Notes and Queries, Number 27, May 4, 1850

(No. 21. p. 329.)

The Registrar-General, in his Eighth Report, enters at length into the causes which have brought about the variations in the number of marriages, and consequently, as I need scarcely say, of births. In comparing the marriage returns since 1754, which are given in the report, with the history of events since that period, he certainly makes it clear, to use his own words, that "The marriage returns in England point out periods of prosperity little less distinctly than the funds measure the hopes and fears of the money-market." (p. 26. 8vo. edit.)

And that

"The great fluctuations in the marriages of England are the results of peace after war, abundance after dearth, high wages after want of employment, speculation after languid enterprise, confidence after distrust, national triumphs after national disasters." (p. 27.)

During the civil wars, the diminishing influences indicated in the reverse of this statement were at work with an intensity unequalled in any other period of our modern history, so that there can be no doubt that our then "unhappy divisions" did most materially retard the numerical increase of the population, as well as the progress of science and the useful arts. Such is the inevitable consequence of war: of civil war in a tenfold degree. And our parish register books, all of which I doubt not show similar facts, place this in the most unfavourable light; for, through the spread of nonconformity, the unsettled state of the times, and the substitution during the protectorate of the registration of births which might or might not be communicated to the elected parish register, for that of baptisms which the parish priest would both celebrate and register, the names of very many of those born into the world would be altogether omitted from these records. It may be interesting to show the effects of some of these causes by the subjoined extracts from the registers themselves, which I transcribe from the Chronicon Mirabile of the late Sir Cuthbert Sharpe.—(Vide pp. 17. 18. 22. 23. 70. 121. and 156.)

Staindrop, Durham.—"1644. From this time to 1646, through want of a Minister, and carelessness of ye Cleark, during ye wars, much of ye Register is lost, only here and there a name registered."

"1652. June 14. Mem. From this time till August there was noe Minister, soe that ye children were carried to other parishes to be baptized."

St. Helen's Aukland, Durham, A.D. 1633.—"Mr. John Vaux, our minister, was suspended.... Mr. Robert Cowper, of Durham, served in his place, and left out divers christenings unrecorded, and regestered others disorderly."

Gainford, Durham.—"Courteous Reader, this is to let thee understand that many children were left unrecorded or redgestered, but the reason and cause was this; some would and some would not, being of a fickle condition, as the time was then; this being their end and aim, to save a groate from the poor Clarke, so they would rather have them unredgestered—but now … it is their design to have them redgestered."

Lowestoft, Suffolk, 1644 … "For some time following there was in this Town neither Minister nor Clarke, but the inhabitants were inforced to procure now one and then another to baptize their children, by which means there was no Register kept, only those few hereafter mentioned weare by myself baptized in those intervalls when I enjoyed my freedom."

Hexham, Northumberland, c. 1655.—"Note y't Mr. Will. Lister, Minister of S't. John Lees in those distracted times, did both marry and baptize all that made ther application to him, for w'ch he was sometimes severely threatened by y'e souldiers, and had once a cockt pistoll held to his breest, &c., so y't its no wond'r y't y'e Registers for these times are so imperfect, and besides, they are extremely confused."

In the Preface to the Enumeration Abstract of the Census of 1841, pp. 34-37., your correspondent will find information and statistics relative to the estimated population of England and Wales, 1570-1750, compiled from the parish registers, and—

"calculated on the supposition, that the registered baptisms, burials, and marriages, on an average of three years, in 1570, 1600, 1630, 1670, 1700, and 1750, bore the same proportion to the actual population as in the year 1801."

From the Table, pp. 36, 37, it appears, that whilst the population (estimated) in the thirty years 1600-1630 increased upwards of 16 percent., in the forty years 1630-1670 it increased a mere trifle over 3 per cent. only. In no fewer than twenty English counties, the population, estimated as before, was absolutely less in 1670 than in 1630; and in Kent, the county in which Chart is situate, the decrease is striking: population of Kent in 1630, 189,212; in 1670, 167,398; in 1700, 157,833; in 1750, 181,267; and in 1801, the enumerated population was 307,624.

Your correspondent might also find it useful to consult Sir William Petty's Political Arithmetic, the various documents compiled at the different censuses, and the Reports of the Registrar-General.

    ARUN.

