The Health of a Village

Comparatively little seems to have been written about the health of rural communities in England before the turn of the 20th Century and this is probably because there are so few records. Doctors were seldom available and most people would have had to rely on folk remedies and herbal potions handed from one generation to another. Even most diaries and written reminiscences are usually silent on this area of life at the time.

However my own researches into the history of a village in Oxfordshire do suggest that there is some useful information to be had in the ordinary Parish records, that point to a pattern in the serious illnesses which faced every village inhabitant.

Drayton St Leonard is a small village 8 miles south east of Oxford which lies on the banks of the River Thame. It formed part of the Dorchester Peculiar and looked to Dorchester and Wallingford as the Market towns providing the focus for their rural economy. Dorchester Abbey was until the Reformation, the original mother church and the village was largely owned by the Berties; Earls of Abingdon and absentee landlords. Christchurch College at Oxford were the rectors and provided visiting curates but otherwise, the life of the village was managed by a group of farmers fulfilling the roles of church wardens, overseers of the poor, constable etc.

The parish registers exists for births, marriages and deaths from the 1570’s to the present day and despite some apparent gaps for marriages, are surprisingly full and detailed. Their other great advantage for the subject of this research is that with relatively few “events” each year, any significant underlying pattern is more easily distinguished. For the majority of the period up to the late 18th Century there were only half a dozen or so births and deaths per year and even less marriages.

What struck me as a casual reader was that few though the deaths were, many of them were closely clustered together and that these “clusters” were interspersed with long periods of inactivity.

I have defined a “cluster” as at least two people dying together and this grouping forming more than the expected average death rate for that part of the year as a whole. For instance if there were six deaths a year we might expect an average of one every two months or three in six months. A cluster of three in a month would be exceptional.

I first noticed that a surprisingly large number of deaths were occurring within two weeks of each other and an even larger number within three weeks. I found that this was a continuing trend and that a very large percentage of deaths in some years formed a “string” of deaths, the second, third and fourth each happening within three weeks of the previous one and often much more closely.

It was also clear that the same family names cropped up if not in the same “cluster” in a reasonably close succession of “clusters”. Why was this?

1 Table 1

35 30 25 20 Average no. of clusters 15 per quarter century 10 5 0

9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 9 2 4 7 9 2 4 7 9 2 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 7 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

It can be seen from table1 that the number of 3 week “clusters” rises for the period up to 1600-74 and falls for the following quarter, rises again to 1749 then drops again in the next 25 years before rising steeply over the period to 1840.

There are no apparent reasons in the historical records of the village to explain this. Interestingly though, a study of the number of people dying within “clusters” shows a very similar pattern.

Table 2

80 70 60 50 Number of people dying in 40 "clusters" per quarter 30 century 1575-1840 20 10 0

9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 9 2 4 7 9 2 4 7 9 2 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 7 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Then, bearing in mind that any pattern of deaths must be linked to the occurrence of deaths generally, an investigation of these over the same period was also undertaken. This again revealed an almost identical pattern (see table 3).

 Figures have been adjusted for the last 15 year period to the comparable rate for a full “quarter”.

† Nb the size of “clusters” varies between 2 and 5 and they form 42.1% of all deaths over the period shown

2 Table 3

140 120 100 80 Number of dead per 60 quarter century 40 20 0

9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 9 2 4 7 9 2 4 7 9 2 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 7 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

In short the changes in the incidence of “clusters”, deaths in “clusters” and number of dead overall were broadly proportionate and yet there seems to be no reason why this should necessarily be the case.

At this point a number of theories begin to push themselves forward for consideration. Could the high or low points in fact be linked to historical events which went unrecorded? The high point in the mid 17th century for instance might have been related to the Civil War. However the “worst years” for numbers of deaths generally are in fact 1625 and 1650, well before and after the worst depredations of the conflict. Nor is there any obvious connection with the probable effects of known local and national events until the inception of the Napoleonic wars in the late 18th Century, when higher corn prices and more widespread population movement might have been influential.

Another factor investigated was the time of the year at which “clusters” of deaths began. This did produce a significantly higher percentage of incidence in the three months of January, March and August but with no obvious cause.

One possible explanation for the rapid increase in the trend in the early 19 th Century was apparent though. If the village population was rising proportionately and the amount of accommodation was not, we would expect the effects of overcrowding and insanitary conditions to be evident.

The intermittent reports of population numbers between 1626 and 1851 do show a substantial increase in the number of villagers (from 200 to 325). Also the evidence of the increase in Poor Law contributions nationally in the late 18th and early 19 th Century suggests that the effect of a poor diet and a general level of poverty would have made an increasing number of people prone to illness and death.

