Fear and Loathing in Rural Gloucestershire: The Oakridge Smallpox Riots of 1896

Today, the idyllic hamlet of Oakridge, a few miles from the town of Stroud in the western Cotswolds, seems an unlikely setting for violent confrontation. But in January 1896, a series of disturbances culminating in arson and attacks on police and other local officials, made this small community a talking point throughout Britain. The unrest in Oakridge occurred against the backdrop of a severe smallpox epidemic affecting Gloucestershire and contiguous counties. Although the immediate cause of the riot was the decision to open a temporary isolation hospital, the episode revealed the tensions that then existed in many rural communities whose values, interests and concerns differed fundamentally from those of urban elites.  

This was not the first protest of its kind; nor would it be the last. Attempts to isolate smallpox cases had met with serious violence in Britain since the eighteenth century and similar disturbances occurred throughout Britain’s colonies and in other nations such as the United States. [1] Riots also erupted when smallpox cases were removed to isolation facilities. In 1902, for example, a riot occurred in the Scottish village of Duntrune when local authorities tried to remove an infectious case and suspected contacts. [2] These disturbances were products of particular times and places but they bear some similarity to confrontations in our own time. The imposition of restrictions and vaccine mandates during the recent Covid-19 pandemic come readily to mind and we can see similar tensions in disputes over Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and Congestion Charges, among other things. These are issues which divide communities sharply, especially where local feelings are said to have been ignored for the ‘greater good’. The failure to take heed of, or even to consult local opinion, is often at the heart of such disputes and this was certainly the case in Oakridge.

The spread of smallpox in 1895-6 caused great alarm in western England and the Midlands, especially in Gloucester where most of the cases occurred. Vaccination efforts were stepped up and social gatherings such as sports matches, village festivities and agricultural shows were abandoned. [3, 4] Although there were several isolation hospitals in the area, provisions were limited and the accommodation quickly filled up. As cases began to appear outside Gloucester city, the Stroud Joint Hospital Board purchased an isolated property known as the ‘Pest House,’ which had been used in the distant past to isolate infectious cases. [5] The location seemed ideal because it was reasonably close to Stroud – a sizeable industrial town – and because it was at the same time fairly remote. It also lay at the boundary between two ‘unions,’ or administrative areas of the Poor Law. The intention was to house smallpox cases from workhouses in both areas. These institutions, which had been established under the Poor Law of 1834, housed paupers in grim and overcrowded buildings and were prone to outbreaks of disease.

Although the decision to locate the isolation hospital in Oakridge made perfect sense to the hospital board, the inhabitants of Oakridge and surrounding villages felt differently. When they became aware of the decision, around 300 local ratepayers mobilised in opposition. Their protest made no difference and, on 29 January 1896, a smallpox case from Stroud was transported by horse-drawn ambulance to the pest house in Oakridge. On arrival, the driver was confronted by an angry crowd which had assembled after it became known that the building was being furnished to receive patients. Accounts of the encounter vary, but it seems that the driver felt threated and returned to Stroud, even though he may not actually have been assaulted. The following day, more supplies arrived at the pest house, making it clear that the danger, as local residents saw it, was far from over. A larger crowd assembled, around 300 strong, drawing in men from the surrounding area. Most appear to have been agricultural labourers, farmers or mill hands working in the textile mills of the Stroud valleys. The crowd clashed with police, overturned wagons and began to damage the pest house, ripping tiles from the roof, smashing windows and setting fire to the building. [6,7]

The unrest was sparked by fear that smallpox would spread from the pest house to the local community. Children passed the building on their way school and adults passed it on their way to work in the mills. In reality, the risk posed to villagers was tiny but the decision was not fully explained and villagers did not see why they should have to accommodate infectious cases from elsewhere. The lack of consultation and, later, the dismissal of local concerns confirmed long-standing suspicion of outsiders and of officials in particular. Rural communities prized their independence and had their own ways of doing things. But their way of life was being eroded by industrialisation and the steady encroachment of municipal legislation. This partly explains the reinforcement of Oakridge residents with people from surrounding villages. Some were concerned that infection might spread from Oakridge to nearby mills but the crowd seems to have been animated above all by a desire to defend the rights and dignity of local communities. Local villages were said to be unanimous in their opposition to the isolation hospital and continued to protest against it long after the disturbances were over. Even though the pest house had been damaged, Oakridge remained the intended location for a tent to house infectious patients. [8]

The Oakridge riots resulted in several arrests and six persons were sentenced to 12-months’ hard labour for their part in the disturbances. A further four were sentenced to one-month’s hard labour and a local farmer received a £15 fine for obstructing local authority officers. For some time after the riot, a heavy police presence was retained at the pest house, many of the officers being armed with cutlasses which they kept drawn even as they slept within its blackened walls. Tension remained high for some time and there was considerable and widespread ill feeling towards the local authorities and the police. Perhaps in view of this, the 12-month prison terms were later remitted to 6 months. [9]

