Page:VCH Rutland 1.djvu/211

 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY who would not come up to the rails for their communions ;" and about the same time Sir John Lambe drew attention to some ministers of Rutland who had been at a meeting at Kettering, where several of the clergy of North- amptonshire and Leicestershire had been organizing resistance to the oath imposed by the recent book of canons. The chief name in Rutland was one Mr. Whittaker of Stretton." There had been trouble of this kind in certain parishes since the beginning of the century. Parishioners of Oakham, Edith Weston, Cottes- more, and Wardley wore their hats in church, refused to stand at the Gloria Patri and to bow at the Holy Name. In 1627 there were women at Clipsham and Stretton who snatched their children out of the priest's arms at baptism before they could be signed with the cross : the rectors of both parishes were unwilling conformists, and probably made little resistance. The vicar of Ryhall, who had been in trouble in 1589, was again accused in 1 61 2 of not reading the services of the Church according to the book. The rector of Uppingham was accused more than once before 1631 of false doctrine and mutilation of the Prayer Book.°^ The rector of Teigh from 1604 to 1630 evaded the use of the surplice and the cross in baptism, omitted the Litany, and refused to bow the knee at the Holy Name, though he said he always bowed in spirit. There was an unauthorized Sunday fast and course of preaching at Little Casterton in 1628. The rector of Cottesmore gave a great deal of trouble to the authorities from 161 6 to 1640, and so did his curates. He used the surplice as little as he could, and omitted large sections of the offices of Morning and Evening Prayer. His wife was a still stauncher nonconformist, sitting steadily through the Creed and Gloria at all times, and refusing to be churched."' There is another visitation report for the year 1640, but it is not quite so complete as the earlier ones. It gives, however, an account of twenty- seven churches or chapels which were still nearly all in great need of repair. At Tinwell it may be mentioned that the only defect was insufficient whitewash; and at Preston, not the church, but only the churchyard was in bad condition. The worst reports are those of Ashwell, Lyndon, Seaton, Stretton, and Oakham : the last-mentioned was as unsatisfactory as ever, having many seats out of repair, defects in windows, roof, doors, paving, and pulpit ; there was not a complete Prayer Book in the church, both copies being defective ; and a surplice had recently been sold as too old for use, and had not been replaced. School was kept in the churches of Stretton and Langham, which would not be very conducive to cleanliness and order. There was no complaint made, however, about the position of the communion tables, except at Stretton, nor of the absence of rails ; though in some places the railing was too wide, as at Exton, where ' a great dogge might kreepe unto the table.' But the tables themselves were often ' insufficient,' whatever that may mean ; and that which stood in Ayston Church was ' all over besmeared with birds' dounge very profanely.' It is not noted anywhere that the surplice was lacking ; so that here again the fault is rather a general neglect than actual refusal of conformity. ^^ " Cal. ofS.P. Dom. 1640, p. 139. " Ibid. 638. " From notes taken by Rev. E. A. Irons from the archdeaconry records. " Ibid. ^ This report is from the same source as the earlier ones. 1 153 20