1 For a discussion of population listings see Laslett, P., ‘The study of social structure from listings of inhabitants’ in Wrigley, E. A., An Introduction to Historical Demography (1966), 160–208.Google Scholar

2 Some indication of the amount derived from these various sources is provided in the Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1535. See Zell, M. L., ‘Economic problems of the parochial clergy in the sixteenth century’ in O'Day, R. and Heal, F. (eds.), Princes and Paupers in the English Church 1500–1800 (1981), 19–44.Google Scholar

3 For example, ‘Easter duties fower pence a peece’ in St Thomas's in Salisbury in 1663: Swayne, Accounts, 337. Sometimes the amount paid varied according to the marital status or place of origin of the communicant. For example, Barratt, D. M. (ed.), Ecclesiastical Terriers of Warwickshire Parishes (2 vols, 1955), I, xliii, 8, 88, 126.Google Scholar

4 For an introduction see Hill, C., Economic Problems of the Church from Archbishop Whitgift to the Long Parliament (1956)Google Scholar, ch. V.

5 In Salisbury nearly a third of the wills proved between 1500 and 1559 included gifts to the church for ‘tithes forgot’. After 1559, however, such bequests significantly disappeared.

6 The value of urban tithes is discussed in C. Cross, ‘The incomes of provincial urban clergy’ in O'Day and Heal, op. cit., 65–89. As early as 1534 it was protested that townsmen were withholding ‘great parts of their tithes and oblations, as well personal as praedial, due unto God and the holy church’. Statutes of the Realm 27 HVIII c20. For further complaints about the neglect of privy tithes see Hill, op. cit, 91, and Cardwell, E., Synodalia (2 vols, 1841), 11, 447, 509.Google Scholar

7 The rate was fixed at 2s. 9d. in the pound in 1545. Statutes of the Realm 37 HVIII c12.

8 Dale, T. C. (ed.), The Inhabitants of London, 1638 (1934), vi–xi.Google Scholar

9 Hill, op. cit., 284–88. London was also mentioned in 1562 when the episcopacy considered ways of improving the tithing system, ‘either by rating of some certainity upon every person by a contribution or otherwise of a reasonable sum; or else to appoint a rate according to the rent of their houses, as it is in London’. Cardwell, op. cit., II, 510.

10 Hill, op. cit., 276.

11 Beresford, J. R., ‘The Churchwarden's accounts of Holy Trinity, Chester, 1532–1633’, J. Chester and North Wales Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Society, xxxviii (1951), 95–173Google Scholar. Evidence from terriers and leases of church property and from an inquiry into the incomes of the London clergy in 1638 confirms that the restricted use of the term Easter Book was common. For examples see Barratt, op. cit., I, 8, 75 and Dale, op. cit.

12 In a series of tithe books from Ryton, Durham, there is a clear distinction between individual offerings and ‘plows and reeks’, which are entered in a column headed the Easter Book, and tithes on livestock and wool which were itemized under different heads. Praedial tithes, meanwhile, were recorded in a separate ledger. DCRO, EP/Ryt/I/10–12.

13 Swayne, , Accounts, 281Google Scholar, and for other references to privy tithes, 292, 294, 295.

14 SCA, St Thomas Records nos. 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48. A typical entry reads:

Mr Thomas Elliott and uxor eius 6s 8d

John Williams servant 4d

Elizabeth Sharpe servant 4d

2 apprentices

15 In 1630 it was agreed that all communicants should be rated for casting a new bell ‘only all those thate are under 8d in the Easter Book are to pay nothing’: Swayne, , Accounts, 316.Google Scholar Other ordinances concerning church rates also imply some linkage between the various collections.

16 LRO, BR 111/8/24. Here a typical entry reads:

It. John Woodshaw & W. 4d, h id, g. iid It. his sonne 9d

It. Elizabeth his mayd 4d (1588 f. 92)

17 HWRO, A61, 1597 Easter Book. I am grateful to James Moir for providing information about these lists which cover the years 1597 to 1607. In Ledbury separate collections were also made for tithes on crops and livestock, a reflection of the semi-rural character of the parish.

18 CCRO, CR 65 Bundles 39–42. Lists are available for the years 1597, 1598, 1612, 1620, 1642 and 1670–1730. Thanks are due to Nick Alldridge who initially drew my attention to these lists.

