Report on vaccination and its results, based on the evidence taken by the Commission during the years 1889-1897.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Vaccination.
Date:
1898
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report on vaccination and its results, based on the evidence taken by the Commission during the years 1889-1897. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    67/512 (page 55)
    THE ACT OF 1867. and upon conviction to pay a penalty not exceeding 20s. This clause was in substance a re-enactment of the clause in the Act of 1853 (Section 9) upon which the case of Pilcher v. Stafford was decided, but it is important to refer to it again in connection with the changes of the law contained in other sections of the Act. A point of some importance has been raised with refer- ence to the construction of Section 29. It will be observed that it provides that every parent or person having the custody of a child who neglects to have the child vaccinated, and shall not render a reasonable excuse for his neglect, shall be guilty of an offence, and be liable to be proceeded against, and upon conviction to pay a penalty. It has been contended that this points to the reasonable excuse being rendered before proceedings are taken. There is much to be said for this contention. The parent guilty of an offence and liable to be proceeded against is one who neglects and shall not render a reasonable excuse for his neglect. The section does not say that the parent who, without reasonable excuse, neglects to have his child vacci- nated shall be guilty of an offence, as one would expect if the intention were that the excuse should be rendered to the magistrate as a defence when proceedings have been instituted. The section is certainly so framed as to afford countenance to the contention we are considering. On the other hand, no body or person is indicated to whom an excuse can be rendered before the proceedings are instituted. There is no machinery provided for hearing and adjudicating upon excuses at that period, and for giving a certificate that a reasonable excuse has been rendered to serve as a bar to further proceedings. On the whole, then, although it is not for us to express an opinion on the legal construc- tion of the clause, which is very unhappily framed, it would probably be construed as intending that the excuse should be rendered to the tribunal before which proceedings for the neglect to vaccinate are pending. We now come to the much-discussed Section 31. It seems probable that Section 31 was enacted for the very purpose of supplementing the provisions of Section 29. Its purpose seemed, to be to enable those who prosecuted (and