446 A Burial Incident at Market Lavington. 



with eyewitnesses of the scandalous scene described in the " Case," 

 which was probably drawn to lay before counsel. It will be ob- 

 served that Axford, the complainant, was the overseer of Eastcott, 

 which adjoins and is now part of the civil and ecclesiastical parish 

 of Easterton. As we read this strange story, exaggerated no doubt 

 by the very natural attitude of the complainant, brought about by 

 the dread of that now almost extinct scourge, tlie smallpox, two 

 comments naturally suggest themselves: (1) at all events we have 

 improved since 1785 : such a scandal is unthinkable nowadays ; 

 and (2) had it not been for vaccination and the comparative im- 

 munity which we now enjoy should we not sympathise to some 

 extent with a burying authority which endeavoured to keep the 

 pestilence out of the district for wliich it was responsible. That 

 this quarrel was a mere question of money I do not believe, but I 

 believe the mighty hand and stretched out arm of " Rev. Williams "' 

 were nerved by the thought that he must take any possible step to 

 keep away further infection from his parish and himself, the strenu- 

 ousness of the objection being not that of the " passive resister," 

 but the " conscientious objection " of the mid-Georgian subject 

 translated into the winged words and virile deeds of a less subtle 

 and perhaps more straightforward generation ; though be it ob- 

 served, on the hypothesis, the conscientious objection was against 

 the danger of smallpox, and not the danger which some suppose 

 to attacli to the prophylactic. I may be allowed to add that I am 

 not expressing sympathy with the particular form which Mr, 

 Williams' objection is alleged to have taken, but I am merely 

 suci'esting that we have unfortunately only an ex paj-te statement 

 and we have not before us tiie cross-examination nor the case 

 which the reverend gentleman would have put on his own behalf. 

 It may be that further research may evolve a sequel. The rights 

 of the matter are obscure though the wrongs are apparent.^ 



' I think the explanation probably is that Axford thought that Eastcott 

 was part of the hamlet of Easterton (which it adjoins), Easterton being until 

 1876 part of Market Lavington ecclesiantical parish. Eastcott is some dis- 

 tance from Erchfont of which it was a hamlet, and an Eastcott corpse was 

 entitled to burial at Urchfont, and not at Market Lavington. Probably the 

 " uncle " was aware of this. This theory would account for the fee dispute. 



