It is worth recalling here that many historians share the view that mid-century Sheffield's social structure differed from that of other large manufacturing towns where pronounced class divisions existed.147 For example, Reid argued that the process by which the culture of masters and men separated out into a class of merchants and manufacturers and 'a working class consisting of skilled and proletarian groupings' was extremely gradual prior to I860.148 Given that class
divisions were still relatively indistinct in the late 1840s, this section will discuss middle and working class responses together. However, it is worth bearing in mind Reid's
qualification that tensions and conflicts ’could take place within and between classes’.149
From an official point of view, prevention or containment of the epidemic was contingent on public co-operation with prescribed measures and regulations. Throughout the epidemic period a constant flow of official ’advice’ in the form of newspaper articles, notices, posters and leaflets was given to the public. Because the labouring classes, who comprised the bulk of the population in Sheffield and other large industrial towns, were thought to be most vulnerable to cholera, requests for co-operation and compliance with official measures and directives were, implicitly or explicitly, addressed to them. Even though many preventive measures were interventionist, with disruption of family and community life, there is
evidence of working class support for, and compliance with, such measures.
The supposed indifference of the poor to health was the principal reason for the G.B.H.’s insistence that Boards of Guardians should mount systems of house-to-house visitation. In Sheffield, however, medical men and Poor Law officials, all of whom had a ’thorough knowledge of the habits of the
people', decided to trust the public to apply for treatment voluntarily. 150 Although the local press and Sutherland cited instances of people ignoring calls, medical men appear to have been satisfied by the public’s response. Dr Overend reported that calls for voluntary application for medical aid were heeded.151 Dr Lewis, was more complimentary, stating
that the work of the Sanitary Committee had been 'much
forwarded by the readiness evinced by all parties attacked in making applications to the medical officers and
dispensaries1.152 Published data reveals that in the Sheffield Union district alone, there were over 6,000 voluntary applications for medical treatment.153
The testimony of local medical men and the number of voluntary applications strongly imply that in Sheffield's case, the G.B.H.'s fears and Sutherland's complaints were
unfounded. Also, it should be pointed out that Sutherland was somewhat hasty in construing failure to apply for official treatment as a shortcoming of the Guardians' system of medical prevention or, more especially, as evidence of working class apathy. People chose not to apply for a variety of reasons. Treatments and cures were available from a number of sources, other than the Guardians. Indeed, estimates supplied by a local newspaper, reveal that almost a fifth of the fatal cholera cases recorded in the Sheffield and Ecclesall Union districts had been under the care of private practitioners.154 Moreover, as was the case in other towns and cities, a range of treatments and cures was available from the alternative sector.155 Lastly, it is worth pointing out that some
individuals chose not to seek medical treatment on religious grounds.156
The public's apparent willingness to place its trust in the Guardian's medical arrangements was one sign of the vastly improved relationship which existed between Sheffield's
working class and local medical men. This point is further illustrated by examining working class attitudes to the most disruptive and potentially provocative element of the official system of relief; namely, their insistence on removing people from infected houses to either the house of refuge or the diarrhoea hospital.
Removal of cholera patients to hospital led to angry and often riotous popular reactions during the epidemic of 1831- 32, primarily because it played on working class fears about the medical profession and dissection, not to mention the fact that the considerable disruption of family and community life added to the trauma of the epidemic.157 In 1849, one
Attercliffe woman complained that on the day of her husband’s funeral, she, her daughter, son in law, and their four
children were ordered to leave the family home.158 Her
daughter and grandchildren were sent to the house of refuge, whilst she and her son in-law were instructed to make their own arrangements until the house had been cleansed. Another person spoke of his resentment at having to obtain a ticket from Mr Watkinson before being allowed to collect his children from the house of refuge.159
In these and similar cases, anger was not directed
against the official medical procedures or Medical Officers as such, but at the insensitive way in which they were
implemented by lay officials. Indeed, the poor appear to have recognised the need for extraordinary arrangements and to have been grateful to the town's medical fraternity for the way in
which it worked towards arresting the epidemic.160 The inhabitants of Attercliffe joined with their local vicar in thanking official medical men for the 'most kind and exemplary way' in which they performed their duties throughout the
epidemic period.161 Praise was also extended to the medical staff at the diarrhoea hospital and house of refuge. From the point of view of the medical authorities, the task of
arresting the epidemic was much easier as a result of working class co-operation. The only complaint medical men voiced about the working class response was that 'the lower portion of the working classes' ignored repeated warnings about
'carousing and dissipation' at weekends.162
Whereas opinion in Sheffield held that medical men had conducted themselves in a caring, sensitive and conscientious manner, there was widespread disquiet about the way in which official cleansing measures were carried out. People from a variety of social and occupational groups expressed anger about what they saw as the Guardians' over-zealous and misguided war against nuisances.163 In the case of the
'attack' on nuisances in Attercliffe mentioned above, local people saw the cleansing team as behaving more like an army of occupation than a relief column.
