Epidemics and the built environment in 1665 - Institute of Historical

18 Pages·2009·1.94 MB·English

_____________________________________________

Epidemics and the built environment in 1665

JUSTIN CHAMPION

_____________________________________________

[The causes of the plague were] thicknes of inhabitants; those living as
many families in a house; living in cellars; want of fitting
accommodations, as good fires, good dyett, washing, want of good
conveyances of filth; standing and stinking waters; dunghills,
excrements, dead bodies lying unburied and putrefying; churchyards too
full crammed; unseasonable weather ...
William Boghurst, Loimographia (1665)

Writing in 1662 in his Natural Observations, John Graunt was convinced that
there was a precise 'physico-mathematical' relationship between (as he put it)
the 'waxing and waning of diseases' and the quality of the built environment.
The 'turning of great palacious houses in to small tenements' and the consequent
increasing density of the population led to an increased rate of mortality: as the
parochial areas of London grew 'madly disproportionate' so did the patterns of
death.1 The College of Physicians, considering the factors that promoted urban
disease in the early 1630s, had argued that the expansion of poor quality
residential building attracted poor inmates and lodgers - 'by whom the houses
are so pestered that they become unwholesome'.2 In July 1665, when the plague
epidemic had become visible to London society, Roger L'Estrange commented
that the heaviest impact was felt by the poor 'who are either crowded up into
corners, and smothered for want of aire; or are otherwise lost for want of
seasonable attendance's and remedies. Nay too often perchance for want of
bread, which is no wonder in several of the out parishes that are very popular,
and whence the rich have withdrawn themselves'.3 It was then a common
assumption of early modern writers that there was a causal connection between
the quality of the built environment and the differential pattern of mortality.
This commonplace early modern conceptual bracketing of dirt, poverty and
disease has formed the basis of much modern historical writing. This paper,

1 John Graunt, Natural and political observations made upon the Bills of Mortality, in Charles
Henry Hull (ed.), The economic writings of Sir William Petty, vol. 2 (1899), pp. 321, 370, 379.
2 Historical Manuscripts Commission Eighth Report (1881), p. 228.
3 The Intelligencer, 21 July 1665.
35
Epidemic Disease in London, ed. J.A.I. Champion
(Centre for Metropolitan History Working Papers Series, No.1, 1993):
pp. 35-52 © Justin Champion, 1993)
36 Epidemic Disease in London
___________________________________________________________________________
based on the research fundings of one part of the Centre for Metropolitan
4
History (CMH) project 'Epidemics and Mortality in the pre-Industrial City'
which examined the epidemic of 1665 in London, will survey some of the
approaches that can be employed to explore the social topography of disease in
5
metropolitan spaces.
The first point to make concerns sources, methods and techniques. There are
a number of ways in which the relationships between mortality and human
environment can be explored and understood. One specific form of enquiry
might explore the material connection between the location of death and the
quality of the urban environment (as for example reflected in the size or value of
the housing). Other approaches might focus upon spatial differentiation:
understanding the variations between distinct localities within the city by
calculating an overview of patterns of death in a city-wide or local context. Yet
another tactic might pose questions in terms of the seasonality of such
relationships between wealth and disease. So the simple sorts of questions to
pose are for example, what parts of the city suffered the biggest mortality crises
and at what time of the year? How did the disease move around a local area?
What type of households suffered at particular points in time?
In order to accomplish these historical objectives at least three variables are
necessary: one to describe the patterns of death, another to quantify the quality of
the housing conditions, and a third, some form of contemporary cartographic
material upon which it would be possible to map the other variables. Early
modern London is well provided for in terms of the first and third categories: data
about the patterns of death for the entire metropolitan area survive in two distinct
forms. First, the Bills of Mortality (Fig. 1) provide an aggregate figure for deaths
week by week and annually for the second half of the seventeenth century:
similarly they provide some elementary diagnosis of the cause of deaths, in
6
particular noting the number of deaths attributed to plague in each parish.
Supplementing the bald figures of the Bills are the many manuscript burial
registers, which although variable in quality and survival rate can provide

