Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1879-09-27 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

STOCKTON MINISTER' = OBJECTION TO VAOOINATION.  The Rev. W. Stoddart, 8.A., minister of the Unitarian Church, Wellington-street, Stockton, appeared before the Borough Magistrates on Thursday morning in answer to a summons for neglecting to have his child vaccinated as required by the law. The Vaccination Officer proved that the child had not been vaccinated since its birth. Stoddart, in defence, said that he had a conscientious objection to vaccination—believing it to be contrary to the laws of God and opposed to sound common sense. As a parent he considered it his duty to protect his child from any and every kind of harm ; but he should not be doing his duty as a parent if he allowed the germs of disease to be inserted in his child's body with a view to the possible prevention of some other kind oi disease. He therefore considered it to be his duty to ,oppose the laws of the State rather than dlliobey the laws of God. htlderman Knowles (Chairman of the Bench): Very well; the Bench make the order with costs.  Mr Farndale (Deputy Magistrates' Clerk) : The child must be vaccinated within the next fourteen days, or you will be summoned again. The reverend defendant then paid the costs of the present proceedings and left the Court.  Mr Stoddart has sent ns the following letter explaining his reasons for disobeying the law requiring Inns to have his chi d vaccinated :  "I refuse to have my chill vaccinated because vaccination, by which a disease called oow-pox is given to a child, is a direct violation of the laws of Nature. The human body is protected in various ways against the attack of disease, and to cut open the veins and inject the virus of a disease into the blood is I clearly unnatural; moreover, there is danger of other diseases being communicated along with the vaccine. hundreds of cases could be adduced of children being murdered by law by vaccination. There is a case in this I town of a child whose arm has been a I diseased mass ever since she was vaccinated, which was several years ago, and she is a complete wreck, crippled, idiotic, a martyr to vaccination. There is a young man also in this town whose arm from the shoulder to the elbow is nothing but skin and bone, all the flesh being eaten away through vaccination. There was a man fined at Newcastle three weeks ago for not having his child vaccinated who told the magistrates that he had lost one child by vaccination, and he dare not run the risk of having another child murdered. And such cases as these could be multiplied a thousandfold. These murders are justified on the plea that vaccination-is a preventive against small-pox, but can it be right to give a child one disease to guard against the possibility of catching another? To do evil that good may come' is acknowledged to be a vicious maxim, and can it be right to do a less evil to prevent the possibility of a greater evil happening? Even if vaccination were a sure preventive to small-pox, which it is not, it is unnatural ' and immoral to give a disease to a child. If I were to give any other diseasa to a child, and the child died, I should be charged with murder, and the law of the State cannot make that right which is wrong and immoral in itself. Even a cabman who neglected to disinfect his cab after conveying a person ill with a contagions disease would be severely punished for risking the lives of other persons. Small-pox is not a dangerous disease under proper treatment; and as it is a contagious disease, being propagated by germs, it can be prevented from spreading by carefully isolating those who are ill with it. These are my reasons why I refuse to have my child vaccinated. It is my duty to preserve my child from disease by every natural means, and the law of the State cannot relieve me of that responsibility. If Imy child was to die through vaccination I should be responsible for its murder, although it would be murdered by law. It is the duty of every parent who believes that the law is unnatural and immoral to protest against it by refusing to have his child vacoins.ted, and submitting to fine or imprisonment rather than risk the health and life of his child. It is his duty to disobey the laws of the State rather than disobey the laws of Nature,which are the laws of God."  W.