Vaccination and the Anti-Vaccination movement Smallpox was formerly an extremely common disease which killed approximately a quarter of all those who were infected, while many of the survivors were disfigured by appalling pock scars. Queen Elizabeth I caught smallpox in 1562 and, although her life was saved, her complexion was affected by some relatively small scars, which was one of the reasons why she subsequently wore white-lead make-up. The queen, however, fared better than her nurse, Lady Mary Sidney, who also survived the disease but was horribly disfigured by the scars. The first method of preventing the disease was through Inoculation (also known as variolation), by which a small, controlled dose of the smallpox virus itself was administered to the patient. This technique was introduced to England in the early 18th century. Nevertheless, there remained a risk that the minor infection would not be controlled to the intended degree, and that the inoculated person would suffer a severe, even fatal infection. Edward Jenner's process of Vaccination, which he began in 1796, was, by contrast, based on infecting the patient with a different, less serious disease (cowpox) in order to provide immunity against the more serious disease (smallpox). The first legislation concerning smallpox vaccination was the Vaccination Act, 1840, which banned variolation (the more dangerous method of prevention through inoculation) and provided for free, optional vaccination. This was followed by the Vaccination Act, 1853, which made vaccination compulsory. Further Acts of 1867, 1871 and 1873 consolidated and strengthened this legislation. The local

Boards of Guardians of the Poor were given responsibility for enforcing the regulations and employing the Public Vaccinator. It was in the 1870s, in reaction to the latter legislation, that the Anti-Vaccination movement really developed. One of the movement's tactics was for its members to gain election to local Boards of Guardians in order to subvert the bodies which were supposed to enforce the law. The Anti-Vaccinationists objected to compulsory vaccination on various grounds, including: • That vaccination did not work. • That vaccination was dangerous and actually spread disease. • That compulsion by the state violated the rights of the individual. • That vaccination violated religious beliefs (including the doctrine that diseases were sent by God and therefore should not be prevented). As with many mass-movements, expressions of the antivaccination cause ranged from the sober and clearly argued to the obsessive and hysterical. However, the movement was sufficiently persistent to result in the appointment of a Royal Commission in 1889, whose final report was published seven years later. The Commission's recommendations led to the revision of the law by the Vaccination Acts of 1898 and 1907. This legislation provided for exemption from compulsory vaccination for those who registered a conscientious objection to it. The last serious outbreak of smallpox in Great Britain occurred in 1961-62, when there were 62 cases including 24 deaths. The last naturally-occurring case anywhere in the world occurred in 1977, and in 1980 the World Health Organisation declared that smallpox had been completely eradicated.

A successful smallpox inoculation, 1770 This document is a settlement examination, the main purpose of which was to determine which parish a person legally belonged to for Poor Law purposes. William Mager was a wheelwright who says that he was hired in the spring of 1769 to work for a year for William Lee of Sibsey. Before the year was completed, on 12 March 1770, he "with the consent of his said Master, went to Skirbeck in the said County and was Inoculated for the smallpox and continued there [in quarantine for a month] till the twelfth day of April 1770".

After the quarantine period he returned to his work for William Lee at Sibsey, completed his year's contract in the middle of May, and received his whole year's pay. Document reference: Bolingbroke Par Co/6/6/3

An unsuccessful smallpox inoculation, 1799 The parish register of the small parish of Horkstow near Barton on Humber contains three burials for the year 1799, and after two of these the vicar returned to the volume to squeeze in some additional information: "Burials in 1799. March 7th. Henry Martinson, son of Wm. and Alice Shearwood. Novr. 27th. Elizabeth Blackett, Ag[ed] 27. of the small pox in the natural way. Decr. 6th. George Fish, aged 29. under Innoculation for the small pox."

In other words, Elizabeth Blackett had simply caught smallpox and died of it "in the natural way", whereas George Fish had attempted to protect himself by being inoculated with a controlled dose of smallpox, but had developed the disease in its full force and died." This method of inoculation was gradually superseded by the safer method of vaccination by cow pox and was banned altogether under the first Vaccination Act of 1840.

Document reference: Horkstow Par/1/2

Vaccination of poor children, 1806 Before central government passed legislation concerning vaccination, local authorities were already realising that it was of public benefit and should be sponsored amongst the poor. This volume is the Churchwardens' account and memoranda book from St Michael's parish in Stamford.

"At a Vestry held on 5th Day of August 1806 it is unanimously agreed, that in consequence of the great number of Deaths that have happened from the Small Pox, it is become necessary to recommend the Poor of this Parish to be inoculated for the Cow Pox [i.e. vaccinated], the latter Remedy being a certain Preventative from the fatal effects of the former Disorder. "Resolved, that the following children be inoculated for the Cow Pox at the Expense of the Parish, vizt. Thos. Saddington Mary Taverner Mrs. Burbidge James Taverner Mrs. Framingham Henry Brookes Widow Colton William Bagley Serjt. Wiseman, 69th Regt.

one child one Do. one Do. two Do. one Do. one Do. two Do. one Do. one Do."