Contrary to assurances that cleansing operations in
Attercliffe would be concentrated on houses where cholera had been reported, the cleansing team made little attempt to
discriminate between affected and unaffected properties.164 Numerous complaints were also made about the way in which
nuisances were designated. In many instances, beds, bed clothes, clothing and other possessions considered by their owners to be clean, were deemed dangerous and confiscated or burnt. Similarly, a number of privies were demolished by workmen despite the fact that the night-soil was removed at regular intervals by their owners. An assortment of other items, ranging from building materials to water barrels which their owners maintained were inoffensive, were destroyed or removed.
Anger mounted because it was felt that official cleansing operations were often counter-productive, undoing much of the self-help precautionary work undertaken by the residents
themselves. Shortly after official cleansing began, a number of people complained that their houses and yards, which had previously been well scrubbed, whitewashed, and disinfected with chloride of lime, were left filthy and unwholesome by the authorities. Further complaints were made about the haphazard or incomplete way in which work was carried out. One
Attercliffe resident described how workmen sent to clean her privy:
’left the yard in a very dirty state. The walls still remain down, and the ashplace is exposed to view .... If the ashplace were a nuisance before, it is much worse now, the drainage from it flowing down the passage for want of a retaining wall'.165
Many official sanitary measures were criticized for being
’unscientific’.166 Having been bombarded with sanitary advice from official sources over the previous year, many people in
Attercliffe were astonished when officials and their staff undertook measures which seemed 'more likely to cause than check disease1.3-67 People were incensed when, having ordered workmen to destroy a trough said to contain the only source of clean water available to many villagers, Watkinson instructed firemen to draw stagnant and filthy water from the canal and a pond for cleansing. Similar reservations were expressed when the contents of privies and middensteads were left to stand in the streets for several days. This procedure, it was felt,
'completely poisoned the atmosphere'.3-68
Such fears were quickly borne out as within days of the cleansing team's departure new cases of premonitory diarrhoea and then cholera reappeared. One man recalled that after his property had been hosed down with water from the canal, he felt ill and began to vomit; another that one of his tenants died of cholera after cleansing operatives had hosed his house with 'bad' water taken from Whitworth's pond.169 Similar
complaints were made by other villagers, amongst them the Reverend Blackburn who stated that, 'After the fire engines came to the village, many deaths happened from cholera ... They occurred principally in the line where the fire engines had been'.170
Given that many people in Sheffield believed that the actions of the cleansing team were actually helping to spread the disease, it is unsurprising that the team's presence in a particular area caused widespread fear and alarm. This
against public co-operation with cleansing operations, medical opinion held that fear could predispose people to cholera. One woman was said to have died from cholera as a result of the 'terror occasioned by the watering brigade'.171 A similar case, in which a man died after he witnessed the authorities
'turning out a number of persons from their houses in anticipation of cholera', was reported in the Nursery district.172
The conduct of officials, and especially Watkinson, was a source of particular anger and resentment. In his dealings with the general public he was said to have been strident, abusive and, on occasions, threatening.173 Throughout the cleansing campaign Watkinson ignored protests and rebuffed suggestions that he or the Guardians should provide any form of compensation. In encounters with Attercliffe's wealthier and more 'respectable' inhabitants, Watkinson was more
diplomatic but no less intransigent. The Reverend Blackburn's request that hosing should be suspended because it was
damaging property and helping to spread cholera was firmly dismissed.