However it seems that it was not only the poor that were affected. It may come as a surprise to many family historians that if they look closely at the parish records they will find that their own families, whether well-fed, or otherwise, have died in just such a “cluster”.

3 My own curiosity had been caused by the seeming propensity of some families in the 17 th Century to be repeatedly involved in this pattern of deaths. They were however, quite often from the families of land owners well provided for and protected from the hardships of life. Later this pattern was more difficult to follow as the number of “clusters” increased and just about every family in the village for any length of time joined the ranks of the “sociable deceased”.

Well what did cause these deaths? Unfortunately the parish records are usually silent on this, only on one occasion mentioning that a death was from smallpox. Of course close proximity of deaths may be entirely accidental. The causes could include physical accidents, childbirth, infant deaths, old age, removal to the workhouse and a whole range of diseases. Indeed there is a very strong correlation of the mortality rate in the village with the birth rate and the under 5 and 5-20 age groups account for 36% and 21% respectively in the late 18th/19th century when age at death begins to be reported in the parish register. However the over 60 age group also provide a further 37%. So there is a strong relationship of vulnerability with age but this is not sufficient to explain the clusters themselves.

The very strength and relationship of these patterns suggest there is another underlying and unifying cause that connects many of the deaths involved. The most obvious possibilities are a common infection or environmental effect.

Although I said earlier that little had been written about rural health, despite a large number of diaries and fictional accounts of 19th Century village life, there is one account which does provide a convincing lead in this enquiry.

Richard Gough wrote between 1700 and 1706 “A History of Myddle”, an account which Professor W Hoskins one of the most influential participants in the development of local history, said sounded like “the narrowest kind of parish pump history one could imagine”. However he also said “This work on the past life of a small village in Shropshire is in fact a unique book. A whole countryside, an entire society, come alive in our minds, in a way that no historian, however skilled could possibly evoke”. Gough, having lived 60 years as a Yeoman Farmer, writes with a blunt self-opinionation of the people and events in his lifetime, not avoiding the village’s social problems. It is well worth reading by anyone interested in local history generally.

In his “observations” Gough several times mentions the inhabitants of the village who had died of a “sort of rambling feverish distemper which raged in that country” and of “sad, raging and violent fevers which were in Myddle”, often taking several people to their deaths after weeks of lingering illness.

These fevers were probably often unnamed, and certainly little would have been known about their cause or cure. What seems to be clear though is that they could touch anybody in a small village where servants and farm labourers mixed closely with higher society; on a farm, in their houses, at church, it was literally a common problem which people had to accept. Like in the ballad –

“She died of a fever and no one could save her And that was the end of sweet Molly Malone”

4 death, could it seems, come at any time to anyone without means of prevention.One could only imagine the fear that would go round a village with the news of an outbreak of such sickness. No wonder attendance at church or chapel was as high as it was, with life so tenuous and perhaps little time to make amends for past offences.

But even if this hypothesis is correct, is this really only the isolated story of one village? Well as far as Oxfordshire is concerned, apparently not. A look at the records in other villages in South Oxfordshire (Stadhampton, Toot Baldon, Marsh Baldon and Warborough) show very similar trends.

Table 4 Average number of Clusters per year

3.5 3 Warborough 2.5 Toot Baldon 2 Marsh Baldon 1.5 Stadhampton 1 0.5 Drayton St Leonard 0

4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 0 2 4 7 9 2 4 7 9 2 4 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 2 5 7 0 2 5 7 0 2 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

While Warborough in particular was prone to deaths in quick succession, all the villages investigated had a comparable likelihood of work for the sexton in the period examined.

There is also a note in the parish register of Harwell in Berks which is helpful. The vicar H Macock wrote in the year 1778 “There raged in this parish a kind of pestilent fever and sore throat which carried off numbers”. A look at Harwell’s death register shows the same “clustered” pattern of burials as over the border in Oxfordshire.

In the case of Drayton, the trend continued throughout the 19th Century, reaching a peak in the 1850’s when the agricultural depression was at its height. Even more surprisingly it did not disappear finally until the 1930’s when it had focussed increasingly on the death of the elderly.

Yet at the time of greatest threat since the 14th century plague outbreak across England, that is the flu epidemics of 1918 and 1919, despite being seriously affected, the village did not lose a single resident.

 There was however no overlap of “bad years” or “bad months” among the villages which seems to rule out any common environmental issues like cold weather.

5 Today nothing remains in this quiet country village to suggest the difficulties that faced the previous inhabitants in the attempt to simply stay alive. Most of the gravestones in the churchyard which might have left a clue have been removed and the communual fearfulness which must surely have existed at these events, is now out of memory.

If other village historians have been interested in these findings, perhaps they would like to join me in a wider study of this apparent profile of rural mortality. You can contact me on [email protected] for further details.