From Chippenham to Covent Garden: Sarah Hudson's Medical Crisis in Georgian London

Image showing the effects of ergot poisoning.

In September 1762 Sarah Hudson wrote a letter to her home parish of Chippenham from London. She was ill, unable to work and desperate. She needed help.

Sarah had a terrible affliction ‘that god is please [sic] to lay upon me’ that ‘that obliges me to send to you for assistance for I am not able to get my living’. The nature of her ‘disorder’ was terrifying. For the previous two months her head, but particularly her face, had been swollen. Not only this but ‘every nerve is in a continual extraordinary motion.’  While it is difficult to diagnose an ailment from several centuries ago it is possible or even highly likely, given her symptoms, that Sarah was suffering from St Anthony’s Fire, or Ergotism, ergot poisoning from contaminated grain. In Sarah’s case it is likely that this was from consuming the cheapest bread made from contaminated rye.

Sarah’s description of her affliction includes two of the classic effects of ergotism – severe oedema and swelling and neurological effects: convulsions, muscle spasms, and the characteristic ‘dancing’ or twitching movements. The 'dancing' movements of sufferers had in the past sometimes led to accusations of demonic possession or witchcraft. Other symptoms include convulsions, hallucinations, mental disturbances and the constriction of blood vessels that caused burning pain and which could lead to gangrene. Limbs could be lost and ultimately, ergotism could kill.

In London, Sarah seemingly lived on her own, possibly a widow, with no obvious familial support. Her mail address (care of Mr Musgrove at the Horse and Groom) suggests she was living in the Drury Lane/ Covent Garden area and integrated into her local community despite

notorious slum it would become. Sarah neglected to provide her occupation, perhaps it was not respectable. But she was clearly literate, and her notes that 'Doctors here of great service to me had I but some money,' suggest she had investigated and understood her treatment options. Sarah’s use of religious language in her appeal to overseers back home in Chippenham was not mere piety – it was calculated. She knew that parish officials were more likely to respond to displays of Christian humility and shared divine responsibility. ‘Remember Gentlemen and consider what it is to be in distress and consider that all of you lay under the same Almighty as I doe’.

Clearly, despite her distress Sarah was able to use her own agency, strategically deploying her literacy, local connections, and calculated appeals to navigate the 18th-century poor relief system to help her improve her dire circumstances. So did it work? Did the parish of Chippenham respond to her appeal and send the relief she desperately needed? Was she able to afford medical treatment? Did she recover, or does her story end in tragedy? Sarah's fate remains a mystery - for now. However, I will be diving into the Chippenham overseers' accounts in the coming weeks to discover what happened next. Fingers crossed for Sarah!

Louise Ryland-Epton