It is true there is something to be said for the frequent alarms which were given to the country of the resolution of the people of London to come out by force,not only for relief,but to plunder and rob;that they ran about the streets with the distemper upon them without any control;and that no care was taken to shut up houses,and confine the sick people from infecting others;whereas,to do the Londoners justice,they never practised such things,except in such particular cases as I have mentioned above,and such like.On the other hand,everything was managed with so much care,and such excellent order was observed in the whole city and suburbs by the care of the Lord Mayor and aldermen and by the justices of the peace,church-wardens,&c.,in the outparts,that London may be a pattern to all the cities in the world for the good government and the excellent order that was everywhere kept,even in the time of the most violent infection,and when the people were in the utmost consternation and distress.But of this I shall speak by itself.
One thing,it is to be observed,was owing principally to the prudence of the magistrates,and ought to be mentioned to their honour:viz.,the moderation which they used in the great and difficult work of shutting up of houses.It is true,as I have mentioned,that the shutting up of houses was a great subject of discontent,and I may say indeed the only subject of discontent among the people at that time;for the confining the sound in the same house with the sick was counted very terrible,and the complaints of people so confined were very grievous.They were heard into the very streets,and they were sometimes such that called for resentment,though oftener for compassion.They had no way to converse with any of their friends but out at their windows,where they would make such piteous lamentations as often moved the hearts of those they talked with,and of others who,passing by,heard their story;and as those complaints oftentimes reproached the severity,and sometimes the insolence,of the watchmen placed at their doors,those watchmen would answer saucily enough,and perhaps be apt to affront the people who were in the street talking to the said families;for which,or for their ill-treatment of the families,I think seven or eight of them in several places were killed;I know not whether I should say murdered or not,because I cannot enter into the particular cases.It is true the watchmen were on their duty,and acting in the post where they were placed by a lawful authority;and killing any public legal officer in the execution of his office is always,in the language of the law,called murder.But as they were not authorised by the magistrates'instructions,or by the power they acted under,to be injurious or abusive either to the people who were under their observation or to any that concerned themselves for them;so when they did so,they might he said to act themselves,not their office;'to act as private persons,not as persons employed;and consequently,if they brought mischief upon themselves by such an undue behaviour,that mischief was upon their own heads;and indeed they had so much the hearty curses of the people,whether they deserved it or not,that whatever befell them nobody pitied them,and everybody was apt to say they deserved it,whatever it was.Nor do I remember that anybody was ever punished,at least to any considerable degree,for whatever was done to the watchmen that guarded their houses.
What variety of stratagems were used to escape and get out of houses thus shut up,by which the watchmen were deceived or overpowered,and that the people got away,I have taken notice of already,and shall say no more to that.But I say the magistrates did moderate and ease families upon many occasions in this case,and particularly in that of taking away,or suffering to be removed,the sick persons out of such houses when they were willing to be removed either to a pest-house or other Places;and sometimes giving the well persons in the family so shut up,leave to remove upon information given that they were well,and that they would confine themselves in such houses where they went so long as should be required of them.
The concern,also,of the magistrates for the supplying such poor families as were infected -I say,supplying them with necessaries,as well physic as food -was very great,and in which they did not content themselves with giving the necessary orders to the officers appointed,but the aldermen in person,and on horseback,frequently rode to such houses and caused the people to be asked at their windows whether they were duly attended or not;also,whether they wanted anything that was necessary,and if the officers had constantly carried their messages and fetched them such things as they wanted or not.And if they answered in the affirmative,all was well;but if they complained that they were ill supplied,and that the officer did not do his duty,or did not treat them civilly,they (the officers)were generally removed,and others placed in their stead.
It is true such complaint might be unjust,and if the officer had such arguments to use as would convince the magistrate that he was right,and that the people had injured him,he was continued and they reproved.But this part could not well bear a particular inquiry,for the parties could very ill be well heard and answered in the street from the windows,as was the case then.The magistrates,therefore,generally chose to favour the people and remove the man,as what seemed to be the least wrong and of the least ill consequence;seeing if the watchman was injured,yet they could easily make him amends by giving him another post of the like nature;but if the family was injured,there was no satisfaction could be made to them,the damage perhaps being irreparable,as it concerned their lives.
