NoIII.
Account of the Plague at London in 1665:—From Dr.Hodgesand others.
INthe beginning of September 1664 the people of London first became alarmed by a report of the plague being broke out in Holland, where it raged violently the former year. The United Provinces had received it from some place in the Levant, and, certain accounts having been received of thedistemper being in Holland, several councils were held by government with a view of concerting means for preventing its introduction into Britain. These were held privately, and it does not appear that any thing was positively determined upon; but thus the knowledge that such a distemper existed in Holland was suppressed, and the public fears dissipated until the beginning of December; when two, supposed to be Frenchmen,214in Long-acre, or rather the upper end of Drury lane, died with such suspicious symptoms that the people of the house endeavoured to conceal the distemper of which they died. The secretaries of state, however, having got intelligence of the matter, caused their bodies to be inspected, when it became evident they had died of the plague. This produced a general alarm; Dr. Hodges says, that “hereupon some timorous neighbours, under apprehensions of a contagion, removed into the city of London; who unfortunately carried along with them the pestilential taint; whereby that disease, which was before in its infancy, in a family or two, suddenly got strength, and spread abroad its fatal poison; and, merely for want of confining the persons first seized with it, the whole city was irrecoverably infected.” The author of the Journal, however, says that the public fear again subsided, though it had been still farther raised by the death of another person in the same house about the latter end of December; but, as no more died for six weeks, no farther notice was taken of it until the 12th of February, when one died in another house, but in the same parish. Soon after this an increase was observed in the weekly list of burials at St. Giles’s parish, which augmented the general alarm so much that few cared to pass through Drury lane or the suspected streets, unless upon very urgent business. In a short time a like augmentation was perceived in the bills of the adjoining parishes, and indeed all over the town. The Journal informs us that the usual number of burials within the bill of mortality was from 240 to 300; but from the 20th of December to January 24th they had gradually arisen from 291 to 474. This seems inconsistent with what he had before said of the alarm having ceased till the 12th of February; but we shall take his own words. “This last bill (474) was really frightful; being a greater number than had been known to have been buried in one week since the preceding visitation of 1656. However, all this went off again, and the weather proving cold, and the frost, which began in December, continuing very severe, even till near the end of February, attended with sharp though moderate winds, the bills decreased again, and the city grew healthy, and every body began to look upon the danger as good as over; only that still the burials in St. Giles’s continued high. From the beginning of April especially, they stood at 25 each week, till the week from the 18th to the 25th, when there were buried in St. Giles’s parish 30; whereof were two of the plague, and eight of the spotted fever, which was looked upon as the same thing; likewise the number that died of the spotted fever on the whole increased; being eight the week before, and twelve the week above named.”
Thus a new and still greater alarm was produced, which was yet farther augmented by the spreading of the distemper. The journalist says indeed that only a few were set down in the lists as having died of the plague; the remainder of the deaths being charged to other distempers; and accordingly one week, when the mortality bill was high, and only 14 charged to the plague, he says, “this was all knavery and collusion; for in St. Giles’s parish they buried 40 in all; whereof it was certain that most of them died of the plague, though they were set down of other distempers; and though the number of all the burials was not increased above 32, and the whole bill being but 385, yet there were 14 of the spotted fever, as well as 14 of the plague; and we took it for granted upon the whole that there were 50 died of the plague that week. The next bill was from the 23d of May to the 30th, when the number of the plague was 17; but the burials in St. Giles’s were 53; a frightful number, of whom they set down but nine of the plague; but, on examination more strictly by the justices of the peace, andat the lord mayor’s request, it was found there were 20 more who were really dead of the plague in that parish, but had been set down of the spotted fever, or other distempers, besides others concealed.”