PARISH REGISTER STATISTICS.—CHART, KENT

Your correspondent "E.R.J.H." (No. 21. p. 330.) inquires whether any general statistical returns, compiled from our early parish registers, have been published. It must be a matter of regret to all who are acquainted with the value of these national records—which for extent and antiquity are unequalled in any other country—that this question cannot be answered affirmatively. By the exertions of the late Mr. Rickman, their importance, in a statistical point of view, has been shown, but only to a very limited extent. In 1801, being entrusted with the duty of collecting and arranging the returns of the first actual enumeration of the population, he obtained from the clergyman of each parish a statement of the number of baptisms and burials recorded in the register book in every tenth year from 1700, and of marriages in every consecutive year from 1754, when the Marriage Act of George II. took effect. The results were published with the census returns of 1801; but, instead of each parish being separately shown, only the totals of the hundreds and similar county divisions, and of a few principal towns, were given. In subsequent "Parish Register Abstracts" down to that of 1841, the same meagre information has been afforded by an adherence to this generalising system.

In 1836, with a view of forming an estimate of the probable population for England and Wales at certain periods anterior to 1801, Mr. Rickman, acting upon the result of inquiries previously made respecting the condition and earliest date of the register books in every parish, applied to the clergy for returns of the number of baptisms, burials, and marriages registered in three years at six irregular periods, viz. A.D. 1570, 1600, 1630, 1670, 1700, and 1750. The clergy, with their accustomed readiness to aid in any useful investigation, responded very generally to the application, and Mr. Rickman obtained nearly 3000 returns of the earliest date required (1570), and nearly 4000 (from not much less than half the parishes of England) as far back as 1600; those for the more recent periods being tolerably complete from all the counties. The interesting details thus collected have not been published; nor am I able to say where the original returns, if still extant, are deposited. In pursuance of this design, however, Mr. Rickman proceeded with these materials to calculate the probable population of the several counties on the supposition that the registered baptisms, &c., in 1570, 1600, and at the other assigned periods, bore the same proportion to the actual population as in 1801. The numerical results are embodied in a table which appears in the Census Enumeration Abstract for 1841 (Preface, pp. 36, 37.), and it is stated that there is reason for supposing the estimate arrived at to be an approximation to the truth.

During the Civil Wars and the Protectorate, few parochial registers were kept with any degree of accuracy; indeed, in many parishes they are altogether defective at that period, owing to the temporary expulsion of the clergy from their benefices. It is not improbable, therefore, that the remarkable decrease of baptismal entries in the register book of Chart next Sutton Valence may have arisen partly from imperfect registration, as well as from the other causes suggested. But the trifling increase observable after the Restoration undoubtedly points to the conclusion arrived at by your corespondent—that a great diminution had taken place in the population of the parish: and Mr. Rickman's estimate above referred to gives a result for the entire county, which, if it does not fully establish the supposed decrease, shows at least that the registers of other Kentish parishes were affected in a similar manner. The following is the estimated population of Kent, deduced from the baptisms, burials, and marriages, by Mr. Rickman:—

The population enumerated in 1801 was 307,624, which had increased to 548,337 in 1841.

Applying the average of England to the parish of Chart, the 120 baptisms in the years 1640-1659, if representing the actual births, would indicate a population of about 200 during that period; while the 246 entries in the previous twenty years would give upwards of 400 inhabitants. According to the several censuses, Chart contained 381 persons in 1801, and 424, 500, 610, 604, respectively, at the subsequent decades.

While on the subject of parish registers, I may add, that a scheme has been propounded by the Rev. E. Wyatt Edgell, in a paper read before the Statistical Society, for transcribing and printing in a convenient form the whole of the extant parish register books of England and Wales, thus concentrating those valuable records, and preserving, before it is too late, their contents from the effects of time and accidental injuries. The want of funds to defray the cost of copying and printing is the one great difficulty of the plan.

    JAMES T. HAMMACK.

April 2.

EARLY STATISTICS.—PARISH REGISTERS

In reference to the observations of your correspondent "E.R.J.H.," he will find, upon closer examination, that no comparison approaching to accuracy can be made between the population of any place at different periods of the seventeenth century, founded upon the entries in parish registers of baptisms, births, or marriages. In 1653 the ecclesiastical registers ceased to contain much of the information they had before given. In that year was passed, "An Act how Marriages shall be solemnised and registered, and also for a Register of Births and Burials;" which first introduced registers of births and not of baptisms. The Act treated marriage as a civil contract, to be solemnised before a justice of the peace; and it directed that, for the entry of all marriages, and "of all births of children, and burial of all sorts of people, within every parish," the rated inhabitants should choose "an honest and able person to be called 'The Parish Register,'" sworn before and approved by a neighbouring magistrate. Until after the Restoration, this Act was found practicable; and in many parishes these books (distinct from the clergyman's register of baptisms, &c., celebrated in the church) continue to be fairly preserved. In such parishes, and in no others, a correct comparative estimate of the population may be formed.