4
This two-year project, conceived by Dr Derek Keene and Dr John Henderson, consisted of two
separate but related studies, one funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (concerning
Florence and London; Ref. No. R000231192) and the other funded by the Wellcome Trust ('The
social geography of plague in seventeenth-century London').
5
For an interesting overview, see Gerard Kearns, 'Zivilis or Hygaeia: urban public health and the
epidemiologic transition', in Richard Lawton (ed.), The rise and fall of the great cities (1989).
6
For a general account of the Bills of Mortality: see Graunt, Natural observations; C. Walford,
'Early Bills of Mortality', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 7 (1878); discussions of how
the Bills were created can be found in J. Christie (ed.), Some account of the Parish Clerks (1893). Dr
Paul Laxton is preparing a complete edition of the surviving Bills for publication on microfilm. For a
more specific account of the role of women in compiling the Bills, see Thomas Rogers Forbes, 'The
Searchers', Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 2nd series, 50 (1974).
Epidemics and the built environment in 1665 37
___________________________________________________________________________

FIG. 1. The annual Bill of Mortality for London and its environs, 1665
38 Epidemic Disease in London
___________________________________________________________________________
important data about the age, gender, status, occupation and location of the dead
7
within individual parishes. Contemporary topographical surveys and maps of
London survive in many forms ranging from very detailed literary sources like
John Stow's famous Survey of London (1598), or William Faithorne's map of
1658 to the more detailed cartography of Ogilby and Morgan in the 1670s and
8
1680s, and John Rocque in the eighteenth century.
To explore, then, the relationship between disease and environment is a
fairly straightforward procedure given the various computer software packages
9
now available. Using some of the lay-friendly relational database programmes
it is possible to relate deaths to places. Trying to characterize the quality of
housing, or the social structure for a particular parish in the city in any
historically significant manner is rather more complicated.
Although there are many qualitative references to the squalor or luxury of
contemporary housing conditions, finding a source that expands such literary
comment into a variable that might be applied with some accuracy across the
whole city and for every household is less straightforward. Taxation records that
focus upon the value of property, in one way or another, provide a particularly
good form of data that can be used to map housing conditions across the city.
As the important work of Michael Power has shown, the Hearth Taxes of the
Restoration which record the number of fire hearths per taxable household give
a uniform factor with which to compare the experiences of different areas of
10
London. Before going on to discuss some of the patterns of mortality and
social structure revealed by mapping hearth tax data with the Bills of Mortality

7
For those studying disease in London most of the surviving registers for the metropolitan area can
be consulted in the Guildhall Library. The Library's Handlist of Parish Registers, Part One: Registers
of Church of England parishes, and other sources material relating to Anglican baptisms, marriages
and burials, within the City of London is an essential source. Part Two covers parishes outside the
City. For an interesting dicussion of the relationship between the registers and the printed sources, see
Ian Sutherland, 'Parish Registers and the London Bills of Mortality', Journal of the Society of
Archivists, 4 (1970), p. 65.
8
The best edition of Stow's Survey is edited by C.L. Kingsford (1908). For a good introduction to
maps of London, see Philippa Glanville, London in maps (1972). The indispensible listing of existing
maps is Ida Darlington, John Howgego, Printed maps of London circa 1553-1850 (1964). There are
useful facsimilies of Ogilby and Morgan's (1676) survey of the City, William Morgan's, London
Survey'd (1682), and Rocque's later work. For a more detailed discussion of the quality of the maps,
see Ralph Hyde's introductions to the seventeenth-century maps; also Walter Spiers, 'Morden and
Lea's Plan of London, 1682', London Topographical Record, 5 (1908), 117-35.
9
For a general account of the processs of computer assisted linkage, see the special issue on Record
Linkage of History and Computing, 4, No. 1 (1992). For a more specific description of the method
used in the CMH Project, see J.A.I. Champion, 'Relational databases and the Great Plague in London
1665', History and Computing, 5:1 (forthcoming, 1993).
10
On the issue of the reliability of the Hearth Tax, see Nick Alldridge (ed.), The Hearth Tax:
problems and possibilities (1983) and more recently Kevin Schurer and Tom Arkell (eds.), Surveying
the people. The interpretation and use of document sources for the study of population in the later
seventeenth century (1992), especially Chris Husbands, 'Hearths, wealth and occupations: an
exploration of the Hearth Tax in the later seventeenth century'.
Epidemics and the built environment in 1665 39
___________________________________________________________________________
it is worth just briefly considering the relationship between taking the number of
hearths in a household as a measure of the quality of that housing and the 'real'
living conditions in such quarters.
Research into the historical reconstructions of physical house size - that is
studies that have explored the numbers of, the sizes of, and even the contents of
rooms - have enabled early modern historians to come to some general
assessment and understanding of the dimensions of wealth and poverty in the
11
early modern city. For example, it seems a fair historical assumption that
12
households that had only one or two hearths can be characterized as poor.
Supplementing this type of economic understanding it would be possible to
contrive an historical investigation based upon a variety of other types of
surviving sources. For example studies of archaeological material might be
combined with examinations of probate inventories to expose the physical and
13
material structure of the early modern house.
A different, but essentially complementary, approach might pursue other
types of record that were concerned with the social management of poverty,
illness and disease. Such sources might include Churchwardens' account books,
records of the overseers of the poor, or listings of alms distributions which
might, for example, give ample evidence of the number of households needing
parish relief. Another source might be found in the quarter sessions and other
records that list landlords prosecuted for sub-dividing houses for rent to lodgers,
inmates and migrants. Again, from this type of combination of sources it is
possible to build up a picture of what types of household (conceived in a