The account given by Dr. Hodges is somewhat different from the above. He informs us that “a very hard frost began in December and continued three months, which seemed greatly to diminish the contagion, and very few died during that season; though even then it was not totally extinguished.” The journalist says that in this intermission of the plague there was a difficulty which he could not well get over. The first person who died of the plague he says (p. 234) was on December 20th, or thereabouts, 1664, though he had told us before (p. 2) that it was the end of November, orbeginningof December the same year. “But after this (continues he) we heard no more of any person dying of the plague, or the distemper being in that place, till the 9th of February, which was about seven weeks after; and then one more was buried out of the same house: then it was hushed, and we were perfectly easy as to the public for a great while, for there were no more entered in the weekly bill to be dead of the plague, till the 22d of April. Now the question seems to be thus: Where lay the seeds of the infection all this while? How came it to stop so long, and not to stop any longer? Either the distemper did not immediately come by contagion from body to body, or, if it did, then a body may continue to be infected without the disease discovering itself many days, nay, weeks together. It is true there was a very cold winter, and long frost, which continued three months; and this, the Doctors say, might check the infection; but then the learned must allow me to say that if, according to their notion, the disease was, as I may say, only frozen up, it would, like a frozen river, have returned to its usual force and current when it thawed; whereas the principal recess of the infection, which was from February to April, was after the frost was broken, and the weather mild and warm. But there is another way of solving all this difficulty, which I think my own remembrance of the thing will supply; and that is, the fact is not granted, namely, that there died none in those long intervals, viz. from the 20th of December to the 9th of February, and from thence to the 22d of April. The weekly bills are the only evidence on the other side, and those bills were not of credit enough, at least with me, to support an hypothesis, or determine a question of such importance as this: for it was our received opinion at that time, and I believe upon very good grounds, that the fraud lay in the parish officers, searchers and persons appointed to give account of the dead, and what diseases they died of; and, as people were very loth at first to have the neighbours believe their houses were infected, so they gave money to procure, or otherwise procured, the dead persons to be returned as dying of other distempers; and this, I know, was practised afterwards in many places; I believe I might say in all places where the distemper came; as might be seen by the vast increase of the numbers placed in the weekly bills under other articles of diseases, during the time of the infection. For example, in the months of July and August, when the plague was coming on to its highest pitch, it was very ordinary to have from 1000 to 1200, nay to almost 1500, a week, of other distempers: not that the numbers of those distempers were really increased to such a degree; but the great number of families and houses where really the infection was, obtained the favour to have their dead returned of other distempers, to prevent the shutting up of their houses.”
The disease continued to advance, but with such intervals and remissions as frequently gave hopes of its disappearing entirely. Nevertheless, about the beginning of May the inhabitants began to leave the city in great numbers. The journalist, for his own part, was irresolute; and sometimes would have left the city with the rest, had it not been for the impossibility of finding an horse; “for, (says he) though it is true that all the people did not go out of the city of London, yet I may venture to say that in a manner all the horses did; for there was hardly a horse to be bought or hired in the whole city for some weeks.” Many fled on foot, carrying with them soldiers’ tents, in which they slept in the fields, it being then warm weather, and no danger of taking cold. This way of living was also familiar in some degree by reason of thewars which had preceded; multitudes of those who had served in them being at that time in London. This our author greatly approves of as a method of preventing the infection from spreading, and thinks that had it been more generally practised, much less damage would have been done in the country than happened at the time from this dreadful distemper.
Early in June the court thought proper to remove to the city of Oxford, whither the infection did not reach. The people still continued to remove during the whole month of July though in smaller numbers than before; but in August the multitude of fugitives so increased that says our author, “I began to think there would be none but magistrates and servants left.” He informs us also that at the breaking out of this plague the city was unusually full of people; vast numbers who had served in the wars or who in times of trouble had been friends to royalty had flocked into it on the restoration of Charles II, in hopes of reaping some fruit of their former labours and sufferings; so that on the whole he supposes there must have been upwards of an hundred thousand people more than usual in the city. Indeed if we are to believe that, on a representation of the state of the poor to the lord mayor, it appeared that there were an hundred thousand ribband weavers in Spittle-fields, we must look upon the population of London at that time to have been incredibly great; and when the journalist computes the number of those who fled only at two hundred thousand, we must certainly suppose it to have been greatly underrated.
