ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



In June, 1603, a circular letter was addressed by Archbishop Whitgift 

 to his suffragans of the southern province, requesting information as to the 

 number of communicants and recusants in the parishes of their respective 

 dioceses, together with the names of such clergy as had two benefices, the 

 number of impropriations and vicarages, and the values and the patrons of the 

 various livings. The original returns are to be found in the Harleian collec- 

 tion of the British Museum. 1 



The returns for the county of Suffolk, as sent in to the Bishop of 

 Norwich by the archdeacons of Sudbury and Suffolk, differ in style. The 

 former is somewhat more detailed, and comprises an explicit answer to all the 

 queries from each parish, three or four being entered in a small hand on each 

 folio. The return from the Suffolk archdeaconry is more condensed, and 

 assumes a tabulated form for each deanery. 2 



The answers do not cover quite the whole of the county, for the plan 

 adopted was for the archdeacon to summon the parsons, vicars, or curates of 

 the different parishes of each deanery to some appointed place, and there to 

 receive their respective replies. In a few cases, as in three of the Ipswich 

 parishes, no one appeared to make any reply, and the returns for such parishes 

 were left blank. Occasionally there was a good excuse for non-appearance. 

 Thus in the Dunwich deanery under ' Reydon cum capella de Southwold ' it 

 is entered : ' The parson did not appear by reason the Sicknes was veri 

 dangerous in the towne.' 



The numbers of those * who do not receive ' are entered separately from 

 the avowed recusants, who were all probably confessed Romanists. The pro- 

 portion of both these classes is a good deal smaller than in some counties. 

 In the archdeaconry of Sudbury 3 the recusants of the deanery of Thingoe 

 numbered 22 ; in Blackburne, 5 ; in Fordham, 4; in Hartismere and Stow, 4 ; 

 in Clare, i ; in Sudbury, 35 ; and in the town of Bury, 19; giving a total 

 of 132 for the archdeaconry. Those who did not receive the communion, 

 though coming to the church services, numbered 89 in the same district. 



The archdeaconry of Suffolk had fewer of both these classes. 4 Of 

 recusants there were in the deanery of Lothingland, 6 ; in Wangford, 4 ; in 

 Dunwich, 5 ; in Orford, 5 ; in Wilford and Loes, 14 men in the castle of 

 Framlingham, and one other ; in Carlford and Colneys, 4 ; in Ipswich, 4 ; 

 in Samford, 8 ; in Bosmere and Claydon, 1 1 ; and in Hoxne, 2. The total, 

 therefore, of recorded recusants for the whole county was 190 ; whilst the 

 full total of those who did not receive throughout Suffolk was 122. 



The totals of communicants usually entered in round numbers, doubtless 

 include all parishioners over sixteen years, save those already enumerated ; for 

 the unhappy rule prevailed of their being compelled under heavy penalties 

 to be at least occasional communicants. The returns afford, therefore, a good 

 criterion of the whole population, and may be taken as a rough kind of census. 

 The total of communicants in both archdeaconries amounted to 67,993.' 



1 Had. MS. 595, No. ii. 



'In the Suff. Arch. InK. Proc. for 1883 (vi, 361-400) the return for the Suff. archdeaconry is printed ; 

 the return for Sudbury archdeaconry appeared in 1901 (xi, 1-46). 



3 Harl. MS. 595, fol. 95-119. 'Ibid. 167-93. 



5 In order to get the total population, about forty per hundred have to be added to those who were over 

 sixteen. After making allowance for several omitted parishes this would bring the population of Suffolk to 

 about 100,000 at the beginning of the seventeenth century. 



39 