11
Although not directly relevant to the experience of London an interesting place to start any
investigation of living conditions is U. Priestley, P.J. Corfield, and H. Sutermeister, 'Rooms and room
use in Norwich housing, 1580-1730', Post-Medieval Archaeology, 16 (1982). The two general books
which survey the components of material life in the period are Lorna Weatherill, Consumer behaviour
and material culture 1660-1760 (1988), and Carole Shammas, The pre-industrial consumer in
England and America (1990). An over view of the history of poverty is Paul Slack, Poverty and
policy in Tudor and Stuart Engand (1988), while a more specific investigation can be found in S.M.
Macfarlane, 'Studies in poverty and poor relief in London at the end of the seventeenth century'
(unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of Oxford, 1983).
12
For a important discussion of poverty and neighbourhood, see Derek Keene, 'The poor and their
neighbours: the London parish of St Botolph outside Aldgate in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries' (unpublished paper). See also Jeremy Boulton, Neighbourhood and society: a London
suburb in the seventeenth century (1987).
13
An excellent source for understanding the physical types of housing in early modern London is
John Schofield (ed.), The London surveys of Ralph Treswell (1987); see especially the discussion (pp.
11-15) of the various categories of post-medieval buildings. For a more specific case study, see A.F.
Kelsall, 'The London house-plan in the later 17th century', Post-Medieval Archaeology, 8 (1974). The
indispensible work listing surviving sources related to London property is Derek Keene and Vanessa
Harding, A survey of documentary sources for property holding in London before the Great Fire
(1985).
40 Epidemic Disease in London
___________________________________________________________________________
strictly economic, social or material manner) were considered by
contemporaries as marginal. From this sort of confluence of sources that focus
upon the household it seems uncontentious to argue that ownership of hearths in
some respects not only signified the physical quality of the living space but also
related to the socio-economic position of the resident household. How the
historian can relate these general characteristics of social and material
environment to the impact of plague in 1665 is worth considering next. In order
to do so in some detail I will refer specifically to the CMH project.

TABLE 1

Relating deaths to number of hearths per household
__________________________________________________
Parish1 Size of house in number of hearths
_
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+
___________________________________________________________________________
St James Clerkenwell (44) 31.7 20.8 24.7 9.7 2.6 3.2 1.2 6.22
39.8 19.3 16.7 7.3 3.9 2.7 1.9 8.43

St Botolph without Aldgate (41) 31.2 25.2 22.3 8.3 4.7 4.7 1.5 2.2
26.5 33.1 24.4 5.1 3.8 4.1 1.5 1.7

St Dunstan in the West (49) 15.5 11.7 12.6 20.2 8.6 5.0 4.7 21.7
10.7 7.5 7.3 14.3 11.9 10.5 8.7 29.1

St Michael Queenhithe (20) 35.1 24.3 16.2 5.4 5.4 2.7 2.7 8.1
24.3 12.9 20.0 7.1 15.0 10.0 2.1 8.5

St Saviour Southwark (42) 14.2 31.8 28.2 12.4 6.9 4.3 0.7 1.5
30.0 33.5 20.1 7.5 3.8 2.9 0.9 1.3
__________________________________________________
Source: CMH database compiled from Hearth Tax Returns, 1662-1666.

