3. The Harrison
Peter Bamford
1. Introduction
While searching the catalogue of material held by Cheshire Archives and Local Studies for items relevant to Matthew Henry, I came across a Chester consistory court record from 1693 (EDC 5/1693/21) with a somewhat intriguing description:
Wm Harrison and Wm Ireland c[ontra] John Sutton concerning a book written by Alderman Wilcock in defence of the Church of England and one by Mr Henry of Chester stating that those who went to church were damned. Wilcock made a strong attack on presbyterians and dissenters – libel, responsions, depositions, sentence. (Unfit for issue.)1
What did all this mean? Surely Matthew Henry, generally considered to have been on good terms with the local Anglican clergy,2 had not written such a book? Examination of the case papers revealed that, no, he had not; something had been lost in translation during the listing process. That still left some questions, though: Who were the men named? And, if Matthew Henry (preaching at that time in a converted stable) was not personally involved, what was the case really about? In what follows, I will demonstrate that, although relations between local Anglican clergy and Matthew Henry were cordial, those between their respective adherents were not always so, thus providing further context to Henry’s dissenting ministry in Chester. In addition, the backgrounds of those involved in the case suggest that commercial and political interests may have played just as significant a role as denominational differences (perhaps even more so) in defining and characterizing those relationships between ‘the Church’ and ‘the Stable’.
2. The Chester Consistory Court
As is still the case today, every diocese of the Church of England had a consistory court.3 The court was usually presided over by the diocesan chancellor, who was either a barrister or sometimes a former judge, acting on behalf of the bishop who was entitled to sit alongside him. The jurisdiction of these courts has been severely reduced over the past two hundred years, but in the seventeenth century it overlapped to a degree with that of the secular courts. The consistory court at Chester Cathedral dates from 1636 and is one of the oldest surviving complete ecclesiastical courtrooms in the country (see figure 1.4).
Cases fell into two broad categories: ‘office’ cases, in which the Church pursued its legitimate claims in matters such as clergy discipline, non-payment of tithes or rents, and so on, and ‘instance’ cases, which were brought by one party against another. The bulk of instance cases involved some form of defamation of character. Sometimes it can be difficult to decide into which category the case falls, though this is not generally significant. The operation of the court, and the records it generated, seem to have varied to some extent from diocese to diocese, and the situation is further complicated by the records not always having survived to the present day.4
3. The Harrison/Ireland versus Sutton case
Consistory court papers of the date concerned often contain some common form in Latin. In this particular case, the ‘c’ after William Ireland’s name in the description (‘Wm Harrison and Wm Ireland c John Sutton’) is an abbreviation of contra (‘against’) and indicates that Harrison and Ireland were the plaintiffs and Sutton the defendant.5 As well as the items mentioned in the description (‘libel, responsions, depositions, sentence’), the papers in this case include a Liber Testium or ‘Book of Witnesses’. This lists no fewer than thirty-seven names, all men, and all of whom, on examination, prove to be members of the Shoemakers’ Company of Chester. The Liber Testium will be discussed in more detail later; the other documents (or extracts therefrom) are reproduced below.
A. The Charge (‘Libel’) against John Sutton
In consistory courts of the period, the term ‘libel’ was used rather than ‘charge’. What follows is an extract from the libel against John Sutton, dated 1 February 1693:6
That in the Months of September, October, November and January in the yeare of our Lord God 1692 last past, or in some or one of them and most especially upon the fifth day of November aforesaid or thereabouts within the Parish of St Oswald’s in the Citty of Chester or in the Neighbor Places thereto adjoining. You the said John Sutton in Contempt, derogation depravation and despite of the Church of England and her holy Orders and to the high dishonouring of God, And to the great & grievous Danger of your own Soule and Evill Example of others, before and in the presence of divers Credible Wittnesses, upon discourse had betweene you and the said Wittnesses, or some or one of them concerning a booke writt by Alderman Wilcock in the defence of the Church of England, against one said to bee writt by Mr Henry’s of this Towne, did sepius saltem semel utter and declare these words following – vizt. That all men that went to Church (meaning the Church of England) were damned, or you used words to that effect and soe were understoode, by those that were present.7
The Latin phrase sepius saltem semel means something like ‘repeatedly, not just once’. Why it appears in the document is unclear; perhaps the clerk simply liked the alliteration. The charge, then, is that Sutton uttered the words during a discussion about a book written by Alderman Wilcock in response to an earlier book by Matthew Henry. The work in question by Henry was in fact his first known publication, A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature of Schism (1690).8 This proved rather controversial, prompting among other things a response by one Thomas Wilcock (‘T.W.’) entitled The Arch-Rebel Found (1690).9 Both works are referred to in the libel against John Sutton.
B. John Sutton’s Statement (‘Responsion’)
Statements by the accused in consistory courts of the period were called ‘responsions’ or ‘responsa’. In the following extract from Sutton’s responsion (endorsed Harrison et Ireland contra Sutton, and dated 8 February 1693), he declares:
That about a year and a quarter ago, to the best of this Respondent’s remembrance for the time this Respondent was in company with Roger Madock, Hugh Roads and some others, at the House of John Nichols in the Shoemakers’ Row, within the parish of St Oswald in the City of Chester, and the said Madock and Roads began some discours [sic] about a Book formerly wrote by Alderman Wilcock, and did use very severe language against the Presbyterians and other Dissenters from the Church of England, and directed their discourse to this Respondent who did at that time frequent seperate [sic] Assemblies. And this Respondent being provoked by their ill language to him (which he doth not now very well remember) did say unto them that if they continued to be in that persecuteing [sic] spirit, let them pretend to be of the Church of England or what church they would – Heathens or pagans might be saved as soon as them or to that effect.10
C. Witness Statements (‘Depositions’)
Deposition of Roger Maddock of the city of Chester (‘shoomaker, aged 31’):
That upon the fifth day of November articulate This deponent being in company in the house of John Nichols (in the parish articulate)11 with severall of the company of Shoomakers and there hapning discourse of Religion betwixt the articulate Sutton and some others of the Company and particularly about Alderman Wilcocks book This deponent did hear the said Sutton in a very hott & peremptory manner say & declare That all men that went to the Church (meaning & mentioning the Church of England) were damned, severall of the said Company being present at the same time.12
Similarly, the deposition of Edmund Matthews of Chester (‘shoemaker, aged 24’):
That upon the fifth day of November articulate several persons or members of the Company of Shoemakers, having occasion to wait that day on the Mayor to the Church, were in the evening together at John Nichols his house in the parish articulate, drinking a glass of Ale together, when there happened some discourse about matters of Religion, betwixt the defendant and one Hugh Rhodes, and they grew warm upon it, so that they questioned each other whether they were for the Church or the Stable. And likewise the Book writt by Ald. Wilcock and a book said to be by Mr Henry the preacher at the Stable were mentioned by them in their discourse. And the defendant asking of the said Rhodes what Church he was of, the said Rhodes answered he was of the Church of England, to which the defendant Sutton replied That all who went to the Church (meaning, as this deponent believes, the Church of England) were damned, or to that purpose, several others of the Company being present at the same time. Upon which there was a motion and dissatisfaction in the Company present, but the displeasure felt & the provocation & difference which his words occasioned, was quickly appeased.13
The foot of the sheet bears the words:
Martii 27 1694
Repetitit corā me
Jo. Allen Surrogat.
D. The Sentence
So what happened to John Sutton? According to EDC 5/1694/28 (dated 5 February 1693) he was ordered to make a public denunciation in his parish church, to recant, and also to pay the costs of the case.14 These are itemized on a separate sheet, dated 22 March 1693/94, and total £3 19s. 1d.
Several conclusions can be drawn from these documents. First, that the Church was willing and able to take on Dissenters. After the passing of the Toleration Act of 1689, Dissenters might not be able to be brought before the courts simply for being Dissenters, but they could if they attacked Anglican adherents. In addition, the witness statements provide conclusive support for Matthew Henry’s assertion in his diary that his congregation was meeting at that time in a converted stable.
About two or three Lord’s Daies before I came [to Chester in 1687] the Congregation was remov’d from Mr. Henthorn’s Hall to a large stable of his adjoining, to which some addition was made, and at the expence of the Congregation it was fitted up and made tolerably decent and convenient for the purpose.15
Furthermore, even if relations between Matthew Henry and the local clergy of the Anglican Church are described as cordial in contemporary accounts,16 there was clearly some animosity between Anglicans and Dissenters at the level of their congregations. Finally, these documents reveal that there was a body of literate artisans in Chester (at least among the city’s shoemakers) who were not averse to a bit of theological controversy, both in terms of their reading matter and in terms of discussion among themselves.
4. Why was the Case Brought?
Here we move into the realm of speculation, but there may exist a subtext. It is noteworthy that the dispute occurred on 5 November, after the official marking of the deliverance of James I and Parliament from the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. Until 1859 the Book of Common Prayer included:
A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving. To be used yearly upon the Fifth Day of November For the happy Deliverance of King JAMES I, and the three Estates of England, from the most traiterous and bloody-intended Massacre by Gunpowder; and also for the happy Arrival of his Majesty King William on this Day, for the Deliverance of our Church and Nation.17
Presumably the part about William III was added in 1689 or later, and therefore was a recent introduction at the time of the case. The phrase ‘Deliverance of our Church’ may have impressed itself on some minds during the service. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the Sutton incident occurred only a month or so after an attempt to burn down Henry’s meeting-place.18
At least as significant may be the fact that, according to the witness Edmund Matthews, several members of the Shoemakers’ Company were ‘drinking a glass of Ale together’. This was in the evening; the time of the church service which they had attended is not stated, but it may well be that the shoemakers involved had partaken of more than one ‘glass of Ale’ in the time between its conclusion and the evening of that day. According to Edmund Matthews, ‘there was a motion and dissatisfaction in the Company present, but the displeasure felt & the provocation & difference which his words occasioned, was quickly appeased’.19 In other words, it seems to have been smoothed over fairly easily; how and by whom is not stated. That notwithstanding, two members of the Shoemakers’ Company saw fit to bring John Sutton before the consistory court.
The Liber Testium mentioned earlier lists no fewer than thirty-seven individuals whom the consistory court presumably thought might have had information to offer; possibly they were all identified as having been present during the dispute. The vast majority of them were either not questioned, or whatever they may have had to say was not considered worth recording (unless the records subsequently disappeared).
A look at what we know of those whose statements are recorded is quite revealing. All of them were members of the Shoemakers’ Company and freemen of the city of Chester. The usual ways of being admitted to the status of freeman were by birth (that is, by being the son of an existing freeman) or by having served an apprenticeship with an existing freeman. (A third possibility, being admitted by order of the city assembly, existed, but does not occur in this case.) A man had to be admitted freeman before he could be admitted to his company; the minimum apprenticeship was seven years.20 Admissions were recorded in the Chester Freemen Rolls.21 Unfortunately, sometimes only the year of admission is given, without any grounds being mentioned. The year was the mayoral year, which commenced on the Friday following the feast of St Denis (9 October).22
In the Liber Testium and the bill of costs, the first two names are those of the Shoemakers’ Company’s two aldermen, William Bennett (admitted freeman on 13 November 1663) and Bradford Thropp (admitted 12 May 1664).23 These two, however, were not the most senior members of the company named: those were Thomas Deane (1638/39) and Edward Croughton (9 January 1650).24 As noted above, the dispute seems to have been quickly smoothed over, and if any further action was necessary it could presumably have been taken informally within the company. If a court case had been considered necessary as a means of enforcing discipline or protecting the company’s reputation or interests, it might have been expected that the aldermen or senior members would have been the instigators. On the other hand, if it had arisen from a personal feeling of offence, one would have expected Hugh Rhodes, the man to whom Sutton’s remark was directed, to have been the one bringing it. Of the two actual plaintiffs, William Ireland was the senior, admitted on 13 February 1664.25 William Harrison was admitted on 6 November 1677.26 The defendant, John Sutton, was between them in terms of seniority, having been admitted in 1674/75.27
