¹ Elton, England, 1200-1640, pp. 104-05.

² See, for example, Willis, A. J., Church Life in Kent, 1559-65 (1975)Google Scholar; Tyler, P., The Ecclesiastical Commission and Catholicism in the North, 1562-77 (Leeds, 1960)Google Scholar; Paul, J. E. in Proc. Hants. Field Club and Arch. Soc., 21, pp. 63–69;Google Scholar Houlbrooke, R., Church Courts and People…, 1520-70 (1979), pp. 245–52Google Scholar; Haigh, C., Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (1975)Google Scholar, ch. 16; also his ‘Continuity of Catholicism…’, in Past and Present, 93, pp. 37–69,Google Scholar passim.

³ British Records Association, 1970. See also Purvis, J. S., An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Records (1953),Google Scholar based on material at York, from which many relevant extracts are printed in his Tudor Parish Documents of the Diocese of York (1948), not in fact devoted to parochial documents.

⁴ See especially vol. 1, ed. D. J. Steel (Soc. of Genealogists, revised edn, 1976), pp. 3-84, 183-206.

⁵ 4 vols, typescript, 1952. Appropriate sections were distributed to each archive surveyed and the full report can be seen at the P.R.O.; B.L.; Bodleian Library; Cambridge University Library; London University Institute of Historical Research; National Register of Archives; Lambeth Palace Library; Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, York; John Rylands Library, Manchester.

⁶ See Owen, Records of the Established Church…, p. 10, note 6; pp. 58-60; her ‘Handlists of Ecclesiastical Records’ in Archives, 10, pp. 53-56, and information in Record Repositories in Great Britain and in Foster and Sheppard, British Archives; also surveys of particular archives such as those of Ely and Chester in, respectively, Studies in Church History, 1 (ed. C. W. Dugmore and A. Duggan, 1964), pp. 176-83, and Trans. Hist. Soe. Lanes, and Cheshire, 130, pp. 149-85.

⁷ Save between the abolition and restoration of the Anglican episcopate (1646-61).

⁸ On diocesan commissions, see also Manning, R. B. in Journal of British Studies, 11, pp. 1–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and in B.I.H.R., 49, pp. 60-79 (Chester commission). On the latter there is also much information in Haigh, Reformation and Resistance, passim. The acts of the Durham commission are printed in Surtees Soc., 34, and material from the south-west in Price, F. D., The Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes within the Dioceses of Bristol and Gloucester (Bristol and Gloucs. Arch. Soc. Records Section, 1972).Google Scholar For the Canterbury diocesan commission, 1572-1603, see Clark, P. in Archaeologia Cantiana, 89, pp. 183–97.Google Scholar

⁹ These (and the surviving files of cause-papers, some of recusant significance) are housed at the Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, York, and are listed in the Borthwick Institute Bulletin, 2, pp. 75-98. See also Tyler, P. in Northern History, 2, pp. 27–44;Google Scholar Marchant, R. A., The Church under the Law (1969) passim.Google Scholar Many extracts from these books are given in Tyler, Ecclesiastical Commission… and a specimen day’s proceedings against Catholics are printed in Cross, C., The Royal Supremacy in the Elizabethan Church (1969), pp. 172–7.Google Scholar Relevant material from the act books also appears in Morris, Troubles, 3, pp. 213-19; Purvis, Tudor Parish Documents…, passim; C.R.S. Monograph 2, Appendix 1.

¹⁰ See Dr Haigh’s important contribution, citing these among many other sources, in Past and Present, 93, pp. 37-69.

¹¹ (a) Thomas Ledes, released from prison to visit his brother-in-law, Bishop Gheast of Salisbury for ‘conference in religion’ (Tyler, Ecc. Comm., pp. 112-13); (b) Francis Ducket of Fonthill under bond to ‘yield himself prisoner again’ at York, plus further related entries, Dec. 1598-April 1599 (kindly communicated by Mr John Aveling). Ducket is shown as becoming incumbent of Fonthill Gifford in Salisbury diocese in 1570, and as not being replaced until 1611, in Sir Phillipps’s, T. Institutiones Clericorum in Comitatu Wiltoniae, 1297-1810 (1825), 1, p. 224;Google Scholar 2, p. 6. Indexes to this work are available in Wilts. Arch. Magazine, 28, pp. 211-35 (places) and in MS. at the Wilts. County Record Office, Trowbridge (patrons and incumbents).

¹² Wilts. Record Office: Court Records, Act Books (ex offico) no. 1, f. 14 v. (Thomas Gawen, confined to Islington but allowed a visit, not exceeding a month, to Wilts.); f. 15 (Thos. Wells under bond to appear before commissioners at St Paul’s and not to leave London without licence).

¹³ White, F. O., Lives of Elizabethan Bishops of the Anglican Church (1898), p. 156,Google Scholar re Robert Horne of Winchester. White’s is a still-useful, well documented work, ‘often superior both in its accuracy and in its perspicacity to the lives written for the D.N.B.’: Houlbrooke, R. in Church and Society: Hentry VIII to James I, ed. Heal, F. and O’Day, R. (1977), p. 183.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Strype, J., Life and Acts of John Aylmer (1821 edn),Google Scholar re Gilbert Berkeley of Bath and Wells. On Strype’s voluminous works, which should not be disregarded, see Cargill Thompson, W. D. J., Studies in the Reformation: Luther to Hooker (ed. Dugmore, C. W., 1980), pp. 192–201,Google Scholar originally printed in Studies in Church History, 11 (ed. D. Baker, 1975), pp. 237-47.

¹⁵ Peters, R., Oculus Episcopi: Administration in the Archdeaconry of St Alban’s (Manchester, 1963), p. 56.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For Norwich, see Houlbrooke, op. cit., p. 23; for Lincoln, Lincoln R.S., 23, pp. lxxxvi-lxxxvii; also Hodgett, Tudor Lincolnshire, p. 181.

