WITH THE coronavirus pandemic ongoing, it can be hard to remember that this is not the first time people have been unjustly suspicious of vaccines across Britain.

Despite the evidence, there continues to be a small minority of the public who strongly believe that they are safer without them.

coincidentally, an article written more than 100 years ago by one of Reading's long-gone local newspapers, has shown that concerns over vaccines are definitely nothing new.

ALSO READ: Vaccine bus returns to Lower Earley - here's where you can find it

On this day, August 6, 1896, a number of parents were being put on trial in Reading's courts for not vaccinating their children - back then, the vaccine to get was against Tuberculosis.

Below is a transcription of the first two cases heard at the Reading Borough Bench, published by the Reading Observer on August 8, 1896, 125 years ago.

MORE VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS AT READING.

"At the Reading Borough Bench, on Thursday, Several Vaccination summonses were heard.

"Before the vases were called on for hearing, Mr Stebbings, who represented the majority of the defendants, asked for all the summonses to be adjourned for a few days, as counsel arranged for the defence was unable to be present that morning.

"The Bench, however, refused to acquiesce in the proposal. Mr. S. Brain appeared in support of the summonses.

"The first defendant called was Harry Marshall, of Swansea Road, who was summoned in respect of his child, Henry Cyril.

"Mrs Day, vaccination officer of St. Mary's district, deposed to having served the customary notice on the defendant's wife.

"Defendant, who had no explanation to offer, was ordered to have the child vaccinated within fourteen days and pay the costs of the proceedings.

"Mr. Farr, of 40, Prince Of Wales' avenue, was summoned for failing to gave his child, Percy Victor, born in 1891, vaccinated.

"Mr. Stebbings explained that Farr had had four children vaccinated.

ALSO READ: Alok Sharma under fire again over quarantine-free travel to red list countries

"Each enjoyed good health before the operation was carried out, but since they had been victims of consumption ['Tuberculosis' in the modern day], and the reason he refused to have the boy under notice inoculated was because he was afraid that he would contract the same disease.

"Mr Stebbings went on to explain that the Royal Commission, which was now investigating the question of vaccination, would probably issue their report in a few weeks.

"He argued that until that report was made known it would be well if the Bench would suspend judgement.

"An order to have the operation performed within fourteen days was made."

In the pictures above you can read the full article, as it was published at the time.