1592. The first notice of plague is on 13 Aug., when it was daily increasing (Dasent, xxiii. 118), and there is ample evidence of its seriousness to the end of the year (ibid., 136, 177, 181, 183, 203, 220, 230, 231, 241, 273, 274, 276, 365; Birch, Eliz. i. 87; Creighton, i. 351). A new ‘booke of orders and remedies’ was recommended by the Council (Dasent, xxiii. 203) on 19 Sept. to the Kent justices. This is doubtless the Orders Thoughte Meete by her Maiestie and her privie Counsell to be executed of which several prints (1592, 1593, 1603, N.D.) exist. It is for provincial use, and has no special reference to the restraint of plays. Plays had been under restraint for other reasons than plague since 23 June. The mayoral feast was suppressed on 11 Oct. (Dasent, xxiii. 232). Access to Hampton Court was restrained on 12 Oct. (Procl. 854). Michaelmas term was deferred and finally transferred for a short session to Hertford on 21 Oct. (Procl. 852, 855, 856). There appear to be no statistics of deaths; those ordinarily given belong to 1593 (vide infra). Suitors were still excluded from court on 13 Dec. (Dasent, xxiii. 365), but thereafter there was some recovery, and the records in Henslowe, i. 15, show that plays were permitted from 29 Dec. to 1 Feb. 1593, although no formal order is extant.
1593. This was a year of continuous plague (Creighton, i. 352). The Privy Council warned the Lord Mayor on 21 Jan. that the increase of deaths after some weeks of diminution required care (Dasent, xxiv. 21), and the Register shows preoccupation with the subject up to August, when the record fails (ibid., 31, 163, 209, 212, 252, 265, 284, 342, 343, 347, 373, 400, 405, 413, 442, 443, 448, 472). Plays were restrained on 28 Jan. Trinity term was deferred on 28 May and Michaelmas term transferred for a short session to St. Albans on 24 Sept. (Procl. 860, 865, 866). Bartholomew Fair (24 Aug.) was strictly limited (Procl. 863). Access to court at Nonsuch was restrained on 18 June and at Windsor on 15 Sept. (Procl. 861, 864). The statistics of deaths are puzzling. Stowe, Annales, 766, gives for the period from 29 Dec. 1592 (Friday) to 20 Dec. 1593 (Thursday) 8,598 in all and 5,390 from plague within the walls, and 9,295 in all and 5,385 from plague in the liberties, totalling 17,893 in all and 10,775 from plague. Camden (tr.), 423, gives a corresponding total of 17,890. A marginal note to the printed bill of 1603 gives for weeks ending 20 Dec. 1592 (Wednesday) to 23 Dec. 1593 (Sunday) 25,886 in all and 15,003 from plague. Here are two divergent computations for the same period, one of which deserts the Thursdays, to which we know that earlier and later weekly bills related. Both are more or less contemporary records. On the other hand, a series of broadsheets (cited in Hull, ii. 426), followed by a table appended to Graunt’s Observations (ibid.), give nearly the same figures (25,886 and, not 15,003, but 11,503) as the totals of weekly figures for the period from 17 March (Friday) to 22 Dec. (Friday), not of 1593, but of 1592, and Graunt adopts these figures for March to Dec. 1592 in the text of his Observations (Hull, ii. 363), while he adopts 17,844 and 10,662, which are approximately Stowe’s figures, for 1593. As a matter of fact, the weekly figures given do not add up exactly to 25,886 and 11,503; I make them (as does Hull, ii. 427) 26,407 and 11,106; Creighton, i. 354, makes the larger figure 25,817. Finally, the anonymous Reflections on the Bills of Mortality (1665) give 25,886 and 11,503 as the totals for 13 March (Tuesday) to 18 Dec. (Tuesday), not of 1592, but of 1593 again. The authority of these Reflections is not great, and there is a discrepancy between the period they take and that taken in the 1603 bill. But I do not see how the detailed weekly figures of the broadsheets can belong to 1592. The plague deaths are 3 on 17 March and 31 on 24 March. For the rest of the year they only fall below 30 on 31 March, 7 April, 5 May, and finally on 22 Dec. They reach 41 on 28 April, 58 on 26 May, and climb to 118 on 30 June. There is a big jump to 927 on 7 July; they get to a maximum of 983 on 4 Aug. and thereafter decline, dropping below 100 from 24 Nov. and ending with 71 on 15 Dec. and 39 on 22 Dec. These figures cannot apply to 1592, when plague only made its appearance about August. On the other hand, the figures for 4 Aug. (1,503 and 983) and 29 Sept. (450 and 330) do not tally exactly, although they do in general effect, with the 1,603 and 1,135 given as ‘the greatest that came yet’ in Henslowe’s letter of Aug. 1593, or the 1,100 to 1,200 from plague, representing an abatement in two weeks of 435, in his letter of 28 Sept. (H. P. 37, 40). On the whole, however, I think that all the figures before us relate to 1593 and not 1592, and that the ascription of the detailed tables to 1592 is due to the fact that they begin with 17 March 159–2/3. Graunt similarly (Hull, ii. 378) quotes 1593 and 1594, where he clearly means 1594 and 1595. The discrepancies between Stowe and the tables are probably due to the different number of parishes covered by different computations. If the larger figures relate to an area wider than that of City and liberties (cf. the P. C. order of 4 Aug. 1593 cited in the Bibl. Note), we perhaps get also an answer to the view of Creighton, i. 354, and Hull, ii. 427, that they are neither of 1592 nor 1593, but altogether spurious as representing an impossibly high rate of general mortality for sixteenth-century London, even when allowance is made for the unscientific nature of the ‘plague-tokens’ as a diagnosis and the consequent increase in plague-time of deaths ascribed to other causes.
