January/February 2026
I get asked a number of questions on a regular basis when I am down at the church, the most F.A.Q. concerns the age of the church to which there is a short answer or one that is a little more detailed, so I always need to guage my response to the occasion! Another is one where I am asked for population size of the village as an illustration of the context of the ancestor about whom enquiries are being made. If the required dates are within the compass of the Census returns since 1841 that is a relatively simple one with which to deal. It is very much harder to answer the question prior to those dates.
Many of you reading this column will be well aware of the effects of changing monarchs on the organisation of the English church in the 16th Century. Apart from the fact that we got the King James Bible, I was rather less aware of the situation upon the death of Elizabeth 1st. and the accession of James 1st.In 1603. James, a Scot, it would seem knew little about the Church in England and required of his Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, to ascertain certain things about his new responsibilities nationwide. His chief concerns were about the amount of dissent from recusants who still held loyalties to the Roman Church, how educated the clergy were, if they had responsibility for more than one parish, who had patronage of the livings and how much those livings were worth.This information was gathered, in the case of the Norwich diocese, from the various deaneries that made up what were then the four Archdeaconries of the Diocese i.e. Norwich, Norfolk, Sudbury and Suffolk.
Dr Augustus Jessopp
The Rev. Augustus Jessopp who “communicated” the information to Volume X of the journal Norfolk Archaeology in 1888 (as well as to me from that journal) writes that it constituted:
“a complete report upon the condition of the Church of England at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and would contain information concerning the religious condition of the people, at least in externals, that could be looked for in no other source. It would be more than this - it would give as near an approximation to a census of the population as in those days had ever been aimed at. For in every parish the communicants comprised the whole body of the adult inhabitants-who were all bound to receive the Sacrament on certain occasions under heavy penalties-and who, it they did not receive it, were classed under the head of Recusants, and stigmatized accordingly".
Upon reading this I consulted the table of results drawn from the questionnaires that were, in most cases, returned to the then Bishop of Norwich, John Jecon. My first port of call was Riborowe Magna which provides the following information, given minimally by Thomas Waterman, Rector: He had 120 communicants, no recusants and no persons who did not receive [communion] The valuation of the living was given as £14.16s. 8d. with Sir Nicholas Bacon as Patron. With that valuation it was then the most valuable of those churches that are now within our Benefice. It was however only in joint second place with Brisley in regard to the number of communicants as Whissonsett had the greater number with 180 persons.Gately and Colkirk were both pluralist livings as was Pudding Norton (with Wells). I could find neither Dunton or Little Ryburgh in the returns, and assumed that they were part of the Norfolk Archdeaconry that was not part of Jessopp’s paper:
Extracts from the tables in Norfolk Archaeology Volume 10
Further investigation turned up a weighty tome entitled “The Diocesan Population Returns for 1563 and 1603” edited by Alan Dyer and D.M. Palliser published in 2005. In this they cite the good Dr Jessopp in his 1888 paper as “the first scholar to realise the significance of the returns from the point of view of the demographer." They continue “It was not until the 1950’s and 1960’s that historians began to make serious use of the returns for demographic purposes” There are no returns from the Norwich Diocese of the 1563 survey known to have survived. It is from this book that I can now add the figures for Dunton and Little Ryburgh which were part of the Burnham Deanery within the Archdeaconry of Norfolk. Being a work primarily for statistician the editors have not included the names of the incumbents and Patrons where supplied and in the case of the Norfolk Archdeaconry, the figures come from other sources, primarily from Francis Blomefield’s Norfolk volumes and the Frere manuscripts held in the Norfolk Record Office. They just provide the basic number of communicants for each parish: Dunton cum Doughton recording 70 persons and Little Ryburgh, 54. Taking a few minutes to look through the church registers for names to be found in Great Ryburgh around the date of this “census”, I was able to easily find 67 different surnames. I think that 120 communicants seems a very plausible figure, given the inevitable existence of more than one adult bearing the same surname. For the sake of a further few minutes I add here a list of those names so perhaps you might be able to trace your roots back to Ryburgh in the early 17th Century
ANDREWES, ATKYNS,
BACON, BAKER, BARNEY, BEAVICE, BENSON, BOOLE, BROWNE, BULLER,
CASE, CLERKE, CLYSTON, CORBETT, COTES,
DAVY,
FEERE, FERMOR, FOOKES, FROST
GARDINER, GODDARD, GOTTES, GRAYE, GREENE,
HADFEELD, HARVEY, HILL, HOMES
JOKELL,
LAMKYN, LEDGE, LOKES, LYNG, LYNSEY
MAN, MORELL, MUSSET
NEWES, NEWTON
OCHELL, OLLEY, OSBURNE, OWTYD,
PARKYN, PARSON, PATRICKE, PEELE, PEERS, PENINGTON, PEPPER, PLESAUNCE, POMFRET, PULHAM,
REEVE, REPINGALL, ROFFWADE, RUST,
SEELE, SOND
TYNKLER
WANTLAND, WATERMAN, WENLOCKE, WHITE, WICKHAM, WRATH,
As for the good Doctor Jessopp, I first encountered him as being the headmaster of Norwich School when reserching Percy Everitt and for which he is well known as the man who established the reputation of that institution that continues today. The following comes from a publication entitled Norfolk Leaders, a privately printed book for private circulation only at a cost of 3 Guineas:
********
March 2026
I recently came across a letter on Ebay written in Ryburgh in 1833 from a mother, Frances Woods, attempting to get financial advice from a Norwich attorney on behalf of her younger son from her first marriage. She had been widowed twice by the time of the writing of the letter and quite possibly even for a third time. There is no trace to be found of the William Woods whom she married at Cawston in 1828, after the Ryburgh baptism register entry for their elder son Walter on October 19th 1829. There is also no baptismal record in Ryburgh for a second son Robert Walter Woods born in Ryburgh circa 1832 if the Census record for 1851 is to be trusted. Anyway I digress, slightly, because the aim of this column was to link last month’s investigation of unofficial census figures to the year 1851 when there was a nationwide Census taken of Places of Religious Worship. It included the Established Church and dissenting Congregations. Amongst other details, the "Officiating Minister, Church-Warden,Chapel-Warden or other Person with whom this Schedule is left" were required to record the attendance at am. pm. and evening services specifically on Sunday 30th May 1851 and as an average figure for the preceding 12 months.
As part of my research into the Woods letter, I came across this newspaper clipping (I of 3 separate reports) that concerned the above mentioned Walter Woods
Norfolk Chronicle - Saturday 08 February 1851
Wesleyan Dissensions.
The dissensions in the Wesleyan Methodist body continue to cause great excitement in Cawston and its neighbourbood, where the "reformers" appear determined to annoy the regularly authorised preachers in every way in their power, by inciting parties to disturb the congregation on Sundays. The superintendent of the district has, in consequence, been obliged to proceed against those parties,
On Tuesday, at Aylsham Petty Sessions, a lengthened investigation took place, relative to a disturbance at Cawston chapel, on Jan. 19th. The Magistrates present were W. E. L. Bulwer, Esg.. J. H. Holley, Esq., the Rev. S. Pitman, and the Rev. E. T. Yates.
Four persons, named Elizabeth Southgate, John Smithson, Walter Woods, and Thomas Chapman, all of Cawston, appeared to answer an information under the 52 Geo. 3, s. I2, charging them with having, in that parish, on Jan. 19th, wilfully, maliciously, and contemptuously, disturbed a congregation of protestants assembled for public worship. -
This in turn led me to look into the Sunday census returns for Cawston where we read the following:
At the "Primitive Methodist Chappel" dating form 1832, Barnard Page the Chappel Steward recorded, out of a possible 110 sittings, 80 in the afternoon and 60 in the evening.
At the “Wesleyan Methodist Chapel” dating from 1816, Minister George Smith recorded a congregation of just 4 persons on Sunday 30th. He put the average figures as A.M. 50 scholars P.M. 50 scholars and 120 General Congregation and Evening 100 General Congregation. He penned the following in the “Remarks” section by way of explanation for the returned figures:
“The average numbers represent the Congregation until within the last few months. Very violent and disgraceful proceedings destroyed the congregation. Legal redress has recently been obtained and it is hoped that many will return to the Chapel”
In stark contrast, at the “Wesleyan Methodist Reform Room used as a Chapple” occupied from December 1850, Steward, John Dennis recorded 100 congregation plus 39 scholars in the afternoon and 125 in the evening. His average figures for the short period of their occupancy were very similar. In his comment in the “Remarks” column he writes:
“The caus of our Congregation being so small is our banishment from the old Wesleyan Chapple erected about 1816 The Congregation in this Chapple was nearly double wich have all left except from 4 to 6 and the Room we now occupy is quite filled.”
The “legal redress” cited above is described in the press coverage at some length but at the conclusion one was discharged through insufficient evidence in the case of Mr Chapman. The remaining three were sent for trial at the Sessions in March, where
“the jury returned a verdict of "guilty" with a recommendation to mercy.-The CHAIRMAN said he had no discretion, as the act of parliament, in case of conviction inflicted a penalty of £40; and he passed sentence accordingly. The prisoner Woods (here identified by the press as Robert Walker Woods) not being able to pay the fine will have to remain a prisoner during her Majesty's pleasure. Judgment was deferred in respect of Smithson and Southgate, who were bound over in their own recognizances to appear if called up at the next Quarter Sessions.”
When he is entered into the Criminal Register on July 12th in gaol in Norwich Castle he has become Robert Walter Woods and he remained there until July 29th when he was released on the recommendation of the Home Secretary, Sir George Grey.
The record of any birth of a Robert Walter Woods or of many variants fails to show up in a 5 year period either side of the estimated date of 1833. Over consecutive census and marriage dates where his age is given, we have birth dates ranging from 1832-1835. In 1881 he identifies as just Walter Woods and dies age 51 in 1885. It seems entirely plausible that Walter Woods, baptised 19th October 1829 and Robert Walter Woods with no recorded birth date are one and the same person and for some reason his age was reduced, possibly deliberately, by 5 years between 1841 when he is 14 and 1851 when he is 19.
You can read the full court reports of the trial on the Village History pages of the St Andrew’s website along with the remaining family history.
********
April 2026