1 Figures in parentheses are the percentages of deaths linked to households recorded in the
Hearth Tax.
2 The top line contains the percentages, for each house size, of all deaths linked to
households recorded in the Hearth Tax.
3 The emboldened figures are the percentages, for each house size, of the total number of
households assessed.

Using the Hearth Taxes of the 1660s it is possible to describe the structure of
household wealth of most of the parishes of metropolitan London.14 So, for
example, it is possible to compare mean size of houses in terms of hearths, the
number of rich and poor households, the ranges of house sizes, and the density of
housing, with a profile of the population that died derived either from the general

14 See for example the important work of Michael Power - M.J. Power, 'East London housing in the
seventeenth century', in Peter Clark and Paul Slack (eds.), Crisis and order in English Towns 1500-
1700 (1972), and 'The social topography of Restoration London', in A. Beier and Roger Finlay (eds.),
London 1500-1700. The making of a metropolis (1986).
Epidemics and the built environment in 1665 41
___________________________________________________________________________
42 Epidemic Disease in London
___________________________________________________________________________
weekly account contained in the Bills of Mortality or specifically from
individual burial registers. One simple, but important, exercise might correlate
the size of the epidemic crisis in each parish (calculated by dividing the number
of deaths in 1665 with the mean figure for the previous decade) with the
average hearth size. Understanding the process of the epidemic from the
position of this static annual snap-shot the evidence of the project (see Fig. 2)
suggests that there is a clear relationship between the poor populous suburban
parishes and a high crisis mortality ratio (CMR): as Paul Slack has pointed out
the wealthy intramural parishes like St Stephen Walbrook experienced minimal
crises compared with parishes such as St Botolph without Aldgate.
The plague then, as contemporaries surmised, was a morbus pauporum. A
further exercise enables us to map the epidemiological progress of the plague in
1665. By digitizing a map of London and its environs and then feeding in the
data drawn from the Bills it is possible to reconstruct a picture of how the
disease moved through the city, suburbs and out parishes, tracking when the
plague hit each parish. In this way it is also possible to pinpoint exactly when
different parishes experienced the worst of the epidemic, and indeed to compare
the epidemic experience with the endemic. Such exercises illustrate, among
other things, that while there was a broad relationship between suburban
poverty and high epidemic mortality, the wealthy west end and intramural
parishes did not escape quite severe death rates (see Fig. 2). The result of such
computer-assisted global examinations of the experience of London as an
aggregation of diverse parishes seems then to echo the findings of Graham
Twigg: that the poorer parishes acted as a reservoir of the disease, but that the
middling and wealthy areas were not immune from increased infection. The
connection between environment and mortality was more complex than the
immediate picture suggests.
Exploring the impact of the plague in a single parish will allow a more
detailed consideration of the epidemiological relationship between disease and
the built environment. Using the available software it is possible to create a
database that relates material in burial registers with the precise household
structure of a parish, in this case the wealthy west-end area of St Dunstan in the
15
West. The intention was to attribute each identifiable death during the plague
outbreak to a specific household in an exact location within the parish: in this