Looking at the grounds for admission of those three, a picture of contrasts emerges. No details of right of admission are given for John Sutton. William Ireland, however, is listed in the Freemen Rolls at his admission as ‘son of John Ireland of Chester, shoemaker’.28 William’s brother John, also a shoemaker, was admitted on 10 September of the same year, while William’s sons, William and Francis, cordwainers (i.e., shoemakers), were admitted in 1697/98.29 In the case of the Irelands, this looks like a three-generation family business; at the time of the consistory court case, the younger William and Francis would have been serving their apprenticeships. William Harrison, on the other hand, was admitted as ‘apprentice of Richard Dobbs, shoemaker’.30 Clearly he too was a working shoemaker. John Sutton, likewise, was working as a shoemaker, because details of an apprentice of his, John Meacock, survive from 1695.31
What reason did Ireland and Harrison have for bringing their case against Sutton? Were they genuinely incensed or scandalized by his statement? Or could we have here two senior shoemakers – one who had served his time as an apprentice and the other who was the son of an established shoemaker and who (although this is not specified in the Freemen Rolls) had presumably served his apprenticeship either with his father or with another master shoemaker – seeing Sutton’s remarks as an opportunity to embarrass (at the very least) another working member of the Shoemakers’ Company who had been free to trade for a similar length of time to themselves, but whose right to his freedom they did not consider to be as legitimate as their own?
When we look at the other characters in the case from the same standpoint, we find not so much contrasts as similarities. John Nichols (in whose house the incident took place) and Hugh Rhodes (the recipient of the defendant’s alleged remarks) were both fairly junior members of the company, Nichols having been admitted sometime in 1684/85 and Rhodes on 25 September 1686 (no details of grounds for admission are provided for either).32 The two witnesses, Roger Maddock and Edmund Matthews, were even more recent freemen. In fact, on 5 November 1692 they were among the Shoemakers’ Company’s most junior members, both having been admitted in 1689, on 10 January and 21 February respectively and both by right of birth.33 (Indeed, only three of the men named in the Liber Testium were junior to them, having all been admitted in 1690.)34 Whether or not any of these four were actual working shoemakers is not clear. Pure conjecture on my part, I freely admit, but I cannot help wondering whether the ‘religious’ issue brought before the consistory court was, in part at least, a pretext for an attempt at economic domination within the local shoemaking industry, orchestrated by two of its long-standing members at the expense of a third.
That is one possible explanation; there is another. The first name in the list in the Liber Testium is that of William Bennett, one of Chester’s aldermen. William was admitted freeman on 13 November 1663, along with his brother, Randle Bennett the younger. Their father, Randle Bennett the elder, was an alderman at the time of their admission.35 He had been constituted an alderman on 26 August 1662, along with eight other men whose number included one Thomas Wilcock, later author of The Arch-Rebel Found (1690), the aforementioned rejoinder to Matthew Henry’s Brief Enquiry into the True Nature of Schism (1690).36
Wilcock was a mercer by trade, admitted freeman in 1654/55.37 As an alderman, he would have carried out his civic role alongside William Bennett and Bradford Thropp of the Shoemakers’ Company. Beyond that, he had a (more tenuous) connection with the operation of the Chester consistory court. As we have noted, such courts were presided over by the diocesan chancellor. At different times and in different dioceses, the chancellor would delegate his work to a deputy, but in Chester in the 1690s this was not so.38 The diocesan registrar was usually also the registrar of the consistory court, and in Chester at this date he did delegate his work to a deputy. The chancellor was Thomas Wainwright, and he enjoyed the close cooperation of the deputy registrar, Henry Prescott.39 The index to Prescott’s published diary contains many entries for Thomas Wainwright, either by name or as ‘Mr. Chancellor’.40 Here is one for 4 June 1693:
I compose the humble petition to the Queen. In the evening at Mr Chancellor’s, after dined at the palace.41
Presumably the palace was the bishop’s. On 5 June 1693:
The county-court judges are here, men of this time are flocking in. I drag out the afternoon at Mr. Wilcock’s with fellow-citizens of more honourable note.42
Whatever Prescott meant by ‘drag[ging] out the afternoon’ and ‘more honourable note’, his diary reveals that he spent quite an amount of time in Wilcock’s company.
If Prescott’s relations with Thomas Wainwright were on a professional basis, those with Thomas Wilcock were definitely of a social nature (at least as far as his diary reveals). The diary’s earliest reference to Alderman Wilcock notes that on 29 January 1683, ‘The “shott” is held at the home of Alderman Wilcock’, and on 31 January, ‘I settled accounts with the Chancellor’.43 Addy explains that:
A ‘shott’ was a drinking ceremony held on a regular or occasional basis. In Chester since Tudor times it had been the custom every Sunday morning for the Mayor and Assembly to attend a shott (usually at the Pentice which served as Mayor’s parlour) before processing to Church in full ceremonial dress … In 1682 (old style) 29 January was a Sunday.44
Other entries (in chronological order) include:
23 May 1693:
45
1 June 1693:
46
12 October 1693:
47
14 October 1693:
48
17 October 1693:
49
21 October 1693:
50
15 April 1694:
51
52
20 July 1694:
53
11 January 1695:
54
The latter suggests that Prescott was carrying out work on behalf of the Assembly, or certain of its members, in addition to his registrar’s duties. Finally:
23 May 1696:
55
5. Conclusion
Wilcock, then, had connections both within the Shoemakers’ Company and the Chester consistory court, as well as more generally within the city as a result of his political career.56 It begins to look as though there may have been more to this consistory court case than appears on the surface. If the plaintiffs, Harrison and Ireland, genuinely felt that their religious sensibilities had been outraged, it was a fortunate coincidence that a stiff fine and public humiliation were handed out to a possible trading competitor. More work is needed, however, to determine whether or not it is possible to discern the hand of Alderman Thomas Wilcock, who clearly had no time for Dissenters, in the bringing and handling of this particular case.
Whilst Matthew Henry turns out not to have been personally involved in the case, he can hardly have been unaware of it. It was of a piece with the attempt in October 1692 to burn down his meeting-house. Moreover, as hinted at in John Sutton’s testimony that he did ‘at that time frequent seperate Assemblies’,57 incidents like these may have had the effect of scaring off some of his congregation. The case has its roots in the controversy surrounding Henry’s publication of A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature of Schism (1690) and the dichotomy between the positions of Henry and Wilcock,58 a context which in spilling over into civic disputes such as this sheds further light on the relationship and tension in this period between ‘the Church’ and ‘the Stable’.
1. ‘Wm Harrison and Wm Ireland c John Sutton’ (Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, EDC 5/1693/21). The ‘unfit for issue’ note indicates that, at the time the list was made, the documents were in need of conservation. By the time I came to view them the work had been carried out, though some sections were missing and others illegible as a result of wear and tear.
2. William Tong, An Account of the Life and Death of Mr. Matthew Henry, Minister of the Gospel at Hackney (London: E. Matthews, M. Lawrence, and S. Cliff, 1716), 242–46 (and passim).
3. John Addy, Sin and Society in the Seventeenth Century (London: Routledge, 1989), 9–11. Addy’s work draws heavily on Chester consistory court records.
4. See further, Addy, Sin and Society.
5. Such common form is generally omitted in what follows, but actual charges, testimony, and so on were recorded verbatim in English and have been reproduced as such here (though punctuation has sometimes been modernized in order to make the sense clearer).
6. Both here and in the following reproduced documents from the court record, abbreviations have been expanded but original spelling (though not necessarily punctuation) has been retained.
7. Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, EDC 5/1693/21.
8. Matthew Henry, A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature of Schism; or A Persuasive to Christian Love and Charity (London: n.p., 1690).
9. T[homas] W[ilcock], The Arch-Rebel Found; or An Answer to Mr. M[atthew] H[enry]’s Brief Enquiry into the True Nature of Schism; by T.W. Citizen of Chester, and a Sincere lover of Truth (n.p.: n.p., 1690). For an account of the controversy surrounding Henry’s Nature of Schism (including engagement with and responses to Wilcock), see J.B. Williams, Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings of the Rev. Matthew Henry (London: B.J. Holdsworth, 1828), 222–24. See further, Philip Alexander’s contribution to the present volume.
10. Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, EDC 5/1693/21. Sutton signed his name at the bottom.
11. The word ‘articulate’ in this context means ‘specified’.
12. Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, EDC 5/1693/21. Signed by Maddock.
13. Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, EDC 5/1693/21. Signed by Matthews.
14. Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, EDC 5/1694/28.
15. Matthew Henry, ‘A Short Account of the Beginning and Progress of Our Congregation’ (1710/12), transcribed in H.D. Roberts, Matthew Henry and his Chapel: 1662–1900 (Liverpool: The Liverpool Booksellers’ Company, 1901), 72–101 (79). In 1700, Henry’s congregation moved to a new purpose-built chapel (see figure 1.3); Roberts, Matthew Henry, 91.
16. Tong, An Account, 242–46 (and passim).
17. See F.E. Warren, ed., Prayer-Book Commentary for Teachers and Students, rev. ed. (London: SPCK, 1933), 138.
18. David L. Wykes, ‘Henry, Matthew (1662–1714)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. David Cannadine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12975.
19. Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, EDC 5/1693/21.
20. Margaret J. Groombridge, ‘The City Gilds of Chester’, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 39 (1952): 93–108 (97).
21. J.H.E. Bennett (ed.), The Rolls of the Freemen of the City of Chester: Part I, 1392–1700, The Record Society for the Publication of Original Documents Relating to Lancashire and Cheshire 51 (n.p.: The Record Society, 1906).
22. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, vi.
23. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 148–49.
24. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 121, 131.
25. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 149.
26. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 167.
27. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 165.
28. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 149.
29. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 150, 202.
30. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 167.
31. ‘Chester Apprenticeship Registers 1690–1794’ (Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, ZM/AB/2), fol. 8.
32. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 176, 178.
33. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 181–82.
34. Namely, Thomas Throppe (22 February 1690), George Tonna[h] (8 March 1690), and Richard Shaw (22 November 1690); Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 183, 186.
35. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 148.
36. ‘Chester Assembly Book 2 (1624–1684)’ (Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, ZA/B/2), 135v. See further, nn. 8 and 9 above.
37. Bennett, Rolls of the Freemen, 138.
38. John Addy, ed., The Diary of Henry Prescott, LL.B., Deputy Registrar of Chester Diocese: Volume 1, The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 127 (n.p.: The Record Society, 1987), xiv.
39. Addy, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 1), xiv. Note that Addy here incorrectly lists Wainwright’s first name as John.
40. John Addy, John Harrop, and Peter McNiven, eds., The Diary of Henry Prescott, LL.B., Deputy Registrar of Chester Diocese: Volume 3, The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 133 (n.p.: The Record Society, 1997), 1009.
41. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 863.
42. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 863.
43. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 703.
44. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 703 n. 3.
45. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 861.
46. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 861.
47. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 877.
48. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 877.
49. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 877.
50. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 877.
51. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 886.
52. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 888.
53. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 890.
54. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 910.
55. Addy, Harrop, and McNiven, The Diary of Henry Prescott (Vol. 3), 917.
56. An outline of Wilcock’s civic activity (which reached its climax around the time of this case) can be drawn from the printed calendars of the Chester Assembly Books and the card index to surnames in the Chester city records, both held at Cheshire Archives and Local Studies. As well as the economic background, the case also needs to be viewed against the political struggles within Chester in the years following the Restoration and the arrival of William III, in which Wilcock was substantially involved. See C.P. Lewis and A.T. Thacker, eds., A History of the County of Chester: Volume 5, Part 1 – The City of Chester: General History and Topography (London: Boydell & Brewer, 2003), 132–33. Also, ‘Chester Assembly Book 2 (1624–1684)’ and ‘Chester Assembly Book 3 (1684–1715)’ (Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, ZA/B/2 and ZA/B/3), passim.
57. Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, EDC 5/1693/21 (my italics).
58. See further, nn. 8 and 9 above, and especially Williams, Memoirs, 222–24.