Perhaps some one of your numerous readers will be good enough to
inform me whether any _general statistical returns_, compiled from our
early parish registers, have ever been published. An examination of
the register of Chart next Sutton Valence, in Kent, which disclosed
some very curious facts, has led me to make this inquiry. They seem to
point to the inevitable conclusion that the disturbed state of England
during the period of the Great Rebellion retarded the increase of
population to an extent almost incredible--so as to suggest a doubt
whether some special cause might not have operated in the parish in
question which was not felt elsewhere. But, as I am quite unable to
discover the existence of any such cause, I shall be glad to learn
whether a similar result appears generally in other registers of the
period above referred to.
The register-book of Chart commences with the year 1558, and
is continued regularly from that time. During the remainder of
the sixteenth, and for about the first thirty-five years of the
seventeenth century, the baptisms registered increase steadily in
number: from that period there is a very marked decrease. For the
twenty years commencing with 1600 and ending with 1619, the number
260; for the twenty years 1620 to 1639, the number is 246; and for
the twenty years 1640 to 1659, the number is _only_ 120.
No doubt this diminution must be attributed partly to the spread
of Nonconformity; but I believe that during the Protectorate, the
registration of _births_ was substituted for that of _baptisms_, and
therefore the state of religious feeling which then prevailed bears
less directly on the question. And even after the Restoration the
register exhibits but a small increase in the number of baptisms. For
the various periods of twenty years from that event up to 1760, the
numbers range from 152 to 195. And pursuing the inquiry, I find that
the number of marriages, for any given time, varies consistently with
that of baptisms. If any of your reader can clear up the difficulty, I
shall feel much obliged for any information which may tend to do so.
Are the following extracts from the register above referred to of
sufficient interest to merit your acceptance?
"1648.--Richard, the son of George Juxon, gent., and Sarah, his wife,
who was slayne 1º Junii at Maydestone Fight, was buryed on the third
daye of June, anno predicto."
"Joseph, the son of Thomas Daye, and An, his wife, who was wounded at
Maydestone Fight 1º Junii, was buryed the eleventh daye of June."
It is hardly necessary to mention, that the fight here referred to
took place between the parliamentary forces under Fairfax, and a large
body of Kentish gentlemen, who had risen, with their dependants,
in the hope of rescuing the king from the hands of the army. After
an obstinate engagement, in which the Kentish men fully maintained
{330} their character for gallantry, they were defeated with great
slaughter.
"1653.--The third of March, Mr. John Case of Chart next Sutton Clarke,
being chosen by the parishioners of the said Chart, to be the Register
of the said parish according to the Act touching marriages, _births_,
and buryalls, was this day sworne before me, and I do allow and
approve of him to be Register accordingly. As witness my hand.