Among sanitary matters, the propagation of modified small-pox by inoculation was the foremost question in the practical politics of the parish vestry. For this form of small-pox, introduced to forestall the natural visitation of the disease, persons would come distances from the rural districts to the towns—about as the moderns go abroad to take the baths—to pass through the process, and their presence in the town was sometimes objected to. On one occasion we find the Royston Vestry assembled for the purpose of "considering the improper way practised by several people (not parishioners of Royston) having their families inoculated for the small-pox, and remaining in the town during their illness, and the impropriety of the surgeons encouraging such proceedings. Agreed that the surgeons be waited upon with a request that they will not in future inoculate any person in their own houses unless such person so inoculated be removed in a proper time."
In 1788 this old question of inoculation brought together the largest attendance at any Vestry in Royston for a century, excepting perhaps that upon Church rates in later years. This Vestry was held in the Parish Church "for the purpose of taking into consideration and finally settling the business respecting the small-pox and the inoculating the poor of the town at the parish expense." Whereupon, says the old record, "The parish divided upon the question and there appeared twenty-five for inoculating the parish at the parish expense, and seventeen against it. It is therefore ordered," &c.
In fifteen years the inoculating majority had disappeared, for in 1803 upon the question of small-pox versus cow-pox, a meeting was held to consider "whether a general inoculation with the cow-pox should immediately take place in this town, which was agreed nem. con."
At the end of the century we thus see that the question of a small-pox prophylactic was wavering between the monstrous assumption that everybody must necessarily have small-pox, and had better set about it, and the milder notion of vaccine as an antidote, if the real thing should come. The old custom of variolation had not been discarded, and the experience of the Gloucestershire milkmaids had not crystalized into the form of vaccination to be handed down by Jenner. At the beginning of the century we find this item:—
"Order'd that there is no necessity for a General Inoculation, there being no small-pox in the town (except in the Pest House), and that the Overseers are hereby order'd to suspend the Business of a General Inoculation either with the Cow or Small-Pox."
In general sanitary matters the local Parliament meant very well, but the remedy for a grievance was a long way off. The constable was the Inspector of Nuisances, and he must have sometimes come across heaps of dung in the street. If he did find such a nuisance he had instructions "to make presentment to the Quarter Sessions if need be?" A very dignified, but still a slow rate of getting the town clean, Mr. Dogberry!
There was one respect in which the pauper of the last century was made equal with the prince—whatever his vicissitudes in life he was bound to be buried in wool when he died. They might "rattle his bones over the stones," but he was certain to get his pound of wool to be buried in, not as an act of consideration to the pauper, but as an important piece of that extensive legislation for the encouragement of the woollen industry which figures more often in the Statute book of this realm than any other subject. With every funeral was required an affidavit that the deceased when buried was it "not wrapped up in any suit, sheet, or shroud, but what was made of sheep's wool only." A carpenter's bill for a pauper's funeral generally read "for a coffin and a pound of Woole for A.B.," with frequent items for beer, as "for beer for laying out old Grig, and putting him in the coffin," "laying out, one pot of beer," "putting in coffin, one pot of beer," and "carrying to church, two pots of beer," &c., &c.
The casual disbursements of a parish afford, both for their subject matter and style, a variety of curious entries.
The years 1769 to 1773 afforded abundant evidence of the terrible prevalence of what are now considered preventible diseases. Over and over again as a reason for temporary relief being granted, the phrase is added "Bad with feaver," or "A Bad Feaver," and many are the entries which refer to Small-pox.
Of relief in kind perhaps the following item is one of the most original in the history of the Poor-law:—