Overton, and Richard Little; while the sons of some of these gentlemen again appear under the surnames of Egerton, Goodman, Kenclarke, and Richardson. There is one curious case in the Cherhill registers of a surname attributed sometimes to a husband and sometimes to his wife. Joseph and Martha Manners were blessed with a very numerous family from 1803 and downwards, in the several entries of which the name of Hillier is sometimes given as a second Christian name to the husband (which it really was), and sometimes (two Christian names being then very uncommon in the parish) it is attributed to the wife, under the impression no doubt that it was her maiden name. With regard to the use of a second Christian name, the earliest example of it in parochial registers with which I am acquainted is at Merborough, in Yorkshire, where "Robert Browne Lillie" was baptized in 1592. In my own registers I do not find it occur at all before 1775, and after this only at rare intervals until a recent period. In fact out of one thousand seven hundred and twenty-two baptisms recorded, I see only one hundred and seventy-five children to whom two names were given, and seven who have been favoured with three. At Burbage, on the other hand, I find the following entry as early as 1781: "Ap. 29. Baptized Charles Caractacus Ostorious Maximilian Gustavus Adolphus, son of Charles Stone, tailor, and Jenny his wife." But the practice of giving a plurality of names is so largely on the increase that I should not be suprized if some afternoon I were required to baptize a child as " Albert Edward Victor Christian George Frederick Ernest Alexander John Charles," after the Prince of Wales and the whole of his interesting male offspring. It is royal personages, I may add, who appear to have been the originators of this custom, of which an example is to be met with as early as 1028 in the person of Urrace Teresa, Queen of Leon. And again towards the end of this same century we find the name of Mary Isabella, as Queen of Castile and Leon. This lady appears to have chosen her two names herself, having been of Moorish origin, and baptized as a preliminary to her marriage with King Alfonso VI. I am not aware of any man who bore more than one baptismal name until two centuries after this, when we find Andronicus Guidon Comnenus spoken of as

having succeeded Alexis the Great in the Empire of Trebizond. This is however I fear a somewhat wide digression from my immediate subject.

In the reign following that of Henry VIII. another attempt was made to secure the keeping of a register by associating the parishioners generally in its guardianship, the direction of Edward the Sixth's injunction in 1547 being to the "parson, vicar, or curate, and parishioners." This was confirmed by Act of Parliament in the first year of Elizabeth, the only alteration then made being in the disposal of the fine of 3s. 4d. which was attached to neglect of the duty of registration. This had been allotted by Cromwell's injunctions to the repairs of the church. Those of Edward VI. however transferred it to the poor box, and the Act of Queen Elizabeth divided it between the two.

In 1562 an attempt was made to consolidate the system of registration by the establishment of diocesan registries under Parliamentary authority, but the energetic opposition of the clergy caused the scheme to be abandoned. Nor did a proposal of Lord Burghley's, in 1590, for a general office to embrace the whole kingdom, fare better, and at the earnest entreaty of Archbishop Whitgift, this was also withdrawn. The clergymen, having had their attention thus called to the subject, did for themselves in 1597 what they would not allow Parliament to do for them, and by a canon which passed both Houses of the Convocations of Canterbury, copies of the parochial registers of each parish were ordered to be sent to the diocesan registry within one month after Easter in each year.

This brings us down to the date of the present book of canons (1603), when we find it ordered by canon lxx. that " In every parish Church and Chapel within this realm, shall be provided one parchment book at the charge of the parish, wherein shall be written the day and year of every christening, wedding, and burial which has been in that parish since the time that the law was first made in that behalf, so far as the ancient books thereof can be procured." This book is to be kept in a coffer with three locks and keys, and entries to be made only on Sunday by the clergyman in presence of the two churchwardens. Not a few of these coffers are still in existence,

but their books are mostly gone, and they are now much oftener the receptacles of old candle-ends than of books or parochial documents.

Thus matters stood until the reign of Charles I., towards the close of which the growing disaffection and disunion existing in the kingdom began to show upon the registers. In the books of St. Helen's Church, Auckland, Durham, I find, under date 1633, that "Mr. John Vaux, our minister was suspended.

Mr. John Cowper, of Durham, served in his place, and left out divers christenings unrecorded and registered others disorderly." And at Gaineford in the same county, is this note: "Courteous reader, this is to let thee understand that many children were left unrecorded or unregistered, but the reason and cause was thus :-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." There is a sort of Tommy Goodchild air of piety about this excellent resolution on the part of the inhabitants of Gainford which we will hope was justified by their subsequent action. At Fittleton in this county we find one of these books headed: "Ann. Dmi. 1663. Marriages in the parish of Fittleton and Haxton since my coming to bee Rector, there being no just register kept before. Steph. Jay, Rector."