¹⁷ A. Hassell Smith, County and Court, p. 209; see also Houlbrooke, op. cit., p. 25; Sir Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1581-1603 (1957), p. 283,Google Scholar Ryan and Redstone, Timperley of Hintlesham, p. 47, note 2.

¹⁸ Bath and Wells; see C.R.S., 65, pp. 2, 22-23, re William Lancaster and John Bishop.

¹⁹ Gloucester (Price, op. cit., p. 99 and note 94; also C.S.P.D., 1547-80, p. 566). On the registrar’s rôle see R. O’Day in Continuity and Change (ed. O’Day and Heal, Leicester, 1976), ch. 3. This volume also contains Dr Houlbrooke’s study of the decline of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, mainly under the Tudors (ch. 10).

²⁰ Ibid., p. 252.

²¹ Instructions to an incumbent for public denunciation of excommunicates are printed by Cox, J. C. in Curious Church Gleanings (ed. W. Andrews, 1896), pp. 166–7.Google Scholar

²² There are many complaints of their idleness, negligence and corruption, e.g. in Wilton Hall, H. R., Records of the Old Archdeaconry of St Alban’s (St Alban’s, 1908), p. 127;Google Scholar Yorks. Arch. Journal, 41, p. 737 (diocese of Chester); Church Quarterly Review, 134, pp. 37-55 (Gloucester); Houlbrooke, Church Courts and People…, pp. 28, 52; E. Duffy (ed.), Challoner and His Church, p. 30. A less unfavourable view is presented in Marchant, op. cit., p. 59. See also supra, p. 351.

²³ Whiteman, A. in T.R.H.S., 5th series, 5, p. 125.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., p. 113; Marchant, op. cit., pp. 14, 15.

²⁵ Normally exempt from the authority of the bishops in whose dioceses they lay.

²⁶ Archiépiscopal visitations of the two provinces (as distinct from the primates’ initial and subsequent visitations of their own dioceses of Canterbury and York) occurred at irregular intervals and might cover only certain subordinate jurisdictions, including sees temporarily vacant, on any one occasion.

²⁷ See Oxfordshire R.S., 23, p. xi, note 1; Banbury Hist. Soc., 6, p. xv. The former has a valuable Introduction on archdeaconry administration and on terms used in the records; see also the paper by the editor, Dr E. R. C. Brinkworth, in T.R.H.S., 4th series, 25, pp. 93-119, and his briefer contributions to The Amateur Historian, 2, pp. 19-22, 50-53. Two other illuminating studies are Peters, op. cit., and Addy, J., The Archdeacon and Ecclesiastical Discipline in Yorkshire (York, 1963).Google Scholar The Introduction to Somerset R.S., 43, classifies and totals various offences in the archdeaconry of Taunton in the 1620s; Surtees Soc., 47, pp. xix-xxiv, contains analyses of cases before the archdeacon’s court at Durham, 1673-77, and some material of recusant significance in the archdeaconries of Canterbury and Essex appears in Archaeologia Cantiana, 25, pp. 11-56; 26, pp. 17-50; 27, pp. 213-29, passim, and in Hale, W. H., A Series of Precedents and Proceedings in Criminal Causes… 1475-1640 (1847)Google Scholar respectively. The latter work is best consulted in the 1973 reprint with a valuable Introduction by Dr R. W. Dunning listing the present locations of most of the documents cited. For visitation articles for the archdeaconry of the East Riding, 1627 (including art. 44: ‘Does your minister confer with recusants… ?’) see Works of John Cosin, 2 (1845), pp. 1-16.

²⁸ The relevance of many Elizabethan articles and injunctions is apparent in the printed editions issued by the Alcuin Club as Visitation Articles and Injunctions (ed. W. H. Frere, 1910), 3, with index in vol. 1, and as Elizabethan Episcopal Administration (ed. W, P. M, Kennedy, 3 vols, 1924), especially the latter. Further printed editions, Elizabethan and later, are listed by D. M. Owen in History, 49, p. 188 (also in Munby [ed], Short Guides to Records, no. 8), and in her Records of the Established Church…, notes to p. 33. Visitation-articles for a prebendai peculiar are printed in Purvis, Tudor Parish Docs., pp. 2-10, and, for exempt parishes in Canterbury diocese, in Willis, Church Life in Kent, p. 75. Many sets of visitation-articles are traceable through the B.L. Catalogue of Printed Books, under the place-names of the jurisdictions concerned.

²⁹ As suggested by a comparison between original presentment-bills and book-entries, made by Palmer, W. M., Episcopal Visitation Returns for Cambridgeshire, 1638-65 (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 3,Google Scholar 20-26. Some book-entries have spaces for insertion of notes on subsequent action, others do not; examples of the former are printed in Bucks. R.S., 7, and Norfolk R.S., 18; of the latter, in Thoroton Soc. Record Series, 11, pp. 10-42. The terms comperta and/or detecta are often found applied to copies and digests of presentments; e.g. to the book with such contents relating to the 1575 visitation of the diocese of York by Archbishop Grindal, printed in Borthwick Texts and Calendars: Records of the Northern Province, 4 (ed. W. J. Sheils, York, 1977).

³⁰ E.g. in four North Riding deaneries in 1590, of 514 persons presented as recusants, only thirty-two appeared in court (Aveling, Northern Catholics, p. 147).

³¹ Including Catholics holding advowsons, a point as yet little studied, but see Guy, J. R. in R.H., 15, pp. 452–4;Google Scholar Loomie, A. in the Catholic Historical Review, 53, pp. 338–9Google Scholar (re presentations with ‘a Catholic flavour’); Norfolk R.S., 34, pp. 97-100 (also Houlbrooke, Church Courts and People…, p. 190); Haigh, Reformation and Resistance.…, p. 319; Wake, J., The Brudenells of Deene (1953), pp. 169–70.Google Scholar

³² For which see Tate, op. cit., pp. 95-98, 105-07; Marchant, op. cit., p. 219.