As the plague continued to become more and more violent, the magistrates thought proper to take some means for separating the infected from the healthy; but unhappily their mode of procedure was such as inspired both the infected and uninfected with the utmost terror. The houses were marked with a red cross, subscribed with the words “Lord, have mercy upon us!” in large letters. They were continually guarded, day and night; and none were allowed access to the sick, to give them either food or medicines, excepting those who guarded them; nor were the sick themselves allowed to go abroad until forty days after their recovery. But, though the distemper continually advanced, it did not get to its full height until the months of August and September. Before this time it seemed to fly from place to place; so that great hopes were entertained, though always without foundation, of its total removal; but now it invaded the whole city. Four or five thousand died in a week; once eight thousand; and, in the month of September, for some time, twelve thousand a week died. The city was reduced to the extremity of distress.
The author of this journal had the courage not only to remain in the city, during the whole time of the infection, but even took many solitary walks to the house of his brother, who had removed into the country, in order to preserve his goods from being stolen. At first he went every day, but afterwards only once or twice a week. He tells us also that he took many walks out of curiosity; and, though he generally came home frighted and terrified, he could not restrain himself. “In those walks (says he) I had many dismal scenes before my eyes; as particularly of persons falling dead in the streets, terrible shrieks, and screamings of women, who, in their agonies, would throw open their chamber windows, and cry out in a dismal, surprising manner.
“It is scarce credible what dreadful cases happened in particular families every day; people in the rage of the distemper, or in the torment of their swellings, which was indeed intolerable, running about raving and distracted; and oftentimes laying violent hands upon themselves, throwing themselves out at their windows, shooting themselves, &c. mothers murdering their own children, in their lunacy; some dying of mere grief as a passion; some of fright and surprise, without any infection at all; others frighted into idiotism and foolish distractions, some into despair and lunacy; others into melancholy madness.”
The distemper was found to rage so violently among the poorer sort, that we are told by Dr. Hodges, some gave it the name of thepoor’s plague. This is confirmed by the journalist, who informs us that “the misery of that time lay chiefly upon the poor, who, being infected, had neither food nor physic; neither physician nor apothecary to assist them, nor nurse to attendthem; many of those died calling for help, and even for sustenance, out of their windows, in a most miserable and deplorable manner; but it must be added, that, whenever the cases of such persons or families were represented to the lord mayor, they were always relieved.” Indeed the charity of the more opulent, upon this occasion, almost exceeds belief. Dr. Hodges informs us, that “though the more opulent had left the town, and it was left almost uninhabited, the commonalty who remained felt little of want; for their necessities were relieved with a profusion of good things from the wealthy, and their poverty was supported with plenty.” The probable reason of such devastation among the poor, Dr. Hodges promises, p. 15, to give, and does not; at least I have not been able to find it in his book; I must therefore content myself with what the journalist (though no physician) has delivered on this subject. He says, that when people began to use proper cautions, the danger of infection was the less. “But (says he) it was impossible to beat any thing into the heads of the poor; they went on with the usual impetuosity of their tempers; full of outcries and lamentations when taken, but madly careless of themselves, fool-hardy and obstinate when well: where they could get employment, they pushed into any kind of business, the most dangerous, and the most liable to infection; and, if they were spoken to, their answer would be, I must trust toGodfor that; if I am taken, then I am provided for, and there is an end of me, or the like; or thus: Why, what must I do? I cannot starve; I had as good have the plague, as perish for want. I have no work, &c. This adventurous conduct of the poor was what brought the plague among them in a most furious manner; and this, joined to the distress of their circumstances, when taken (with the distemper) was the reason why they died so in heaps: for I cannot say that I could observe one jot of better husbandry among them, I mean the labouring poor, while they were well and getting money, than there was before; but as lavish, as extravagant, and as thoughtless of to morrow, as ever; so that, when they came to be taken sick, they were immediately in the utmost distress, as well for want as for sickness, as well for lack of food as lack of health.”
