Page:William Petty - Economic Writings (1899) vol 1.djvu/89

Rh and were laid aside as useless until 21 December, 1603, "at which time they were again resumed and continued unto this day." On this point Bell is particularly emphatic "I deny not," he says, "that there might be, and I believe was, a very grievous Pestilence which raged here in some part of the Year 1603.... You may ask me why then I do not give a better account of that Pestilential Year? I answer. That in that Year the Parish Clerks gave not any accompt thereof; and although I think it not impossible, yet it is very improbable, that any particular man should give a just accompt thereof."

In regard to the date at which the bills began, both Bell and Graunt are mistaken. There may have been bills even as early as 1517 and original weekly bills assigned, with much probability, to 1532 and to 1535, are still preserved. These bills doubtless owe their existence to the known timidity of Henry VIII. in the face of the plague, and it is probable that they were not long continued after the disease ceased. Indeed, the French ambassador, though he was very certain that fear of infection could not be, as was given out, the true reason why Anne of Cleves went to Richmond in the summer of 1540, was still unable to find any better ground for his scepticism than the mere assertion that "there is no talk at present of the plague" in London. Throughout the period from 1550 to 1563 there was, probably, little or no plague in the city and consequently less occasion to continue the weekly reports. But the new outbreak of the epidemic in the last named year apparently caused them to be resumed, and we know of weekly figures for 1563-1566, for 1574 for 1578-1583 for 1592-1595 ,