³³ On aspects of this, see C.R.S. Monograph 1, p. 74 (wardens admitting not fining absentees, ‘the most of them receiving weekly some Almes out of the Parish, as being very poor’); Yorks. Arch. Journal, 40, p. 658 (plea of poverty on behalf of two longstanding recusants); Oxfordshire R.S., 23, p. 14 (brawling following distraint); C.R.S. Monograph I, p. 73 (reports of J.P.s’ reluctance to co-operate). See also supra, pp. 433-4 for evidence from churchwardens’ accounts, etc.

³⁴ W. P. M. Kennedy, ‘Fines under the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity’, in E.H.R., 33, pp. 517-28, cites much evidence of orders given to churchwardens but very little showing their compliance with them (and it is questionable how ‘characteristic’ are the handful of instances thus described on p. 527). Elizabethan and seventeenth-century examples of allegations or action against negligent wardens occur in, inter alia, Fisher, J., History… of Masham and Mashamshire (1865), p. 557;Google Scholar Surtees Soc., 22, p. 118; Onfordshire R.S., 10, p. xl, note 2; Brinkworth, E. R. C., Shakespeare and the Bawdy Court of Stratford (1972), pp. 123, 126;Google Scholar Haigh, Reformation and Resistance.. ., p. 270; Houlbrooke, Church Courts and People…, p. 247; Marchant, The Church under the Law, p. 180 and note 3; Trans. Lanes, and Cheshire Antiq. Soc., 13, pp. 57-69, passim; Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, 34, p. 101; Archaeologia Cantiana, 25, p. 55; Yorks. Arch. Journal, 40, p. 659. Further references to the twelvepenny fine and its collection or non-collection are given in C.R.S. Monograph 1, 72-74, and in C.R.S., 65, p. 8, note 26 (where, however, the relevant pages in Aveling, Northern Catholics should be 122 and 216, not 232 and 237). A cogent comment, from Sawston, Cambs., in 1579, is cited by Spufford, M., Contrasting Communities (1974), p. 259:Google Scholar ‘We doubte not but that manie have deserved by reason of wilfulness and otherwise to have paid the forfeture… howbe we cannot learne that it hath been taken with us of longe time, ffor if it had been trewlye taken… either the poore mens boxe should have ben better stowed with money, or ells our churche manye times better filled with people’.

³⁵ A long list of recusants presented at a visitation of the archdeaconry of Middlesex in 1681, besides giving names and occupations or status, records the streets in which they dwelt (printed by Mr Worrall, E. S. in London Recusant, 4, pp. 85–89)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Thus, at the episcopal visitation of the archdeaconry of Buckingham in 1662 some presentments were merely for absence from church, with no indication of religious belief, but in Bierton parish popish recusants, including ‘one of the King’s Life guard’, are distinguished from others described as absentees from church (Bucks. R.S., 7, p. 36 and passim). See also C.R.S. Monograph 1, pp. 268-9, and cases cited in pp. 274-350, passim.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 269 (Fugglestone, Wilts., presentment, 1683). For ‘recusancy’ stemming from debtors’ fears of showing themselves at church on Sunday—’an ordinary time for serving processes’—see C.R.S. Monograph 2, p. 334; Ecces, M., Shakespeare in Warwickshire (Madison, Wis., U.S.A., 1961), pp. 33–34;Google Scholar also supra, p. 417, note 9.

³⁸ Wilts. County Record Office: Stourton churchwardens’ presentment, 1662; presentments by constables and hundred-jury of Mere at Trinity Sessions, 1662.

³⁹ Worrall, E. S. in Essex Recusant, 16, pp. 66–68 Google Scholar (see also vol. 2, pp. 11-12). For the Lords’ returns, see supra, p. 397.

⁴⁰ As suggested in a different connection by Purvis, Tudor Parish Documents, p. 37, comparing presentments submitted at archiepiscopal and archidiaconal visitations.

⁴¹ Usher, R. G., The Reconstruction of the English Church (1910), 1, p. 159;Google Scholar Haigh, Reformation and Resistance, p. 273 (in an illuminating discussion of presentment-evidence, pp. 270-6).

⁴² The latter ‘from motives which cannot be easily defined’ but which ‘were not by any means necessarily always religious conservatism’ (Aveling, Northern Catholics, p. 22).

⁴³ For examples of such offences, see, inter alia, C.R.S., 3, pp. 83-85 (and Fisher, Masham and Mashamshire, pp. 110-12, 542-68, passim); Willis, Church Life irt Kent, ch. 5, passim (early Elizabethan); Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, 34, p. 100; Yorks. Arch. Journal, 40, pp. 375, 660; C.R.S. Monograph I, pp. 76, 90; also printed editions of visitation documents mentioned in earlier footnotes and, importantly, the churchwardens’ presentments for Worcester diocese, 1664-1768, printed alphabetically under parishes in Worcs. Recusant, 4-23, passim. (These documents are drawn on by Leatherbarrow, J. S. in Worcs. Hist. Soc. Occasional Publications, 1, pp. 14–15 Google Scholar and by Braby, P. in Vale of Evesham Hist. Soc. Research Papers, 5, pp. 61–79;Google Scholar 6, pp. 110-16).

⁴⁴ T.R.H.S., 4th series, 4, p. 132; Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, 34, p. 99. For statutes demanding church-attendance on these dates, see supra, p. 343, note 49.

⁴⁵ Arch. Ael., loc. cit.

⁴⁶ C.R.S. Monograph 1, p. 78; Worcs. Recusant, 6, p. 26; Leatherbarrow, cit., p. 14.

⁴⁷ C.R.S. Monograph 1, loc. cit.

⁴⁸ Arch. Ael., 4th ser., 34, p. 95.

⁴⁹ Citation-evidence for late Elizabethan Hampshire is used by Dr Paul, in Proc. Hants. Field Club and Arch. Soc., 21, pp. 77–80.Google Scholar For further information on citation procedures and documentation, see Price in Church Quarterly Review, 134, pp. 37-39; Bucks. R.S., 7, pp. x-xi; Marchant, op. cit., passim.