The value of the parochial registers for statistical and historical purposes cannot be overrated; and yet their great loss in very recent times is beyond all doubt. It was given in evidence before the committee on registration, that out of seventy or eighty parishes for which Bridges made collections a century since, thirteen of the old registers have been lost, and three accidentally burnt. On a comparison of the dates of the Sussex registers, seen by Sir W. Burrell between 1770 and 1780, and of those returned as the earliest in the population returns of 1831, the old registers, in no less than twenty-nine parishes, had in the interval disappeared; whilst, during the same half-century, nineteen old registers had found their way back to the proper repository. On searching the MSS. in Skelton Castle, in Cleveland, a few years since, the first register of that parish was discovered, and has been restored.

These changes show how great the danger is to which the old registers are exposed; and in many instances it saves time and trouble to search the Bishop's transcripts before searching the original registers.

    WM. DURRANT COOPER.

81. Guildford Street, March 25. 1850.

BYRON'S LARA

I cannot agree with your able corespondent "C.B." (No. 20. p. 324., and No. 17. p. 262.), that Ezzelin in "Lara" is Seyd of the "Corsair." My interpretation of both tales is as follows:—Lara and Ezzelin both lived in youth where they afterwards met, viz. in a midland county of England—time about the fourteenth century. Ezzelin was a kinsman, or, more probably, a lover of Medora, whom Lara induced to fly with him, and who shared his corsair life. When Lara had returned home, the midnight scene in the gallery arose from some Frankenstein creation of his own bad conscience; a "horrible shadow," an "unreal mockery." Kaled was Gulnare disguised as a page; and when Lara met Ezzelin at Otho's house, Ezzelin's indignation arose from his recollection of Medora's abduction. Otho favours Ezzelin in this quarrel; and, when Kaled looks down upon the "sudden strife," and becomes deeply moved, her agitation was from seeing in Ezzelin the champion of Medora, her own rival in the affections of Lara. Ezzelin is murdered, probably by the contrivance of Kaled, who had before shown that she could lend a hand in such an affair. After this, Lara collects a band, like what David gathered to himself in the cave of Adullam, and what follows suits the mediæval period of English history.

I will briefly quote in support of this view. Otho shows that Lara and Ezzelin had both sprung from one spot, when he says,

"I pledge myself for thee, as not unknown,
Though like Count Lara now return'd alone
From other lands, almost a stranger grown."

The 9th section of canto 1. is a description of Byron himself at Newstead (the two poems are merely vehicles of their authors' own feelings), with the celebrated skull, since made into a drinking cup, beside him. The succeeding section is a picture of "our own dear lake." That Medora was a gentlewoman, and not from the slave-market, is shown by Conrad's appreciation of her in the 12th section of the first canto of the "Corsair;" and why not formerly beloved by Ezzelin, and thus alluded to by him in the quarrel scene?

"And deem'st thou me unknown too? Gaze again!
At least thy memory was not given in vain,
Oh! never canst thou cancel half her debt,
Eternity forbids thee to forget."

The accents, muttered in a foreign tongue by Lara, on recovering from his swoon in the gallery,—

"And meant to meet an ear
That hears him not—alas! that cannot hear"—

were addressed, I think, to Medora; and I am only the more disposed to this opinion by their effect on Kaled. (See canto 1. sec. 14.)

I quite agree with "EMDEE" in esteeming "Lara" a magnificent poem.

    A.G.

Ecclesfield, March 18, 1850.

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES

Dr. Whichcot and Lord Shaftesbury.—Your correspondent "C." (No. 24. p. 382.) will find in the Alumni Etonenses, by Harwood, printed at Birmingham by Pearson, and by Caddell, jun., and Davies, Strand, 1797, at p. 46. in the account of Whichcot, under the head of "Provosts of King's College," the following passage:—"A volume of his sermons was published in 1628, from copies taken in short-hand as they were delivered from the pulpit, with a preface by Lord Shaftesbury." In a MS. account of the provosts it is stated, "the first volume of his discourses, published by Lord Shaftesbury, 1698;" and that one of his brothers was alive in 1749, at Finchley, aged 96.

A letter from Lord Lauderdale to Dr. Whichcot is in MS. Harl. 7045. p. 473. I take the figures from a printed, but not published, account of some of the proceedings relating to Dr. Whichcot's deprivation of his provostship at the Restoration, in which Lord Lauderdale says, "For I took an opportunity, in the presence of my Lord Chamberlain, your Chancellor, to acquaint his Majesty with those excellent endowments with which God hath blesst you, and which render you so worthie of the place you enjoy, (which the King heard very graciously); afterwards he spoke with my Lord Chamberlain about your concerns, and he and I are both of opinion there is no fear as to your concerns." Was Shaftesbury ever Chancellor of Cambridge? or who was the Lord Chamberlain who at that time was Chancellor of the university? I have no means of referring to any University History as to these points.

    COLL. REGAL. SOCIUS.