1594. As in 1592–3, the diminution of plague in December allowed of a short winter play season. Henslowe, i. 16, records plays from 26 Dec. to 6 Feb. A restraint was ordered on 3 Feb. It was still thought necessary to inhibit access to court on 21 April (Hatfield MSS. iv. 514), but the plague deaths for the year were only 421 (Graunt in Hull, ii. 378; Bell, London’s Remembrancer). Plays began tentatively in April and May and regularly in June (Henslowe, i. 17). The systematization of City precautions was under consideration in the autumn.
1595. There were only 29 plague deaths (Graunt, in Hull, ii. 378; Bell, London’s Remembrancer).
1596. Plays were restrained for fear of infection on 22 July, but there is no other evidence of plague.
1597–1600. The tables show no plague deaths above 4 in any week.
1601–2. There is no evidence of plague.
1603. Plague broke out during April (V. P. x. 33). Precautions were already being taken on 18 April (Remembrancia, 337). Plays had been restrained during the illness of Elizabeth on 19 March and probably not resumed. The terms of the patent to the King’s men on 19 May imply an existing restraint. The epidemic was a bad one; for an account of it, cf. Creighton, i. 474, and Dekker, The Wonderful Year (1603, Works, i. 100). The coronation was shorn of its entry and other splendours, and speedy resort to the country enjoined (Procl. 961, 964, 967). Bartholomew and other fairs were suppressed or put off (Procl. 964, 968). Trinity term was deferred on 23 June (Procl. 957) and Michaelmas term deferred on 16 Sept, and transferred to Winchester on 18 Oct. (Procl. 970, 973). Stowe, Annales, 857, gives the total deaths in the City and liberties as 38,244, including 30,578 from plague. Creighton, i. 478, calculates from the weekly tables that with the addition of those suburbs for which records are available, these figures must be increased to 42,945 and 33,347. The report of 60,000 deaths, which Nicolo Molin (V. P. x. 126) found hard to believe, was obviously an exaggeration. The weekly plague bill for the City and liberties reached 30 on 26 May, 43 on 9 June, and rose very rapidly from the end of the month, reaching a maximum of 2,495, with 542 for the recorded suburbs, on 1 Sept. On 22 Dec. the plague deaths for City, liberties, and the suburbs henceforward included in the City lists (120 parishes in all) was still 74. Nicolo Molin’s statements on 5 Dec. that the plague had almost disappeared, and on 15 Dec. that it was never mentioned (V. P. x. 124, 126), must have been optimistic.
1604. Nicolo Molin (V. P. x. 132 sqq.) records the totals of the bills (probably a week or so late) in despatches from 26 Jan. to 23 Oct. He gives 15 on 26 Jan. and 27 for the City only on 8 Feb., and thereafter 20 is only reached in a few weeks of May, August, and September; 30 never. On 23 Oct. there had only been 6 in the last fortnight, and ‘as that is nothing out of the common, I will not make any further reports on this subject’ (V. P. x. 190). A play restraint was removed on 9 April, but the reason given was the expiration of Lent, and it is not impossible that the theatres may have been open before Lent, which began on 22 Feb. The warrant of 8 Feb., however, for a special royal subsidy to the King’s men (App. B) suggests that they were still unable to perform in public on that date.
1605. Creighton, i. 493, says there was ‘not much’ plague; but a letter of 12 Oct. (Winwood, ii. 140) notes a ‘sudden rising of the sickness to thirty a week’, followed by some abatement, and there was a restraint of plays for infection on 5 Oct. which was removed on 15 Dec.