I'm working on the collection of mortality data in London during the mid-1550s, That effort was established (or perhaps confirmed as official) by two ordinances, one in 1553 and the other in 1555. I have found the first but no one seems to have seen the second since London was bombed in WWII.
James Christie and others quoted bits and pieces of both ordinances, but I would love to see the whole of the second and what other specific measures the City took when which it was passed.. Any suggestions - including secondary literature - would be appreciated.
This is way outside my field of expertise but both the time period and general subject area are the expertise Prof. Keith Wrightson, so do try and find him (he's a prof at Yale but may be in England at this time) and he might be able to help you along in the right direction.
Thanks! I know and respect Wrightson's work so will work up the nerve to write him. Even if he doesn't know where to find the text I'd be interested to hear what he says about the question.
Thanks, Lyn. I've had a couple of those lovely surprises (smaller than yours) but nothing on this question - at least not yet. Anyone know of a collection with a connection to Reformation London, even a somewhat random one??
Have you tried The Guildhall Library or The London Metropolitan Archives?
I'm researching the same sort of thing as you except some 200 years later and found The Guildhall Library excellent, especially for the London Bills of Mortality.
I have, thanks, although there so much material there that I'm a bit overwhelmed by it. The staff is wonderful, but my questions are not the usual ones - I'm working on much earlier material from an especially messy period.
The Guildhall library has actually run out of space. Perhaps you already know that the library has been renovated over the last few years, but much of the collection has been moved to the London Metropolitan Archives -- which has its own rich collection as well.
And now I'm off to look at what you've published! The world and the City changed a great deal in those 200 years, but I'm most interested in that process of change. The Tudors are on the very early edge of my range.
I haven't published anything in a major journal, only two or three small pieces in rather obscure publications. My current research relates to a PhD I am doing at the University of Rennes2 regarding the Laki volcanic eruption in Iceland in 1783-1784.
Good luck with your Tudors an I hope the documents you find are written in legible handwriting.
Thanks - and you made me laugh. Good luck to you, too - the project sounds quite cool, which I think is essential to finishing without losing your sanity or good nature.
Sorry, modest answer, can you guess the dependence on the previous and subsequent years and the number can be near correct provided there is no epidemic spread in the year 1555
Excellent question, Asim - but we can make only a wild guess because no such data were collected until the ordinance was in place. London collected names of those who had died and those known to have fled the City starting in 1553, but (a) that was a qualitative and somewhat haphazard list and (b) I think it was strictly for political purposes. In 1553, Mary I had just become queen and London was not in her good graces after its mayor and aldermen had publicly declared her short-lived competitor, Lady Jane Grey, to be queen instead.
That said, there is no evidence that London had epidemic plague in the mid-1550s. The program for tracking plague during epidemics (which dated to 1538) was not activated in that period and there are no reports of plague in correspondence, etc. So the motivation for the ordinance had to be something other than plague tracking - which also fits with its requirement that the Parish Clerks report *every* death every week, together with its cause. The plague reporting provided only a weekly, parish-based count of plague deaths and a total count of all deaths from any cause.
I now have the text of the 1555 ordinance - which is less an ordinance than an official recognition of a service rendered de facto by the London Company of Parish Clerks as an extension of its official duties to the City established in a new charter in 1553. My guess is that by not treating the mortality counts as a new duty that required a prospective ordinance, London's aldermen could avoid the usual need for confirmation by the Crown and Privy Council. Since the City and the new royal government seem to have been on pretty rocky footing, not asking for approval may have been a prudent political move.
Further thoughts, anyone?
KH