15
For a very basic introduction to the topography of St Dunstan in the West, see Walter George Bell,
Fleet Street in seven centuries (1912). See also Walter George Bell, 'Wardmote Inquest Registers of
St Dunstan's in the West' London and Middlesex Archaeological Society Transactions n.s., 3 (1914-
17), pp. 56-70. The parish is particularly well provided for in terms of the survival of data relating to
social structure, social adminstration and the impact of disease. For a near contemporary description
of the area, see John Strype's edition of John Stow, A survey of the cities of London and Westminster
(1720) vol. 1, book III, pp. 265-282, and vol. 2, book IV, pp. 71-72.
Epidemics and the built environment in 1665 43
___________________________________________________________________________
way the link between household structure and epidemic mortality could be
established with some measure of precision.
The parochial area of St Dunstan covers, not only the ecclesiastical parish, but
also the liberty of the Rolls and the precinct of Whitefriars. Topographically, the
area was dominated by Fleet Street, described by a contemporary as, 'a great
thoroughfare for coaches, carts, horse and foot passengers; being the great way
from London to Westminster'. Fleet Street contained traders and services of all
sorts, being well inhabited 'by shopkeepers of the best trades; as woolendrapers,
linendrapers, grocers, saddlers, upholsterers [and] booksellers'. Trade in the street
was 'very considerate'. The other dominant street was Chancery Lane, being
notable for the prevalence of legal accommodation such as Symmonds Inn,
Cliffords Inn, and Sergeants Inn. Indeed it was the inns of court and the attendant
people that flocked there, lived and worked there, that determined much of the
social and economic character of the parish. Supplying the legal profession with
accommodation, entertainment, and food and drink, meant that the area was
replete with taverns, eating houses, inns and coffee-houses. For example the Bolt
and Tun Inn, off Fleet Street near the entrance to Whitefriars, was said to be a
great resort 'for coaches and horses, especially in term time'. Bonds Stables,
accessible from both Fetter Lane and Chancery Lane, was a large yard dominated
by the inn and much frequented by lawyers and their clients. As the Wardmote
Inquests illustrate, the base of the occupational structure of the parish was
dominated by victuallers (licensed and unlicensed), vintners, innholders, alehouse
keepers and cooks. For example, in December 1664, there were seventy names
linked with the food and drink industry, excluding grocers, bakers and other retail
16
businesses. Such activities would also have associated with them a high
proportion of servants and marginal workers such as laundry maids, servants,
porters and carriers attached to the taverns, hostelries and coffee-houses. Along
Fleet Street there were fruiterers, tobacconists, apothecaries, milliners, gunsmiths,
and gold and silversmiths. Fetter Lane held shoemakers, a smith, cutlers, a
matchmaker, a printer, as well as the usual array of bakers, butchers, cooks and
grocers. Tucked away in the yards and alleys were chandlers, sandwich men,
17
glaziers, and tobacco pipe makers. St Dunstan in the West was then, on the face
of it, a thriving, successful and even affluent parish.
Indeed this broad impression is justifiable if not entirely accurate. An
analysis of the taxation material shows that although St Dunstan's was one of
the most wealthy parts of London, with a mean house size of nearly seven
hearths, it was an area that followed the classic social topography of the early

16
See database compiled from Wardmote Inquests 1588-1823: Guildhall MS 3018/1.
17
See database compiled from a combination of parish registers and tax assessments: Guildhall MS
10,345 (Register); CLRO Assessment Box 88.7; PRO E/179/252/27 membranes 33-35 (Hearth Tax
1662); PRO E/179/252/32 items 8.1 and 26.1 (Hearth Tax 1666).
44 Epidemic Disease in London
___________________________________________________________________________
modern city as described by historians like Michael Power. Annexed to the
wealthy locations around Fleet Street and Chancery Lane were the more middling
district of the Rolls Liberty, and the poor and seedy alleys of the riverside precinct of

Percentage of households
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
No. of hearths per household
St Dunstan The Rolls Whitefriars

FIG. 3. Distribution of hearths in the parish and associated liberties of
St Dunstan in the West, 1662-66

Whitefriars. St Dunstan, then, encompassed the extremes of wealth and poverty
(see Fig. 3). Behind the large main streets and courtyards where eminent
politicians like Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke, or the irreligious traveller Sir Henry
Blount, had their city residences, there was a labyrinth of alleys and yards.
Places like Three Legg Alley, off Fetter Lane, were described as 'of very small
repute, being but meanly inhabited'. Or Hercules Pillars Alley, off Fleet Street,
as 'but narrow, and altogether inhabited by such as keep public houses for
entertainment'. If the general character of the parish was known in polite society
for its connections with the law, back streets like Ram and Whites Alley, or
Whitefriars, were infamous for being overcrowded with 'disabled and loose
kinds of lodgers', and with lewd houses, debtors, vagabonds and 'unbridled
lawlessness'. While Two Crane Court might be described as 'a very handsome
open place ... graced with good buildings, well inhabited by persons of repute',
quarters like Cock and Key Alley and Whitefriars had become, during the
course of the early seventeenth century, congested with divided tenements and