19 In Exeter 1d. was charged for ‘smoke’ on houses with a kitchen, chimney and hall and 1/2d. for poorer dwellings: MacCaffrey, W., Exeter 1540–1640 (1978), 179.Google Scholar A terrier for the rural parish of Rowington in Warwickshire, where it was customary to pay ‘id for the garden in lieu of herbes, rootes and flowers. Also a penie yearlie called a smoke penie by euery houeholder in lieu of firewood’, illustrates the original purpose behind the smoke payment: Barratt, op. cit., II, 49.

20 CRO, Corporation Financial Records pre-1835, Rates St Michael's 9a and 9b. The lists are described as rate books in the catalogue, but a torn fragment on the 1595 volume suggests that contemporaries may have known of them as Easter Books. Ledgers recording praedial tithes also survive for Coventry. I am grateful to Charles Phythian-Adams for introducing me to these records and for many helpful discussions on the subject.

21 Sharpe, T., Illustrative Papers on the History and Antiquities of the City of Coventry (1871), 6, 7.Google Scholar

22 Statutes of the Realm, 37 HVIII c12; 2 & 3 Ed.VI c13.

23 In Christchurch, Bristol, for instance, payments were occasionally noted for shops which were evidently distinguished from the dwelling-house and were possibly held by men from different parishes. (B.A.O., Easter Books of Christchurch Central 1570–1629, 1–27.) In nearby St Ewen's, tithes and offerings were specifically mentioned in 1459 when the rector complained of the loss of income because a property had ceased to be a dwelling house. Masters, B.R. and Ralph, E. (eds.), The Church Book of St Ewen's, Bristoll 1454–1584, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society Publications, VI (1967), xxiii.Google Scholar A number of tithe disputes dealt with in the Winchester courts during the early sixteenth century suggest that assessments were also based on rents in Winchester and Southampton. Houlbrook, R., Church Courts and the People during the English Reformation (1979), 124.Google Scholar Meanwhile, in St Margaret's, Leicester, a note in the Easter Books themselves actually specified that houses under £10 were to be rated at 1s. and those under £20 at 2s. 6d. with ‘another one shilling for every five pounds by ancient custom’. The contrast with neighbouring St Mary's illustrates how, even within a town, the arrangements could vary, although the system could have changed by the 1730s when the St Margaret's records were compiled. H. Hartopp (ed.), St Margaret's, Leicester Easter Offerings 1738–40, (transcript).

24 Cross, op. cit., 69.

25 Special collections from younger communicants were also taken in St Michael's, Chester and St Martin's, Leicester. St Michael's Churchwarden's Accounts, 1558–1678, CDRO, P65/8/1, ffs 101, 60, 62, 87. North, Thomas (ed.), The Accounts of the Churchwardens of St Martin's Leicester 1459–1844 (1844), 117.Google Scholar

26 For a discussion of the arrangement of benefices and advowsons see Hill, op. cit., ch. iv.

27 Cross, op. cit., 67. Zel, op. cit., 25–7.

28 In Warwick the Corporation were granted the ‘commodities of the benefice of St Mary's by Henry VIII with the proviso that they ‘keepe and prouide beside the vicar, one sexton, one clarke, and two full ministers’: Barratt, op. cit., II, 99.

29 CRO, Corporation Ecclesiastical Records, Tithe Box 2. Lawsuit Rev. W. Panting v Corporation, 1638.

30 SDR, Dean and Chapter Lease Books, I f.227v. II f.252.

31 The latter resembled the Easter lists found elsewhere although the collection was actually organized on a quarterly basis. CDRO, P65/8/1 & P63/7/1.

32 The curate's wages rose from £10 in the sixteenth century to £13 6s. 8d. by 1630. The Easter Book normally raised between £30 and £35.

33 For the organization of the living in St Edmund's see VCH Wiltshire, VI, 144–53; Bodington, E. J., ‘The Church survey in Wiltshire 1649–50’, Wiltshire Archaeological Mag., XL, 401.Google Scholar

34 Swayne, , Accounts, 212, 214.Google Scholar

35 VCH Wiltshire, VI, 147–50.

36 The civic authorities were also involved in St Mary's, Leicester after the advowson passed to the Corporation in 1606. Stocks, H. (ed.), Records of the Borough of Leicester, 1603–1688 (1923), 67, 68, 344, 354, 397.Google Scholar The St John's Rolls from 1670 onwards were all signed by John Sparke, presumably the rector, and end with notes of his receipts from Thomas Adams ‘towards my Easter duties’. The lists for St Mary's are included in a rough note book compiled by two men who worked for the owner of the living between 1585 and 1606. In both cases the survival of the documents can be attributed to the fact that they had been used in local tithe cases. For an illustration of a series of Easter Books dating from the nineteenth century see: NRO, Oundle Easter Books, 1657–1869. Smith family papers, Box X5399.

37 Easter Books should not be confused with the ledgers used to record the other collections taken during the Easter season, such as Token Books or Bread and Wine Books. Although in some parishes the different collections may have coincided, they were normally accounted for individually. Such collections were traditionally the responsibility of the churchwardens and did not normally involve either the priest or the rector. But again there was room for flexibility. See for instance, G. W. Hill and W. H. Frere (eds.), Memorials of Stepney Parish: Vestry Minutes 1569–1662 (1890–1), 5.

38 Where consecutive Easter Books can be examined it seems that the ordering of house holds was fairly consistent from one year to the next.

39 In 1583 43s. 4d. was gathered for this purpose in St Thomas's ‘from the Kinges hede at fisherton bridge vnto the blewe lyon’, whilst in St Edmund’s it was agreed in 1603 that ‘the bread and wine shalbe gathered in three severall circuits’. Swayne, , Accounts, 292, 194.Google Scholar

40 For details of Token Books see Boulton, J., ‘The social and economic structure of early seventeenth century Southwark’, (Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar. Dr Boulton points out that the communion services themselves were staggered and the Easter season could extend from late March to early June. His study also illustrates the increasing reluctance to accept or return tokens after 1640.

41 A comparison between the Salisbury Easter Books and some of the later Tudor lay subsidies makes it clear that the latter were dealt with on a household basis.

42 The vestry order cited earlier confirms that distinctions were made between the various categories of communicants. A similar distinction was made in St John's, Chester, although in this case and perhaps uniquely, nothing was expected for apprentices and children, whilst servants were definitely assessed with the householder at the rate of 2d. a head.

43 That this was equally true of collections undertaken by the incumbent is illustrated in the testimonies of two men from St Edmund's in Salisbury who claimed to have received communion at Easter ‘but paid [the] priest not for his dueties at the time thinking that he would as he was wont to due come home for the same’: SDR, Office Book, 9, f. 8v.

44 Beresford, op. cit., 171, 170.

45 In some years over a third of the householders in St John's had not paid by the time that the book was handed to the rector. The reluctance to take communion tokens in Southwark provides an interesting parallel. Supra, fn. 40.

46 GLRO, P92/Sav/794. I am grateful to Jeremy Boulton for supplying me with this reference.

47 An attempt to date the Salisbury Easter Books by referring to dates of marriages, burials and periods in office confirms that the collection period was fairly restricted.

48 Whilst discussing the applications of the source particular attention will be paid to the ledgers from Salisbury which were used in a wider study of urban society. (Wright, S. J., ‘Family life and society in sixteenth and early seventeenth century Salisbury’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Leicester, 1982).Google Scholar

49 The fact that the records were not compiled at a fixed date is one way in which they fail to meet the criteria for an ideal census: Laslett, op. cit., 160.

50 For a discussion of the possible multipliers which may be used see Arkell, T., ‘Multiplying factors for estimating totals from the Hearth tax’, Local Population Studies (1982), 51–7Google Scholar. A recent study of the demography of Chester demonstrates how a series of communicants lists can be used to chart changes in the size of the population over long periods. I am grateful to N. J. Alldridge for allowing me to see the results prior to publication.

51 In discussing the division of individual units we beg the question of what is actually meant by the term ‘household’, an issue raised in Laslett, P. and Wall, R. (eds.), Household and Family in Past Time (1972), 28, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Here the important point to note is that, in bracketing a group together the compilers of the lists obviously thought of that group as a distinct unit. Indeed, in St Mary's, Leicester, the clerks often noted that someone unrelated to the householder was ‘in house with him’. It is not always easy, however, to ascertain whether two couples of the same name actually shared a property or resided next door: Wright, op. cit., 222.

52 The number of households in the parish rose steadily from 401 in 1574 to 456 in 1585, then dropped to 422 by 1602, a decline which may relate to the period of dearth and higher mortality in the later 1590s: ibid., 61–2.