Document reference: Stamford St Michael Par/7/3

Compulsory Vaccination forms Examples of the forms sent to parents under the Vaccination Acts. The children concerned are Mary Ann White of Ashby Puerorum (a small village near Horncastle) in 1855 and Adeline Clary of Toynton Fen in 1891.

The forms include details of the times and places appointed for vaccination sessions. Document references:

Ashby Puerorum Par 23/1 1-Tax/9/6/1

Anti-Vaccination movement propaganda This printed envelope is one of the publicity tactics of the antivaccination movement. It shows a baby being vaccinated by a skeleton, while the mother is being restrained by a policeman brandishing the Vaccination Act.

The flap at the top of the envelope carries the slogan "Vaccination means the Manufacture of Disease !!!" The contents of the envelope have not survived, but it was posted on 10 March 1879 to William Ewart Gladstone, at that date a leading Opposition M.P. (He became Prime Minister for the second time following the General Election of April 1880). An evidently un-convinced Gladstone gave away the envelope as a novelty to a family friend Hallam Tennyson (who was the son of the Poet Laureate Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and who at one time hoped to marry Gladstone's daughter Mary).

Through this connection the envelope has found its way to the Tennyson Research Centre at Lincoln Central Library, the world's most significant collection of documents on the poet and his family. Document reference: TRC/Letters/5955

The front cover of Bodily Matters: the Anti-Vaccination Movement in England, 1853-1907 by Nadia Durbach (Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, 2005), the first full-scale study of this subject. The cover is illustrated by another copy of the movement's propaganda envelope.

Vaccination and Anti-Vaccination in Sleaford These two volumes relate to Sleaford and the surrounding area at the period when the pressure of the Anti-Vaccination lobby had caused the Government to amend the legislation to allow parents to opt out of vaccination. The first volume is the Public Vaccinator's Register of successful vaccinations in the Wilsford division of the Sleaford Poor Law Union, 1899- 1929.

The second volume is the Register of Conscientious Objections to Vaccination for the Sleaford Division of the county, from the records of the Sleaford Petty Sessions court, 1898-1907.

Interestingly, the origin of the term 'Conscientious Objection' lies here in the Anti-Vaccination movement, although it later became more widely associated with moral objections to compulsory military service.

Document references:

PL/12/802/1 PS/Sleaford [uncatalogued]

Gainsborough Board of Guardians and the AntiVaccination Martyrs The Anti-Vaccination movement seems to have been particularly well-organised in Gainsborough. There are newspaper reports of public meetings and demonstrations between at least 1871 and 1875. The Gainsborough Board of Guardians of the Poor appears to have been, at least for a time, one of those Boards of Guardians where the Anti-Vaccinationists were in the majority. On 12 November 1872 the Board voted not to take any further steps to enforce the Vaccination laws, and an attempt a year later to overturn this decision was voted down. After other decisions to the same effect, the Local Government Board [the Whitehall department with oversight of the Boards of Guardians] wrote to the Gainsborough Board of Guardians early in 1874 to say that its action "was illegal as being against the Policy of the Law". Under these circumstances, the Board had reluctantly to begin to enforce the law against individuals who refused vaccination for their children, although the closeness of the Board's votes on these occasions reveals how deeply divided it remained.

Gainsborough Board of Guardians minute book, 21 July 1874 "The Board then proceeded in Special Meeting to consider the case of George Aistrop of Gainsborough for neglect of the Vaccination Laws. "Mr Gamson moved & Mr Blenkinsopp seconded that proceedings be taken against George Aistrop by the Vaccination Officer. "The motion was put & 20 voted for & 17 against it. It was therefore carried."

Document reference: PL/4/102/6

The Gainsborough Anti-Vaccination Martyrs At the instigation of the Board of Guardians, proceedings were taken in the courts against those who refused to have their children vaccinated. The usual penalty was a fine; however, some of those convicted stood by their principles and refused to pay their fines. They were then imprisoned. A newspaper report from the Stamford Mercury of 28 August 1874 relates to the release of George Aisthorpe from Lincoln Prison after serving his sentence of 14 days. This is the same individual as the 'George Aistrop' referred to in the Board of Guardians' minute book.

Nor was George Aisthorpe the only one of the so-called Gainsborough Vaccination Martyrs. The Stamford Mercury of 5 February 1875 carries a longer article on the release from Lincoln Prison of Joseph Vickers, John Willerton, James Dowman and William Pashley, all of Gainsborough. Substantial crowds attended their triumphant parade through the town, which was followed by a public meeting in the Corn Exchange, the speeches of which were reported in detail, and which culminated in the presentation of souvenir gifts to the "martyrs".

Document reference: Lincoln Central Library: Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 28 August 1874