Page:PettyWilliam1899EconomicWritingsVol2.djvu/50

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
The Rickets.
357

were from a Phthisis, or from an Hectick Fever, Atrophy, &c. or from an Infection of the Spermatick parts, which in length of time, and in various disguises hath at last vitiated the habit of the Body, and by disabling the parts to digest their nourishment, brought them to the condition of leanness abovementioned.

19. My next Observation is, That of the Rickets we find no mention among the Casualties, until the Year 1634, and then but of 14 for that whole Year.

20. Now the Question is, Whether that Disease did first appear about that time; or whether a Disease, which had been long be-|35|fore, did then first receive its Name?

21. To clear this Difficulty out of the Bills (for I dare venture on no deeper Arguments) I enquired what other Casualtie before the Year 1634, named in the Bills, was most like the Rickets; and found, not only by Pretenders to know it, but also from other Bills, that Livergrown was the nearest. For in some years I find Livergrown, Spleen, and Rickets, put all together, by reason (as I conceive) of their likeness to each other. Hereupon I added the Livergrowns of the Year 1634, viz. 77, to the Rickets of the same Year, viz. 14, making in all 91; which Total, as also the Number 77 it self, I compared with the Livergrown of the precedent Year 1633, viz. 82: All which shewed me, that the Rickets was a new Disease over and above.

22. Now, this being but a faint Argument, I looked both forwards and backwards, and found, that in the Year 1629, when no Rickets appeared, there were but 94 Livergrowns; and in the Year 1636 there were 99 Livergrown, although there were also 50 of the Rickets: only this is not to be denied, that when the Rickets grew very numerous (as in the Year 1660, viz. 521) then there appeared not above 15 of Livergrown. |36|

23. In the Year 1659 were 441 Rickets, and 8 Livergrown. In the Year 1658 were 476 Rickets, and 51 Livergrown. Now,

    be taken," Scobell, ii. 236. In most cases the old parish clerk was elected registrar (Christie, 140), and in London the parish clerks may have collected their fees through the searchers.