53 Slack, P., Poverty in Early Stuart Salisbury (Wiltshire Record Society, XXXI, 1975), 6.Google Scholar

54 SCA.S/161.

55 These estimates were obtained after a detailed examination of population movement in St Thomas's using the Easter lists. It was found that there was not only a significant influx of newcomers each year, but a large number of the immigrants only stayed in the parish for short periods. For instance, on average over half the new householders in any one year moved away again within the space of three years. There was, however, a solid core of stabler families for a fifth could be traced in the same property ten years after they were first noted, and just over a tenth as many as 20 years later: Wright, op. cit., 77–86.

56 Significantly nearly three-quarters of the householders on relief paid less than the standard groat in 1603.

57 CCRO, P68/8/l.

58 Freshfield, Edwin (ed.), The Vestry Book of the parish of St Margaret, Lothbury, 1571–1677 (1877).Google Scholar

59 Swayne, , Accounts, 177.Google Scholar

60 Of note here are the references to parishioners who had ‘not yet received’ in the Easter Books for St Margaret's, Leicester.

61 For a discussion of servant mobility, see Kussmaul, A. S., Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. IV.

62 This is borne out by evidence from the diocese of Worcester where lists of candidates presented at mass confirmation services in the early eighteenth century include children as young as seven and large numbers of mature persons. From the ages which are given, however, it does appear that the adoption of 16 as a mean is justifiable, WRO, BA 2504/741, 2055/741. I am indebted to Rupert Davis for supplying me with details of these lists.

63 Cardwell, op. cit., 1, 309.

64 Ibid., 394., Kennedy, W. P. M., Elizabethan Episcopal Administration (2 vols, 1923), II, 146, 70.Google Scholar

65 For estimates of the proportion of the population under 15 at various dates and a discussion of this issue see Wrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R. S., The Population History of England 1541–1871 (1981), 217, 528.Google Scholar

66 A brief guide to the literature on the household in the past is found in Anderson, M., Approaches to the History of the Western Family, 1500–1914 (1980), 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 Laslett and Wall, op. cit., 148. P., and Clark, J., ‘The social economy of the Canterbury suburbs. The evidence of the census of 1563’ in Detsicas, A. and Yates, N. (eds.), Studies in Kentish History (1983), 69–70.Google Scholar

68 The ‘average’ household contained 0.91 servants, 0.14 children, 0.05 kinsmen and 0.07 unidentified inhabitants. Most of the servant-keeping households maintained one only, although the average for this group was 2.20. For further details see Wright, op. cit., 167–71, 162–5, 198–200.

69 The mean number of communicants sharing with a married man, a widower and a widow was 2.22, 1.82 and 0.95 respectively: ibid., 267.

70 12.9 per cent of all households were headed by widows compared with 5.5 per cent by bachelors and widowers. Ibid., 263–68.

71 Ibid., 312–5. Life-cycle studies are discussed in Hareven, T. K., ‘The family as process: the historical study of the family cycle’, J. Social History, VII, (1974), 322–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 In Salisbury cross-checking revealed a number of servant and kinship links which might otherwise have remained obscure. Single lists of communicants can, nonetheless, be exploited very profitably as a recent study of Havering illustrates. McIntosh, M. K., ‘Servants and the household unit in an Elizabethan English community’, J. Family History, lx, 1 (Spring 1984), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 A recent study of Chester using a range of tax and parish lists demonstrates the potential of examining household structure in terms of occupations and the life-cycle. Alldridge, N. J., ‘House and household in Restoration Chester’, Urban History Yearbook (1983), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is unfortunate that the only lists discovered so far which provide occupations consistently are those for Ledbury and Oundle, and as they list households only, they cannot be used in studies of household structure.

74 The Coventry rate books also indicate if the householder owned tenements elsewhere and include incidental information about vacant housing and non-residential buildings which would be of value for a study of property ownership in the town.

75 Wright, op. cit., 302–5. Notwithstanding the reliance on kin in matters concerning credit and property, kinship networks in an urban parish may have been even more loosely structured than in a village: Wrightson, K. and Levene, D., Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling 1525–1700 (1979), 82–91.Google Scholar

76 Slack, P., ‘The local incidence of epidemic disease’ in The Plague Reconsidered: Local Population Studies Supplement (1977), 49–62.Google Scholar

77 Laslett, P., Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations, IX (1977), 32.Google Scholar

78 Ibid., 37–9, 89, and Laslett and Wall, op. cit, 5–7, 72.

79 CRO, Rates St Michael 9b, fos. 28, 2.