The manner in which all the searches proceeded in a case of death is thus described by Graunt:
Graunt, who clearly understood how difficult it sometimes is to determine the cause of death, discusses at considerable length the question whether such ancient matrons, "perhaps ignorant and careless," could make correct returns even if they would[3], and he hints pretty strongly that inaccuracies due to their ignorance may be increased in some cases by their veniality[4]. He is therefore inclined to distrust their reports in the more difficult cases[5]. Petty, with characteristic practical shrewdness, proposed to meet this difficulty by the enumeration, in his model Dublin bills, of but twenty-four casualties, "being such as may be discerned by common sense and without Art, conceiving that more will perplex and imbroil the account[6]" His suggestion remained without effect. Indeed it seems that the very lame defence of the searchers put forth by Bell in reply to Graunt' s strictures, must have been considered quite adequate[7], for in spite of the sharp but just criticism passed by
- ↑ State Papers, Elizabeth, Vol. xlviii. no. 70, printed by Creighton, i. 319. The date of the order "heretofore provided" regarding searches cannot be determined, but they are mentioned at Shrewsbury as early as 1539. Ibid., i. 320.
- ↑ P. 346.
- ↑ P. 347.
- ↑ Pp. 356, 357.
- ↑ Pp- 347—361.
- ↑ P. 491; the London bills in Graunt's day distinguished no less than 81 causes of death. Cf. the table facing page 406.
- ↑ Bell says, "Searchers are generally ancient women, and I think are therefore most fit for their office. But sure I am they are chosen by some of the eminentest men of the Parish to which they stand related; and if any of their Choosers should speak against their abilities they would much disparage their own judgements. And after such choice they are examined touching their sufficiency, and sworn to that office by the Dean of Arches, or some Justice of the Peace, as the cause shall require." This seventeenth century English demonstration of official competence, which, mutatis mutandis, sounds strangely familiar to nineteenth century American