⁵⁰ For an illustration and transcript, expanding abbreviations, see Willis, op. cit., plate 2 and p. 65.

⁵¹ Brinkworth, Shakespeare & the Bawdy Court…, pp. 110,141. See also Schoenbaum, Shakespeare: a Compact Documentary Life, pp. 28, 323, note 11, for speculation that the offence may have been non-observance of Sunday.

⁵² As in the York archiepiscopal visitation book, 1667, cited by Mr Aveling in C.R.S. Monograph 2, p. 247.

⁵³ Marchant, op. cit., pp. 204-06, but see also Sheils, op. cit., pp. viii-x. For documentation of such a case, see Bucks. R.S., 7, p. 57; this volume, an episcopal visitation-book for the archdeaconry of Buckingham in the diocese of Lincoln (1662), has a valuable Introduction by Dr Brinkworth. Further relevant extracts from act books and other court-records appear in many of the works cited in earlier footnotes to this section and in, inter alia, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, 34, pp. 99, 100; Surtees Soc., 22, pp. 113-42; Trans. Hist. Soe. Lanes, and Cheshire, 64, pp. 50-71; T.R.H.S., 4th series, 4, pp. 103-39 (citing London church-court records then at Somerset House but now in the Greater London Record Office, class DL/C, and including a charge of ‘causing their child to be christened abroad and as yt is thought in the Spanish Ambassadors’).

⁵⁴ Particulars of many recusants’ bonds and data on excommunicated recusants in the dioceses of Lincoln and Worcester are calendared in Owen, D. M., A Catalogue of Lambeth MSS. 889-901: Carte Antiquae et Miscellanae (1968), pp. 50–61,Google Scholar 138, 142. Examples of Elizabethan penances for recusancy (one accompanied by a bond in 10 marks, i.e. £6 135. 4d.) are given in Willis, op. cit., p. 26, and T.R.H.S., 3rd series, 1, p. 266.

⁵⁵ For examples, see Purvis, Introduction to Ecclesiastical Records, pp. 56-57; also, for Elizabethan and seventeenth-century sentences, Willis, op. cit., p. 83; Tate, Parish Chest, p. 148.

⁵⁶ Examples in Purvis, Tudor Parish Docs., p. 79; Fisher, Masham and Mashamshire, pp. 545-7 (also C.R.S., 3, pp. 83-84); T.R.H.S., 4th series, 4, p. 122 (in one instance a plague-victim requiring speedy burial, but ‘in a remote place’ without any procession thereto; in another, licence granted for midnight burial without public announcement or bell-ringing). See also C.R.S. Monograph 1, p. 70, note 7.

⁵⁷ Somerset R.S.., 43, pp. 37, 49: John Trevilian ‘a Recusant and excommunicated person’; marginal note, ‘Aggr’ (avatus).

⁵⁸ E.g. five persons at Hindon in the diocese of Salisbury, presented by the churchwardens as ‘excommunicated about 1¼ years since’, with no indication as to their religious beliefs, but discoverable as Catholics from a near-contemporary list of ‘Romanists’ in that diocese and from Quarter Sessions’ presentments for popish recusancy (C.R.S. Monograph 1, p. 71 and Appendix F). For persons ten or more years excommunicated, ibid., p. 71 and note 14.

⁵⁹ Some 900 late Elizabethan significavits, covering twelve southern dioceses, are printed in C.R.S., 60, pp. 102-44; others are in the P.R.O. {see supra, p. 365, note 42). But a group of Lancashire preachers declared, c. 1590, that excommunication was not feared and that ‘to prosecute uppon the significavit is too chargeable and tediowse…’, a York churchwarden continued to employ ‘a servante excommunicate’ and a Wiltshireman ‘cared not for the court nor for the power of it; it was but excommunication’. These three examples are from Chetham Soc., old series, 96, p. 13; D. M. Palliser, Tudor York (1979), p. 259 and T.R.H.S., 5th series, 5, p. 118 (also V.C.H., Wilts., 3, p. 417). See also Price, F. D. in E.H.R., 57, pp. 106–15;Google Scholar Hill, C., Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (1964), pp. 371–2;Google Scholar Jones, Faith by Statute, pp. 180-1; Haigh, Reformation and Resistance, p. 235.

⁶⁰ See tabulated statistics of offences in Marchant, op. cit., p. 219; Houlbrooke, op. cit., p. 281; Sheils, op. cit., p. v; also analyses of archdeacons’ court cases (Durham and Taunton) supra, note 27. Apart from ‘office’ cases concerned with ‘Catholic offences’ and usually stemming from visitations, the more numerous ‘instance’ cases between parties, not so originating, may occasionally involve Catholics, with records both in court-books and in cause-papers (H. Aveling in Birrell, ed., Newsletter for Students of Recusant History, 5, p. 7).

⁶¹ An order of 1604 (canon 114) for annual reports of recusants and non-communicants throughout the diocese of Canterbury produced some such documentation; the returns for the archdeaconry of Stafford (1607) have been printed by Mr Michael Greenslade in Staffs. Catholic History, 4, and those of two years earlier for Essex (diocese of London) in Essex Recusant, 2, pp. 112-27. Another survey, covering many Yorkshire parishes, incorporates presentment-data educed by articles of enquiry and touching on breaches of ecclesiastical discipline as well as statutory offences; this information, submitted mainly by church functionaries but certified and forwarded by secular officials, was published as A List of the Roman Catholics in the County of York in 1604 (ed. E. Peacock, 1872) and is discussed by Professor A. G. Dickens in Yorks. Arch. Journal, 37, pp. 24-48, supplemented by Dickens and Newton in ibid., 38, pp. 524-8 (both now in Dickens, Reformation Studies, pp. 185-215).

⁶² Borthwick Institute, York: Y/V/CB/10, partly printed in C.R.S. Monograph 2, pp. 262-4.

⁶³ See supra, p. 432.