At Chart in Kent. "Marye the daughter of John Smith, Esq., was baptized on the 13th day of January in 1660, by John Case, Vicar. The first that hath been baptized at the font since it has been re-erected by the appoynmt. of the said Mr. Smith, being full sixteen years paste. One Thomas Scoone, an elder, having out of his blinde zeale defaced and pulled it downe, wt. other ornaments belonging to the churche." Again, at Lowestoft, in Suffolk, "For some time following, there was in this towne 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 were by myself baptized in those intervals when I enjoyed my freedom." At Staindrop, Durham, under date "1644. From this time to 1646 through want of a minister and carelessness of the cleark, during the wars,

much of the registers is lost, only here and there a name registered 1652. June 14. From this time till August, there was noe minister, soe that the children were carried to other parishes to be baptized."

These irregular functions were of course registered in the books of the parishes where they took place. The Rector of St. Dionis, Backchurch, London, informs me that there are an unusual number of marriages registered in the books of that parish during the rebellion-owing evidently to the fact that the clergyman who happened to be in possesion of the living at the time was not turned out by the Presbyterians, as were most of his neighbours, and that those persons therefore who adhered to the old path flocked from all sides to his ministrations. Nor were these extra-parochial services always free from danger. In the register book at Hexham, Northumberland, is the following: "Note. That Mr. Will. Lister, Minister of St. John Lees in those distracted times, did both marry and baptize all that made their applications to him, for wh. he was sometimes severely threatened by the souldiers, and once had a cockt pistoll held to his breast, so that its no wond' yt y' registers for these times are so imperfect, and besides they are so extremely confused."

In August, 1653 an act was passed, called, after its author, "the Barebones Act," by which the custody of the parish books was transferred from the clergy aud churchwardens to an official called the Parish Register, who was sworn into his office by a justice of the peace, and when any entry was to be made had to produce the book before a justice and to attest by his signature the writing of that magistrate, for which he was paid a fee of 12d. on each marriage, and 4d. on each birth and death. Numerous instances of the appointment of these "Registers" occur. At Broad Hinton is an entry to the effect that "John Grinaway chosen by the inhabitants to be their pish. Register is approved of and sworn thereunto before me on the seven and twentieth day of March in the year of our Lord God 1654. Wm. Sadler." In the Bremhill book Edward Carpenter describes himself as "Clark and Register" in the year 1667, and at Allington, near Amesbury, Stephen Rutt is recorded to have been sworn to the office of "Regestor" on May 31,

1655. Amongst the duties of this official was the publishing the banns of marriage, a thing which had to be done for three consecutive Sundays, as heretofore, after which the parties could be married by any justice of the peace, the Register attending as one of the witnesses. The following is a record of one of these marriages, extracted from the books at Idmiston, near Salisbury: "The 8th of May, 1654. William Butler of Borecombe in this county shepherd about the age of 24 years was married the day and year above written unto Dennis Bevis of Bulford, being about 27 years of age. And so declared (according to the Act of Parliament in that behalf made and provided) by John Rede of Porton, Esq. one of the justices of the peace for the county of Wilts and in the presence of John Butler father of the said William and Robert Rivers and Thomas Bevis brother of the said Dennis and others. The certificate from John Smith, Register of Bulford was there produced and the Parish Register of Borecombe was then and there present, affirming that the said parties were published three times by himself at Borecombe, as it is required by the said act. Andrew London, Parish Register." It is noticable that ages are often given in the inexact way in which they appear in this document during the period of the Great Rebellion-though on the other hand, in the baptismal book it is often the date of birth and not that of baptism which is recorded. This is the case at Southbroom from 1653 to 1657. And at Fifield Bavant it would seem as if births were registered even in cases where no baptism was administered.

I find at Broad Hinton a curiously strong expression of opinion with regard to the ecclesiastical polity of these times. Appended to the registry of the burial of one Mr. William Glanvill in 1680 is the following: "N.B. He was the son of Sr. John Glanvill, Kt. Sergeant at law and Speaker to the House of Commons in the year 1640 in the days of that blessed martyr King Charles the First that glorious Defender of the Church of England against cursed presbytery."

To a period not long removed from this belong also three curious entries of deaths for which I am indebted to an article in the (now deceased) Home and Foreign Review: