaccination ?—None whatever. 6971. At Enfield you were served with vaccination notices and a summons in July 1888 ?—Yes. 6972. You pleaded as a reas(^able excuse that your children were not fit to be vaccinated owing to their suffering from eczema ?—Yes. 6973. Was there an order notwithstanding that made to vaccinate ?—Yes. 6974. Did you on that occasion state that the doctor who was attending them had advised you not to have them vaccinated?—Yes, I told the magistrates that very distinctly. 6975. Did you tell them who the doctor was ?—Yes. 6976. You were summoned the next month for dis- obeying the order ?—Yes. 6977. Did you then produce a medical certificate from Dr. Shaw, your medical man, that the child was unfit for vaccination ?—Yes. 6978. Upon that did the magistrates adjourn the summons for a month ?—Yes. The certificate lasted for two months, but the magistrate only adjourned the case for a month. 6979. Then in September did you produce another certificate from the doctor showing that it would not be fit for vaccination for two months ?—^Yes. 6980. The magistrate again only adjourned the case for one month ?—Yes. 6981. Was no explanation given why they only adjourned it for one month when the doctor had certi- fied that it would not be fit under two months ?—No, they would hardly hear a word from me ; they would not hear any defence. The one I took in on December the 11th was the ordinary form provided by the Vaccination Act to be filled up postponing the operation for two months. The others were the certificates the doctor had given me, on examining the child, to take over to the Court with me. 9683. Then it was adjourned for a month, and did you in January write to the clerk and say that as the certificate covered two months you woulcl not appear at the end of the month ?—Yes. 6984. Did each appearance cost you a day's wages ?— I will not say they each did. Once or twice I suc- ceeded in getting in by dinner time when the case was disposed of fairly early, but in almost every case I had to lose a day. It was a great scamper to get back by dinner time, because ours is an early dinner time at the factory. 6985. How far would that be from the factory ?— It is quite five miles from the factory to the Court. 6986. I believe you have with you a letter from the justices ?—^Yes. 6987. Will you read it ?— Court-house, Enfield, Middlesex, 7th January, 1889.—Sir, I am desired by the justices to inform you that the hearing of the summons against you for the non-vaccination of your child has been adjourned until February 4th, and to request your attendance here at 10 o'clock on that date with your medical officer if in the mean- *' time the child is not vaccinated.—I am. Sir, Your obedient servant, E. Letchworth. 6988. Did you reply to that ?—In answer to that I wrote to the clerk to the justices, and told him that I did not think it was my place to produce a medical man, but I had taken the certificate over to the court, and I pointed out to him that the certificate had still six days to rim beyond the 4th of February, and that as I had been over six or seven mouths in succession when I had a certificate lasting two months, I did not intend to appear before that certificate had ceased to run. 6989. I see that on February the 4th you were fined 10s. and costs ?—Yes. 6990. What did the costs amount to ?—I would not be certain, but the amount came to just over 30s. 6991. Upon that was a warrant of distress put in ?— They say there was ; I do not know anything about it; nobody came to the house while I was there; but when they arrested me they told me they had brought the warrant there, and had marked it no effects. 6992. Had you enough there to cover the 30s. P—Yes, there were 601. or 60Z. worth of goods in the place; I have a six-roomed house, and it is full of furnitm-e from top to bottom. 6982. Then on December the 11th after a further 6993. Upon that you were imprisoned in default of adjournment did you take in a similar certificate?— distress?—Yes.