Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
“Superstitious Blood-poisoning”? Churchill on Smallpox Vaccination
- By THE CHURCHILL PROJECT
- | July 8, 2022
- Category: Personal Matters Q & A
Dr. Christopher Harmon sends us interesting correspondence between Churchill and a constituent in 1902: The writer vigorously denounced the “fashionable craze” of “poisoning our own children.” He insisted that smallpox could be prevented by clean conditions and pure water. Dr. Harmon writes: “Churchill confessed to having been vaccinated, obtaining ‘complete peace of mind both as regards myself and the community in general.’”
Like Churchill, we occupy the impartial position of historians.1 There is always something to be learned from history. This exchange displays young Winston’s reliance on common sense. Of course, common sense only prevails when people share senses in common.
Vaccination history
Vaccination has been around a long time. It may date as far back as 10th century China. By the 19th century it was widespread practice, particularly for children, especially to prevent smallpox. And opposition to it on religious, medical and other grounds is not new.
Acts of Parliament creating smallpox vaccination officers and prescribing penalties for failing to meet mandates began in Britain in 1840. Successive acts through 1898 broadened exemptions and eased penalties, but gaining an exemption was complicated. Parents applying for exemption had to satisfy two magistrates or “stipendiaries” of their conscientious or medical objections. Even then the exemption process often took months.
The last significant threat of smallpox in the U.S. broke out in New York in 1901-03 and spread to Britain and Europe. Speaking in Oldham in January 1902, Churchill explained his continued support for the current Vaccination Act:
I notice with very great disquietude and anxiety the spread of smallpox. There are now about 850 cases in London, and the disease is not confined to London. I cannot help feeling glad that at the last election, when votes were of great consequence, I refused to pledge myself to vote for the entire repeal of the Vaccination Act.2
“The vaccine rite”
On 13 May the Oldham Evening Chronicle published correspondence between Churchill and a constituent, John Harrison, who accused WSC of inconsistency:
Sir, In your address at Royton a short time ago you stated that it was your intention to be re-vaccinated in order to be protected against the epidemic of smallpox then raging. I beg to ask if you have submitted to the operation since you made reference of your intention to secure the supposed advantages of the vaccine rite.
All epidemics and endemics are due to insanitary conditions. There can be no mistake about it. Their first causes, if properly traced, would show that they were owing either to personal uncleanliness, to a vitiated atmosphere, to impurities in the water supply, to the cesspool nuisance, defective drainage, or to some of their lineage, or to overcrowding where you find the breeding ground for original specimens. Cleanse the house, ventilate it, and stop overcrowding and you will have no smallpox….
Further it would be interesting to know why you objected to inoculation with anti-toxin serum against enteric fever before leaving this country [in 1899 as a war correspondent] for South Africa? What a commentary upon the wretched business is the shocking mortality from enteric fever now raging among our brave soldiers in South Africa, all of whom were “protected” before leaving this country! How many of our soldiers have had their health and constitutions ruined by this superstitious blood-poisoning we shall probably never know.
This inoculation business is a very serious matter. It is not only that the blood of our children is being poisoned as the result of this fashionable craze, but in order to keep up a supply of these multitudinous serums thousands of animals are being lingeringly tortured.3<.sup>
“Without any evil consequences”
Churchill had earlier explained his decision not to be vaccinated for enteric fever. En route to South Africa in 1899 he had written:
The operations take place forthwith, and the next day sees haggard forms crawling about the deck in extreme discomfort and high fever. The day after, however, all have recovered and rise gloriously immune. Others, like myself, remembering that we still stand only on the threshold of pathology, remain unconvinced, resolved to trust to “health and the laws of health.” But if they will invent a system of inoculation against bullet wounds I will hasten to submit myself.4
Mr. Harrison may well have read that passage in Churchill’s first Boer War volume. In the event, WSC tried to explain his opposite reasoning on smallpox vaccine:
Dear Sir, In answer to your interesting letter of the 21st, and the questions it contains. I beg to inform you that I have most certainly been re-vaccinated without any evil consequences attending the operation, and with very satisfactory and comfortable results to my peace of mind both as regards myself and the community in general, during a time when the terrible scourge of smallpox is abroad in the land.5
“Avow your convictions”
This was not good enough for Mr. Harrison:
Sir, Thanks for your answer to my first question, but I beg to remind you that you have not answered my second question. As you are well known to be a man of independent mind, of straightforwardness, and of having the courage to avow your convictions, I hope you will oblige me in this matter. It seems to me that you ought to have the same satisfaction, the same comfortable results to your peace of mind, that you did not submit to be inoculated to prevent enteric fever, which has proved such a terrible scourge in South Africa.6
Common sense
Mr. Harrison, like many in those days, believed that any vaccination was dangerous, and back in 1902, some was. Churchill did not view the two vaccinations in question equally. He had looked into both, and based his decisions on common sense. He left his final reply to his private secretary:
Sir, In reply to your letter, I am desired by Mr. Winston Churchill to say that in comparing inoculations to prevent enteric fever with vaccination as a safeguard from smallpox, it is his opinion that the medical evidence is much less weighty; the experience much more scanty; the risks of infection far less in the former inoculation than in the latter.7
Churchill had apparently decided, in the famous phrase of The Times, that “correspondence on this subject is now closed.” On smallpox and enteric fever vaccination he made a distinction based on the evidence, and took his choice accordingly.
Endnotes
1 Winston S. Churchill, House of Commons, 26 April 1927, in Richard M. Langworth, ed., Churchill by Himself (New York: Rosetta, 2016), 553. Churchill had invoked “the great name of Mr. Gladstone, a name which is received with reverence below the Gangway on the Opposition side, and with a certain amount of respect by some Hon. Members who sit opposite.” An Hon. Member: “What about yourself?” WSC: “I occupy the impartial position of historian.”
2 WSC, Constituency Address, Royton Conservative Club, Oldham, 10 January 1902, in Robert Rhodes James, ed., Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897-1963, 8 vols., New York: Bowker, 1974, I: 116.
3 John Harrison to WSC, 21 April 1902, in Randolph S. Churchill, ed., The Churchill Documents, vol. 3, Early Years in Politics 1901-1907 (Hillsdale, Mich.: Hillsdale College Press, 2007), I: 123.
4 WSC, London to Ladysmith via Pretoria (London: Longmans Green, 1899), 10-11. Churchill by Himself, 470.
5 WSC to John Harrison, 25 April 1902, ibid.
6 John Harrison to WSC, 29 April 1902, ibid., 124.
7 H.W. Carr-Gomm to John Harrison, 5 May 1902, ibid.