⁶⁴ ‘Dissent and Catholicism in… Warwickshire, 1660-1720’, in Journal of British Studies, 16, p. 30.

⁶⁵ In the secular sphere also, records reflecting oath-refusal largely replaced records relating to absence from church, non-attendance, etc., and the Recusant Rolls come to an end in the early 1690s.

⁶⁶ As by the bishops of Chichester and Exeter in 1724 and 1744 respectively; see Sussex Arch. Coll., 116, pp. 19-29; Brockett, A., Nonconformity in Exeter, 1650-1875 (Manchester, 1962), pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ His visitation-returns are printed in C.R.S., 32, pp. 204-350, 361.

⁶⁸ Printed examples of such enquiries are: Bishop (later Archbishop) Seeker’s for the diocese of Oxford, 1738, in Oxf. R.S., 38; Archbishop Herring’s for York diocese, 1743, in Yorks. Arch. Soc. Record Series, 71, 72, 75, 77 (with Appendix on Catholic data), 79; Bishop Terrick’s for London, 1766, partly reproduced in Essex Recusant, 2, pp. 88-94, and Bishop Barrington’s for Salisbury, 1783, the Wiltshire replies to which are in Wilts. R.S., 27.

⁶⁹ I.e. on p. 432.

⁷⁰ As, respectively, in an undated post-Restoration ‘list of the Romanists in the Diocese of Sarum’s (Berks, and Wilts., not later than 1672. MS. in Wilts. County Record Office, Trowbridge) and in figures for the diocese of Carlisle, 1747, printed in R.H., 15, p. 375.

⁷¹ See Oxf. R.S., 52, pp. xxxiii-xxxiv.

⁷² Chetham Soc., old series, 8, 19, 21, 22.

⁷³ Lincoln R.S., 4, pp. iv-v, viii-x and passim, (archdeaconries of Lincoln and Stow); Associated Arch. Soc. Reports and Papers, 22, pp. 227-365 (archdeaconry of Leicester).

⁷⁴ Gloucs. Record Office: GDR/258 B/1 (1735); /397 (1743); /381A (1750), as listed in a guide to Gloucestershire sources for post-Reformation Catholic history in Worcestershire Recusant, 36, p. 37.

⁷⁵ See comments on the Worcester diocesan survey in Worcs. Hist. Soc., new series, 6, p. 17. A further Lincoln survey is listed in Major, K., Handlist of Records of the Bishop of Lincoln…. (1953), p. 79.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Owen, Records of the Established Church…, p. 9 and note. For the letter-books of the Elizabethan bishops Parkhurst of Norwich and Bentham of Coventry and Lichfield, see respectively Norfolk R.S., 43, and Camden Soc., 4th series, 22. Incumbents’ letters to Bishop Fell of Oxford, 1682, mainly concerned with protestant dissent but with interesting references to Catholics, are printed in Oxford R.S., 52, and communications chiefly to and from the Archbishop of York, 1725-37, are in C.R.S., 32, pp. 363-88, F. Peck, Desiderata Curiosa (1732-35; 1779) contains many official directives to Bishop William Chaderton when at Chester (1579-95) and letters from bishops and other ecclesiastics to ministers of state, now among the State Papers (Domestic) and the Lansdowne and Hatfield collections of Cecil papers, are traceable through their calendars, indexes and reports. In Camden Soc., new series, 53, are letters from the bishops to the Privy Council in 1564 concerning the reliability of J.P.s. Biographical and other studies of Anglican divines, and sources cited therein, are of course relevant, as may be entries under their names in the B.L. Catalogue of Printed Books.

⁷⁷ For which see Owen, op. cit., pp. 11, 20, 26, 32. For action against offenders, as recorded in a Canterbury liber deri, see Willis, op. cit., p. 4. For parts of Archbishop Neile’s subscription-book (now Borthwick Institute: Sub. Bk 2) see Proc. Soc. of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 3rd series, 8, pp. 171-2, and Yorks. Arch. Soc. Record Series, 61, p. 149. Such subscription to Anglican tenets and practice (required of medical practitioners, schoolmasters and midwives) did not necessarily signify abandonment of Catholicism. For a doctor so subscribing, Alexius Vodka of York, see C.R.S. Monograph 2, passim, and, for fuller details of subscriptions, Carter, E. H., Norwich Subscription Books (1937), pp. 7–13;Google Scholar also p. 134 for additional undertakings by midwives.

⁷⁸ DrSmith, D. M., Guide to Bishops’ Registers… to 1646 (Royal Historical Soc., 1981), p. ix.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ For a widely documented survey, using many sources besides registers, of the early Elizabethan establishment at York, see C.R.S. Monograph 2, Appendix 2 (corrected on three points by Dr Kitching, C. J. in Surtees Soc., 187, p. 114,Google Scholar notes 27-29). Dr Kitching’s edition of the Act Book of the Royal Visitation of the northern province, 1559, sheds much light on parishes and persons, clerical and lay, at the start of Elizabeth’s reign. For the higher clergy, J. Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, is being replaced by revised volumes produced by the London University Institute of Historical Research, issued diocese-by-diocese, those covering the period 1541-1857 containing relevant data. For many areas information about parochial incumbents has been contributed to local journals or record society volumes, or perhaps published separately, as in Sir Thomas Phillipps’s work on Wiltshire institutions cited supra, p. 435, note II. For valuable guidance, see also Stephens, W. B., Sources for English Local History (1981 edn), pp. 255–60.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ An allegation of ‘papistrie ’ in the diocese of Rochester in Archbishop Parker’s register (Canterbury and York. Soc., 36, p. 664); at Lincoln and Chichester, entries concerning those who had conformed; in the diocese of London, data on excommunicated recusants; at Hereford, that diocese’s portion of a schedule of papists pardoned by James II; at Ely, visitation material on Catholics derived from replies to articles of 1755. See Lincoln R.S., 23, p. xciii; Smith, op. cit., pp. 51-52, 147; Worcs. Recusant, 36, pp. 28-32; Owen, D. M., Ely Records (1971), p. 5.Google Scholar Register-entries of the issuing of certificates (to schoolmasters, doctors and midwives) may include the occasional Catholic name: e.g. the granting of a licence to Alexius Vodka, M.D., in Dec. 1639, recorded in Archbishop Neile’s register (Borthwick Inst., Reg. 32, p. 277) following his subscription as mentioned in note 77, above.