Looking back on the riots in 1939, a review of local governance in Gloucestershire referred to the decision to open an isolation facility in Oakridge as an instance of ‘arbitrary control’ which had ‘bred trouble’ in the county. [10] Belated recognition of the failure to adequately consult or listen to local opinion contrasted sharply with reporting at the time, much of which portrayed the rioters as an ignorant mob. Their views were said to be typical of certain sections of the working-class, particularly those who had refused mandatory vaccination against smallpox for themselves and their children. There were several such persons in Oakridge and many more in Gloucester city and elsewhere in the county. Indeed, the epidemic was often blamed on the unvaccinated, who were said to have the deaths of smallpox victims – many of them children – on their hands. [11] The rioting at Oakridge was said to be typical of the ‘lawlessness’ exhibited by anti-vaccinationists in general. [12]

The parallels with our own time are obvious but what is less apparent, perhaps, is the need to reflect on our own standpoints – to understand contrary opinions rather than to misrepresent or condemn them. Those who railed against the unvaccinated and the rioters in Oakridge may have been justified but their arrogance left little room for persuasion. No attempt was made to address the concerns of villagers and this fostered resentment, compounding deep-seated suspicion of urban elites. The lesson is clear: if the opinions of target communities are distorted or ignored it is likely to intensify opposition and undermine the legitimacy of governing institutions. Sadly, the consequences of such arrogance are all too apparent today.

Acknowledgments

Blog by Professor Mark Harrison, Professor of the History of Medicine, Faculty of History, Centre for the History of Science, Medicine, and Technology, University of Oxford.

Image courtesy: The ‘Pest House,’ Oakridge, after the fire, 1896; D9746/1/6, AA 32/32A, reproduced with kind permission of Gloucestershire Archives.

References 

1. ‘Small-Pox Riot,’ Northampton Mercury, 3 April 1908, p.8; ‘A Smallpox Riot,’ Bradford Daily Argus, 11 August, 1894, p.2; ‘Smallpox Riot in Barbados,’ Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 9 September 1902, p.5; ‘The Small-Pox Riot in Berkshire,’ Oxford Journal, 9 April, 1870, p.6.
2. ‘Smallpox Riot in a Scotch Village,’ Northern Whig, 18 March, 1902, p.5.
3. Smallpox vaccination in Gloucester, D10725/acc 10725/box 28417; Notice of smallpox vaccination, D7565/2; leaflet in support of vaccination, D873/F50, Gloucestershire Archives.
4. ‘The Smallpox at Gloucester,’ Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 17 April 1896, p.6; ‘The Small-Pox at Gloucester,’ 4 April 1896, p.8; ‘Smallpox in Gloucester,’ Jersey Express and Channel Islands Advertiser, 30 March, 1906, p.2; Cancellation of fête due to smallpox, D10800/1/5/1, Gloucestershire Archives.
5. ‘Stroud Hospital’, The Stroud News and Gloucestershire Advertiser, 31 January, 1896, p.3; ‘The Small-Pox in Stroud – Indignation Meeting at Bisley’, The Stroud News and Gloucestershire Advertiser, 31 January, 1896, p. 4; ‘The Small-Pox Riots – Majesty of the Law,’ The Stroud News and Gloucestershire Advertiser, 7 February, 1896, p.2; ‘The Small-Pox Riots Near Stroud,’ Cheltenham Chronicle, 8 February, 1906, p.7.
6. ‘The Small Pox at Stroud,’ Cheltenham Chronicle, 1 February, 1896, p.4; ‘The Riots at Stroud,’ Bristol Mercury, 5 February, 1896, pp.5-6; ‘The Stroud Smallpox Riots,’ Wiltshire and Gloucestershire Standard, 8 February, 1896, p.6
7. ‘The Tent at Oakridge,’ Stroud News and Gloucestershire Advertiser, 7 February 1896, p.7; ‘Oakridge Riot Recalled,’ Gloucestershire Echo, 10 August, 1937, p.6.
8. ‘Parish Meeting at Chalford – A Protest against the Oakridge Site’, The Stroud News and Gloucestershire Advertiser, 14 February, 1896, p.2.
9. ‘Oakridge,’ Stroud News and Gloucestershire Advertiser, 20 March, 1896, p.7; ‘Oakridge Hospital Riots,’ Cheltenham Chronicle, 18 July, 1896, p.6; Gloucester Journal, 18 July, 1896. P.7.
10. ‘The Jubilee of County Councils,’ Gloucester Citizen, 28 March, 1939, p.8.
11. ‘Note on the outbreak of smallpox in the city of Gloucester,’ Papers of Sanford and Clarke families of Nynehead, DD/SF 15/7/3, Somerset Heritage Centre.
12. ‘The Smallpox Epidemic,’ Stroud News and Gloucestershire Advertiser, 17 April 1896, p.4.