Insensitivity towards the bereaved, lack of respect for the dead and official interference with funeral arrangements caused additional bitterness. Although the immediate
interment of victims was no longer official policy,
representatives of the Guardians caused something of a furore by calling at the home of John Kerry, whose two children died of cholera, with orders that the deceased were to be
immediately ’fastened up' in coffins sent from the workhouse, and buried the following day.174 Although the men allowed Kerry to find a female to lay out his daughter, they ignored his pleas that the children should be buried in coffins he had ordered from an undertaker. ’A great commotion’ ensued in Attercliffe on the day of the funeral, as shocked villagers saw the hearse travel through the main street with both coffins ’projecting out of the windows’.175 This was considered to be even less respectful than what was usual practice of carrying coffins to the Vestry Office in an open cart. The dignity of the funeral was further marred when Kerry discovered that his children were to be buried in the cholera ground and not in the plot of ground he had ordered. Religious beliefs were also affronted on the Day of
Humiliation, for whilst calls for prayer were ’strictly observed’ with public houses, shops and other businesses closed, Watkinson’s cleansing team continued to work, even during the Divine service.176
Many of the grievances held by the people of Attercliffe in 1849 were identical to those which led to conflict in towns and cities across Britain in 1831-32. Family life was
disrupted, cleansing and nuisance removal were carried out arbitrarily, property and possessions were confiscated, damaged or stolen, the dead and bereaved were shown little respect, and, perhaps worst of all, it was widely believed that the cleansing team's attempts to arrest the epidemic were counter-productive. Yet, despite the anger and resentment public order was never seriously threatened; although
Watkinson had found it necessary to request an escort for the fire engines after they were followed by a ’great concourse’ of angry people on their first working day in Attercliffe, and there were scenes of ’excitement’ and ’commotion' during the following week, physical resistance did not materialise.1'7'7 This is not to say that the people of Attercliffe were
passive. Throughout the cleansing campaign and, indeed, afterwards protests continued.
These took two forms. When the sanitary operations were in progress, cleansing operatives and.their supervisors were challenged directly by individuals, or indirectly through intermediaries, such as the Reverend Blackburn or Samuel Jackson.178 Concern and protests about the sanitary
operations did not diminish after the cleansing team departed. Indeed, at the beginning of October, local people made a
formal protest through a petition. This resulted in the
presentation to the Council of a memorial signed by over five hundred rate-payers calling for an enquiry into the sanitary proceedings at Attercliffe.179 Public disquiet, coupled with the fact that several local dignitaries also expressed
support, prompted the Council to bow to popular opinion and set up an enquiry. Evidence was heard from a large number of people, the vast majority of whom were highly critical of the cleansing team and of Watkinson’s high-handed methods. The Guardians declined an invitation to give evidence, arguing that the memorial should have been forwarded to the G.B.H. or the Poor Law Board and pointing out that neither they nor their employees was answerable to the Council.180
The view that the public's dilatoriness, ignorance and immorality were largely to blame for the insanitary conditions in which they lived was widely espoused in middle class
circles and was a recurrent theme in general sanitary
propaganda.181 In the late summer of 1849 it became apparent that sections of Sheffield's middle class subscribed to this view, blaming the poor for predisposing themselves to attack or even, in some cases, cholera's appearance in the town.3-82
Of all the working class habits giving rise to concern in respectable circles, one - the practice of keeping animals, and especially pigs - was singled out for criticism. Nothing was more likely to produce filth and contribute to the
likelihood of disease, wrote one citizen, than animals kept in heavily populated districts of the town by people 'who could barely afford to keep the human members of the family'.183 In the fraught circumstances of September 1849, the Guardians believed it imperative that the pig problem should be
addressed. Consequently, Watkinson and his team were
instructed to remove this nuisance. In Attercliffe cleansing operatives made people move pigs away from houses, demolished styes, carted away manure, and, on many occasions Watkinson threatened to fine people without notice for keeping pigs in their yards.184 These measures were enforced with equal rigour in other districts of Sheffield.185
Working class people saw these nuisances very