⁸¹ Though some parochial figures and other data survive for a nationwide return of 1603 among B.L. Harleian MSS. 280, 594-5, and in local collections. Diocesan totals only, without details of constituent parishes, as tabulated in Harleian MS. 280, ff. 157, 157 v., have been printed in Usher, Reconstruction.…, 1, p. 158 (with incorrect total of male recusants in Chester diocese: 1560 instead of 1520) and Magee, English Recusants, p. 83 (correct total). Of material embodying parochial particulars, that for the diocese of Gloucester is printed in Bristol and Gloucs. Arch. Soc. Records Branch, 11, pp. 61-102, that for the archdeaconries of Suffolk and Sudbury (in Norwich diocese) in Proc. Suffolk Inst, of Archaeology, 6, pp. 361-500; 11, pp. 1-46, respectively; that for the archdeaconry of Norwich in Norfolk Archaeology, 10, pp. 1-49, 166-81. Locally preserved returns for eighty-one East Sussex parishes are printed in Sussex R.S., 4, pp. 5-15, and for parishes in Lincoln diocese in Lincoln R.S., 23, pp. 256-328, 337-53, passim, 443, 445 (also pp. lxxxvii-lxxxviii for 1604 figures from episcopal visitation, archdeaconries of Lincoln and Stow, and Assoc. Arch. Soc. Reps, and Papers, 29, pp. 144-58, for 1603 data, archdeaconry of Leicester). Returns for parishes in the archdeaconry of Nottingham, within the diocese of York, are in Thoroton Soc., 46, pp. 3-14, For discussion of the Winchester figures, see Paul, J. E. in Proc. Hants. Field Club and Arch. Soc., 21, pp. 80–81,Google Scholar and, for four comparisons between diocesan and county figures, Bossy, English Catholic Community, p. 191, note 23. Various Elizabethan lists and enumerations (hardly ‘censuses’) are printed in C.S.P.D. 1601-03: Addenda, 1547-65, pp. 521-5 (early 1560s); C.R.S. 13, pp. 86-142 (1574 and 1582); C.R.S., 22, pp. 1-114(1577), 120-9(1588); H.M.C., Salisbury MSS., 4, pp. 263-75 (1592), and are considered in Trimble, The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England, passim. Numerical evidence for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is discussed by Professor Bossy, op. cit., ch. 8.

⁸² (a) Lambeth MS. 639, printed in Lyon Turner, G., Original Records of Early Nonconformity (1911), 1, pp. 20–27,Google Scholar 127-36 (dioceses of Canterbury and Salisbury), pp. 147-8,177 (summaries only for Winchester and part of York, the latter corresponding to Bodleian MS. Tanner 150, f. 27, but omitting f. 27 v.); MS. VP 1C/9 (exempt deanery of Shoreham, containing more than thirty Kent parishes) printed and discussed by Dobson, M. J. in Archaeologia Cantiana, 94, pp. 61–73;Google Scholar (b) Bodleian MSS. Tanner 144 and 150 (dioceses of Carlisle and York respectively). Bradley, L., Glossary for Population Studies (2nd edn, Matlock, 1978), p. 59,Google Scholar states erroneously, ‘The Compton Census of 1676 was taken only in the Province of Canterbury’.

⁸³ E.g. City of Bristol Record Office: EP/A/43/1; Wilts. County Record Office: Miscellaneous Bishops’ Papers relating mainly to Bishop Seth Ward (Salisbury diocese); Northants. Record Office (Peterborough diocese); Worcester R.O. (among churchwardens’ presentments, printed in Worcs. Recusant, 4-23, passim); Lanes., R.O. (Broughton chapelry, diocese of Chester, in R.H., 15, pp. 168–75).Google Scholar See also C.R.S., 27, p. 46 (parish register entry: Twyford, Hants.).

⁸⁴ Staffordshire Record Office: Salt MS. 33 (Canterbury province only).

⁸⁵ A useful recent appraisal by D. Wykes appears in Trans. Leics. Arch, and Hist. Soc., 55, pp. 72-77, with an Appendix listing various published county and diocesan extracts. Further material will be found in Lincoln R.S., 25, pp. cxxxi-cxxxviii; Local Population Studies, 10, pp. 71-74 (Peterborough diocese); Wilts. N. and Q., 3, pp. 533-9; Beds. Hist. R.S., 20, pp. 159-61; Hist. Coll. Staffs., 1915, pp. lxvii-lxxii; Assoc. Arch. Soc. Reps, and Papers, 29, pp. 145 60 (Leicester archdeaconry); Oxfordshire R.S., 52, pp. xix, 48-73; Kent Recusant History, 1, pp. 5-12; Sussex Arch. Coll., 116, pp. 19-29, passim; Vale of Evesham Hist. Soc. Research Papers, 6, p. 109 (Worcester returns); P. Laslett, The World We Have Lost (2nd edn, 1971), pp. 66-74 (Goodnestone-next-Wingham, Kent) and a number of V.C.H. volumes.

⁸⁶ Meanwhile, see her contribution, ‘The Census that Never Was’, in Statesmen, Scholars and Merchants (ed. Whiteman, Bromley and Dickson, 1973), pp. 1-16; also T. Richards in Trans. Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion, 1925-26: Supplement (1927); Browning, A. (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1660-1714(1953), pp. 411–16.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See, in addition to works already mentioned, C.R.S. Monograph 1, pp. 253-6 (and p. 271 for tentative use of this census, failing firmer evidence, to shed light on the religious attachments of convicted recusants).