In the time of so great a calamity, the magistrates exerted themselves as far as their power and skill would permit, to lessen the sufferings of the people. It was natural also in such a dreadful emergency to call upon the physicians to exert themselves. Accordingly the king (Charles II) by his royal authority commanded the College of Physicians of London jointly to write somewhat in English, that might be a general directory in this calamitous exigence; nor was it satisfactory to this honoured society to discharge their regards for the public in that only; but some were chosen out of their number, and appointed particularly to attend the infected on all occasions; two also out of the court of aldermen were required to see this hazardous task executed.215
Our author then proceeds to mention the names of some who were employed in this laudable undertaking; particularly Dr. Glisson, regius professor at Cambridge, Dr. Nathaniel Paget, Dr. Wharton, Dr. Berwick and Dr. Brookes; many others he says were employed; “but (he adds) eight or nine fell in the work, who were too much loaded with the spoils of the enemy; among whom was Dr. Conyers, &c. After, then, all endeavours to restrain the contagion had proved of no effect, we applied ourselves altogether to the cure of the diseased.”
We shall not doubt of the good intentions of the physicians: of their success we may judge from what Dr. Hodges himself says, that many died while prescribing cures for others. To the same purpose the journalist, p. 43: “I shall not be supposed to lessen the authority or capacity of the physicians, when I say that the violence of the distemper, when it came to its extremity, was like the fire the next year (1666). The fire which consumed what the plague could not touch, defied all the application of remedies; the fire-engines were broken, the buckets thrown away, and the power of man was baffled and brought to an end; so the plague defied all medicine; the very physicians were seized with it, with their preservatives in their mouths;and men went about prescribing to others, and telling them what to do, till the tokens were upon them, and they dropped down dead, destroyed by that very enemy they directed others to oppose. This was the case of several physicians, even some of the most eminent, and of several of the most skilful surgeons; abundance of quacks too died, who had the folly to trust to their own medicines,” &c.
Thus, in defiance of every effort of human skill, the calamity continued. “The contagion (says Dr. Hodges) spread its cruelties into the neighbouring countries; for the citizens, who crowded in multitudes into the adjacent towns, carried the infection along with them, where it raged with equal fury; so that the plague, which at first crept from one street to another, now reigned over whole counties, leaving hardly any place free from its insult, and the towns upon the Thames were more severely handled; not, perhaps, from a greater moisture in the air from thence, but from the tainted goods rather, that were carried upon it: moreover some cities and towns, of the most advantageous situation for a wholesome air, did, notwithstanding, feel the common ruin. Such was the rise, and such the progress, of this cruel destroyer, which first began at London.”216
But it is now time to turn from those scenes of horror. The power of the pestilential contagion was not absolutelyimmeasurable. It had its rise, its progress, its state and declension. Dr Hodges tells us that,when“the worst part of the year was over, and the height of the disease, the plague by leisurely degrees declined, and before the number infected decreased, its malignity began to relax, insomuch that few died, and those chiefly such as were ill managed; hereupon that dread which had been upon the minds of the people wore off; and the sick cheerfullyused all the means directed for their recovery; and even the nurses grew either more cautious, or more faithful; insomuch that after some time a dawn of health appeared, as sudden, and as unexpected, as the cessation of the following conflagration; wherein, after blowing up of houses, and using all means for its extinction to little purpose, the flames stopped as it were of themselves for want of fuel, or,out of shame, for having done so much mischief. The pestilence, however, did not stop for want of subjects to act upon, (as then commonly rumoured) but from the nature of the distemper. Its decrease was, like its beginnings, moderate, &c. About the close of the year, that is, on the beginning of November, people grew more healthful,” &c.
The numbers who perished in this violent plague are so variously reported that nothing certain can be said concerning it. Dr. Morton says that upwards of forty thousand died; but from the foregoing accounts it is evident that this calculation must be prodigiously underrated. The journalist indeed gives strong reasons for believing that all the accounts of the numbers who perished were much below the truth. He thinks that an hundred thousand at least must have fallen victims to it; and if his own assertion be true, that thirty thousand died in the last three weeks, we cannot suppose but that three times that number died in the course of the twelvemonth that the disease lasted; which would fix the calculation at 120,000. This great mortality however was soon forgot; as soon as the danger was over, the ravages it had committed were no longer an object of terror. The disease had its usual effect, viz. increasing the desire of the sexes for each other. “They had the courage (says Dr. Hodges) now to marry again, and betake to the means of repairing the past mortality; and even women before deemed barren were said to prove prolific; so that, although the contagion had carried off, as some computed, about one hundred thousand, after a few months their loss was hardly discernible.”