Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 5.djvu/205

 28. V. AUG., 1919.]

NOTES AND QUERIES.

199

m performed at Clitheroe and forgotten be entered at the time, they would most )bably have been interlined among the .rriages of the appropriate year, instead being entered by themselves in a separate ,ce. They appear to me to be memoranda marriages that had taken place elsewhere, which it was desirable to keep a record in ? place where the parties lived. A reason for this is not far to seek, for at 3 period to which these entries relate, and

years afterwards, the Church of England, ough the Ecclesiastical Courts, exercised control over the morals of the people. By the 109th Canon, " if any offend their sthren either by adultery, whoredom, jest, or drunkenness, or by swearing, baldry, usury, or any other uncleanness d wickedness of life," the churchwardens 9 enj.oined to present them to their dinaries. And by the 113th Canon, which ites that churchwardens, " either through a,r of their superiors, or through negligence" ben neglect their duties in this respect, e minister is empowered to join the church- irdens in their presentments, or, if the .urchwardens will not present, then the inisters are empowered to do so themselves. tnon 115 clearly recognizes the duty of inisters and churchwardens to present not dy the crimes and disorders committed by iminous persons in their parishes, but also the common fame which is spread abroad

them " in other words, local gossip and
 * tle-tattle.

These canons were frequently acted on id offenders presented to the Ecclesiastical >urts ; and if the charges were sustained,the lilty parties were ordered to do penance, or,

the case were serious, excommunicated, he working of the system is illustrated by le following entry in the Clitheroe Church - ardens' Accounts for 1669 :

. Mch 18. Itm, spent at Airton's in attend- ice of Mr. Driver, to know -whether hee was arryed or noe, ffor the discharge of the minister id churchwardens ... ... ... 006

There was apparently some scandal about [r. Driver. It was probably whispered naong the gossips of the town that he and le lady he called Mrs. Driver had not been 'gaily made man and wife. In order, lerefore, to discharge their consciences, and aable them to decide whether they must ^.ke action under the canons, they sent for j[r. Driver to the alehouse, and over six- ennyworth of small beer got his explanation ! " the matter. >r 1669 we

On turning to the Register find the following entries

William Brigge and Elizabeth Lord marryed the 19 th of October.

M r Bernerd Driver and Bridgett Ffarrer marryed the 26 of Sep. by License from Chester, 1669. Marriages in Anno. 1670.

James Crooke and Ellen Hindle marryed the third day of July.

As at this period the year began on March 25, the 18th of March, 1669, when the interview with Mr. Driver took place, was the 18th of March, 1670, according to the present reckoning. It is therefore clear that "he entry of his marriage in the register could not have been made at the date of the inter- view, or there would have been no need to interview him ; and if the marriage had taken place at Clitheroe, every one would have known about it. The interview must have resulted in Driver furnishing satis- factory evidence that he was legally married, and to set the matter at rest the minister must have entered the marriage in the Register, which, it will be seen, he was able to do only a little out of proper order.

Curiously enough, there is another case of a somewhat similar character in the Clitheroe Registers. In a blank space under a list of what he calls " Publications of Marriages " (but which is evidently a list of the publications of banns) during the year 1675 Bankes has made the following entry : Ch. K. and J. Du say d they were marryed ffeb. y e 14th, 1680, but I never had any testimoniall thereof brought. Willm Bankes.

Not content with this, at the end of the marriages for 1680 (which was the end of the marriages in that volume) Bankes has written again :

Christopher Kendall and Jennett Dugdall say d they were marryed ffebuary the 14 th, 1680, but I never had any testimoniall thereof brought.

Will" 1 Bankes.

Then comes the following entry by Thomas Taylor, who became incumbent in 1701 :

May y e 20 th, 1704.

I received a testimoniall from y e Reverend Mr. Phillipson, now Vicar of Almondbury, y t y e above mentioned Christopher Kendall and Jennet Dug- dall were marryed Feb. y e 14, 1680, as above Witness my hand,

Witness also Tho. Taylor,

Richard Dugdale. Min r of Clithero.

There may have been more reasons than one that led to duplicate entries of marriages, but I think it is pretty clear that in many cases they were intended to preserve a- record of the marriage in the register of the parish where the parties lived, in order to prevent scandal, and to save trouble to the church officers, and annoyance to the parties

concerned.

wards the end of the marriages in 1669 : Westwood, Clitheroe.

WM. SELF WEEKS.