⁸⁸ For exceptions, see Dobson in Arch. Cant., 96, pp. 67-73; Laslett, op. cit., p. 74; Adamson, J. H. in R.H., 15, pp. 168–175.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Recusant Rolls, Assize and Sessions’ records, ecclesiastical presentments and court records, and other documents already discussed.

⁹⁰ Later comments to this effect from two dioceses, Salisbury and York, are cited in C.R.S. Monograph 1, p. 257 and note 18.

⁹¹ Chester City Record Office; Corporation of London R.O.; Guildhall Library (diocese of London); Lichfield Joint R.O. (diocese of Coventry and Lichfield); Hereford R.O. (Hereford diocese); Wilts. R.O. (Salisbury diocese). On these returns, see Sturman, Catholicism in Chester, pp. 17-18; Hine, M.-C. in London Recusant, 5, pp. 88–90 Google Scholar (analysis by trades, etc.); E. S. Worrall in Middlesex Local History Council Bulletin no. 10 (reprinted ibid., 3, pp. 47-53), in Kent Recusant History, 1, pp. 13-19 (Canterbury diocese) and in Essex Recusant, 11, pp. 32-38 (Herts, parishes in diocese of London); M. Greenslade in Staffs. Catholic History, 13; N. Mutton in Worcs. Recusant, 24-26 (Shopshire figures; also in that journal, nos. 4-23, passim, are Worcester diocesan data among churchwardens’ presentments) and my article on the Wiltshire portion of Salisbury diocese in R.H., 7, pp. 11-22. Mr Greenslade, op. cit., p. 3, notes further printed versions of these returns.

⁹² As illustrated in Greenslade, op. cit.

⁹³ E.g. the recently-available 1767 returns for the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield (Staffordshire portion printed by Mr Greenslade in Staffs. Catholic History, 17; data for Birmingham area by Miss Champ, J. in R.H., 15, pp. 359–69)Google Scholar and the York diocesan returns for 1767 and 1780 (Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, York: Bp. Ree. Ret., 1765-80).

⁹⁴ Some from Salisbury diocese are cited in C.R.S. Monograph 1, pp. 81-83, 177 and ch. 6 passim. Two recent accessions to the Guildhall Library, London, contain incumbents’ returns, most giving names, occupations, etc., particulars of Catholic households and, occasionally, of priests, Masshouses and Catholic schools. These comprise MS. 18469 (2 vols, diocese of London, 1780, somewhat misleadingly titled ‘Roman Catholic School Returns’) and were formerly in the keeping of the C.R.S. (see 29th report, p. 5, at end of C.R.S., 34).

⁹⁵ An essential guide is J. S. W. Gibson, Bishops’ Transcripts and Marriage Licences…, a Guide to their Location and Indexes (Federation of Family History Societies, 1981). For much general information, see Steel, National Index of Parish Registers, 1, pp. 167-82.

⁹⁶ J. H. Ellis (ed.), The Registers of Stourton, Wilts, (privately printed, 1887; also issued as vol. 12 of the Harleian Soc. Registers Section, with same pagination), p. 21. Perhaps the rector was more concerned that his ecclesiastical superiors should receive a full record, in accordance with the recent tightening-up of the law concerning the entering of non-Anglican baptisms (6 and 7 Will. III, c. 6; 7 and 8 Will. III, c. 35) than that his own register should contain it. See also the suggestion in Steel, op. cit., p. 175.

⁹⁷ Guides to Original Parish Registers in Record Offices and Libraries have been published in four parts (Local Population Studies, Matlock, 1974-80). The Parochial Registers and Records Measure of 1978 allowed for the retention by parishes of records more than a hundred years old provided certain conditions were fulfilled. A leaflet on the Measure was issued as a Record User’s Guide (1979) by the then Standing Conference for Local History, now the British Association for Local History.

⁹⁸ For one parish (Rowington, Warwicks.) where, in the seventeenth century, ‘the great majority of Catholic recusants are recorded only in the burial register’, see Arkell, V. J. J. in Local Population Studies, 9, pp. 23–32 Google Scholar (p. 27 for words quoted).

⁹⁹ On all three questions there is much information in Steel and Samuel, Nat. Index of Parish Registers, 3, pp. 852-86, passim, and in Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 132-44. On Hardwicke’s Act, see also Professor Bossy’s contribution to Duffy (ed.), Challoner and His Church, ch, 7, and on burials, Anstruther, G. in London Recusant, 1, pp. 103–07;Google Scholar Essex Recusant, 12, pp. 28-31 (St Andrew’s, Holbom). The recording of Catholic births rather than baptisms in two Berkshire parish registers is cited by Dom Geoffrey Scott, O.S.B., St Mary’s Church, Woolhampton (Reading, 1975), p. 9. See also supra, p. 344, note 63 and note 127 below.

¹⁰⁰ Humberside Record Office, Beverley: first Burstwick register, with entries of Catholic burials from 1747 and births from 1749. The Catholic register, of Nuthill, dates only from 1774 and is blank between April 1778 and July 1785, but the parish register records Catholic births during this interval (of children of John Robinson of South Park, notified to the vicar on 25 Feb. 1782). It is this first Burstwick register, not the second, as stated in Yorks. Arch. Soc. Record Series, 99, p. 23, which ‘has notes of Roman Catholic births’. The Nuthill register is printed in C.R.S., 35, pp. 330-67.

¹⁰¹ For evidence relating to two Wiltshire missions, see C.R.S. Monograph 1, pp. 89-92 (the original Bonham registers, now re-discovered, as well as the transcripts there cited, are in the archives of Downside Abbey). For earlier data for a Warwickshire parish, see Arkell, art. cit.

