The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-04-12 00:00:00

REFUSING TO VACCINATE A CHILD.

At the Bow-street Police court, in London, Charles Kdward
Frost has appeared to • summons to answer the charge of re.
fusing to have his child vaccinated.

Mr. Vincent Yardley, the pariah vaccinating officer,
proved the cam.

The defendant was fined a year ago for neglecting to
obey the law with respect to the same child.
Defendant : Sir, I will not have this child vaccinated.
I have lost three children through vaccination. lam
determined this child shall live. You may send me to
prison if you will, and I will serve my time, but this
child shall not be vaccinated. My wife won't allow it.
I do not care for the knowledge of medical men. I have
a higher knowledge. Our Maker did not send children
into this world to be cut about. Why is it that hospitals
are increasing and medical men are increasing, and the
disease is increasing? Solely through the process of in-
noculation. Is it right to inflict sores on the arm?
No. Of coarse it makes business for these doctors. It
is to their interest to cause disease, and they do cause
it by vaccination. Even the law is different for this
kind of case. A man who commits a theft is sent to
prison for the crime, and there the punishment ends.
Not so in these cases. I have been fined for my
offence, and yet I am brought un again and again, and
still punished for the same offence.

The Magistrate: A thief would again be punished
If he did as you do—repeat the offence. You are very
unjust towards Mr. Yardley. You forget that he JA
empowered by the Act to summon you once a month
Instead of once a year, and I know myself that he is
even very unwilling to do that. You are certainly
very hard upon the medical profession, foci know of
no class cf men who do more work for nothing than
medical men.

Defendant : This gentleman, sir, is paid to do hie
duty by rates which land others have to pay.

fie-Magiatrate : You may as well say -that of me.

Defendant: lam not addicted to drink. I can take
care of my child. She shall not be vaccinated, and I
will guarantee that she never has email-pox or any
other disease. When the Prince of Wales was stricken
down with illness three of the greatest medical men at-
tended him, but not one knew the nature of his disease.
It was canoed by vaccination. Sir, lam gifted with
the divine power of prophesy. When I was told that
the Prince would not live, I prophesied that he would,
and be did. If I can prophesy that the Prince will
live, surely I can prophesy that my child shall not have
disease.
_

The Magistrate : You have certainly gone further
to-day than you ever went before. I did not know
that you were a prophet. But supposing that I agreed
with you respecting vaccination—and I certainly do
not—l should still be bound to do my duty in accord-
ance to the law.

Defendant: If I consented, and have my child vac-
cinated, my wife would not. If I could not persuade
her lam certain no one else could. And above all, sir,
if I disapprove of vaceination, and yet consent to the
vaccination of my child, am I setting ea example to my
fellow thinkers?

The Magistrate : Wdll, I certainly cannot answer
that question.
The case was then adjourned, in order that Mr.
Yardley might endeavour to persuade the defendant's
wife to consent to the vaccination of the child.