¹⁰² See Trappes-Lomax, T. B. in R.H., 8, pp. 181–2.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ where in 1698 died Mary Frampton whose monument in Bath Abbey embodies an epitaph by Dryden (C.R.S., 65, p. 51 and note 251). The register-entry ‘Mrs Mary Framton’ applied to an unmarried lady is a reminder that the prefix ‘Mrs’ did not necessarily denote marriage (clearly illustrated in, for example, the tombstone in St Mary’s church, Beverley, of ‘Mrs Ann Wride, Spinster… 1779’). On this subject, see also C.R.S., 65, p. 240; Nat. Index of Parish Registers, 1, pp. 82-83, and, on memorial inscriptions to Catholics in Anglican churches, ibid., 3, pp. 892-3; also C.R.S., 33, pp. 9-13 of 28th report (at end of volume). Of nationwide significance, like those in Bath Abbey, are the many Catholic inscriptions in the former churchyard of Old St Paneras, London; these are printed in F. T. Cansick, A Collection of Curious and Interesting Epitaphs… in the Ancient Church and Burial Grounds of St Paneras, Middlesex (1869) and are discussed by O’Leary, J. G. in London Recusant;, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar Monumental inscriptions, which often contain useful genealogical and topographical information, loom large among the matter (including parish register extracts and much else) printed in J. J. Howard et al., Genealogical Collections Illustrating the History of the Roman Catholic Families of England (4 pts, 1887); those from eight counties comprise the third section of C.R.S., 12, those of Winchester are in C.R.S., 42, pp. 145-77, and numerous Essex inscriptions are printed in Essex Recusant, 2-10, passim.

¹⁰⁴ Dugdale Soc., 8, p. 65; also passim for entries (annotated in footnotes) of Catholic births and burials.

¹⁰⁵ Great Waltham, Essex, listed in Emmison, F. G., Catalogue of Essex Parish Records (2nd edn, Chelmsford, 1966), p. 221.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ E.g. in the registers of Bruisyard, Suffolk, and of St Oswald’s parish, Durham, cited respectively in Ryan and Redstone, Timperley of Hintlesham, p. 51, note 4, and in Northern Catholic History, 14, pp. 13 and 14, note 13.

¹⁰⁷ In, respectively, the registers of Scotter, Lines. (Lines. N. and Q., 16, p. 50) and Woolhampton, Berks. (Scott, op. cit., p. 10).

¹⁰⁸ Cited by Cressy, D. in The Local Historian, 14, p. 135.Google Scholar See also supra, pp. 396-7 and p. 401, note 56, re parish register data.

¹⁰⁹ Little Parndon, Essex (Emmison, op. cit., p. 170).

¹¹⁰ E.g. at Pittington, Co. Durham, resolutions of the vestry, parish accounts, inventories, etc. (1584-1699), are all in one book, printed in Surtees Soc., 84, pp. 8-117. For a brief introduction, see Tupling, G. H. in The Amateur Historian, 1, pp. 234–7;Google Scholar also works there cited.

¹¹¹ Guildhall Library: MS. 3571 (1), f. 31 v. ForrelevantproclamationsofOctober 1591, see Hughes, and Larkin, , Tudor Royal Proclamations, 3, pp. 86–95.Google Scholar

¹¹² Surrey R.S., 18, p. 209.

¹¹³ Printed in Burton, E., The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner (1909), 1, pp. 373–4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Surtees Soc., 84, p. 295.

¹¹⁵ Thus, the churchwardens’ accounts of Holy Trinity, Chester, record the purchase of ‘a paper booke for accounts for poore: xviiid., 8 Mar. 1609’ (Chester… Arch. Soc. Journal, 38, p. 145).

¹¹⁶ Surrey Arch. Coll., 24, pp. 149, 150 (also p. 154 for a similar pair of entries).

¹¹⁷ North, T. (ed.), The Accounts of the Churchwardens of S. Martin’s, Leicester (Leicester, 1884), p. 217.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Respectively, from Dixon, J., Extracts from the Registers of Ormskirk Church (Liverpool, 1874,Google Scholar not restricted to register-entries), p. 15, and Williams, J. F., Early Churchwardens’ Accounts of Hampshire (1913), p. 226 Google Scholar—the latter, from the accounts of St Peter Chesil, Winchester, also cited by Atkinson, T., Elizabethan Winchester (1963), p. 243.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Shropshire Parish Documents (Shrewsbury, no date), p. 78; also pp. 76 and 77.

¹²⁰ Surrey Arch. Coll., 18, p. 118 (also p. 123); also 24, p. 147 (original entry subsequently erased): ‘pd. for divers of the vestry their Dinners & boate hire going to or Justices about or Recusants, 16s. 6d.’

¹²¹ Chetham Soc., new series, 80, p. 21 of section 2 (Manchester churchwardens’ accounts, 1664-1710).

¹²² Surrey R.S., 18, pp. 149, 182. This volume contains further relevant entries (see index in vol. 20), as do Surtees Soc., 84; Williams op. cit. (p. lx for list); Fearon, W. A. and Williams, J. F., Parish Registers and Parochial Documents of the Archdeaconry of Winchester (1909), pp. 65–66;Google Scholar Chetham Soc., old series, 97, pp. 54-55.

¹²³ Surrey R.S., 18, p. 180.

¹²⁴ Hughes and Larkin, loc. cit.

¹²⁵ North, op. cit., p. 169. This proclamation, 6 May 1624, is printed in Larkin and Hughes, Stuart Royal Proclamations, 1 (1973), pp. 591-3.

¹²⁶ E.g. payments for ringings to mark the anniversary of Gunpowder Plot (Chester… Arch. Soc. Jnl., loc. cit.), the Battle of the Boyne and the surrender of Limerick (both in Dixon, op. cit., p. 16).

¹²⁷ As in the case of little George Thomas Heneage, whose birth three-and-a-half years before, together with the births of his two sisters, had previously (though belatedly) been notified to the parson for entry in his parish register; see C.R.S., 59, pp. 24, 28 for documentation (also p. 5: genealogy).

¹²⁸ Some examples are given in Cox, Churchwardens’ Accounts, pp. 180, 185. Texts and Calendars (ed. Mullins), lists printed accounts and vestry material and the Guildhall Library, London, publishes handlists of City of London wardens’ accounts and vestry minutes.