7 
 
 PRESERVATION OF PAROCHIAL REGISTERS AND 
 ECCLESIASTICAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 A PAMPHLET 
 
 SHEWING THE NECESSITY FOR SOME LEGISLA.TIVE PROVISION 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 BETTER CUSTODY AND PRESEEVATION 
 
 OF 
 
 OLD PARISH REGISTERS 
 
 AND 
 
 DOCUMENTS CONNECTED THEREWITH, 
 
 And for affording adequate facilities for ascertaining the genuineness or spuriousness 
 of such Entries and Documents by Microscopic, Chemical, or other Tests. 
 
 KENDAL : 
 
 PRINTED BV ATKINSON AND POLLITT, 
 
 1878.
 
 written subsequently to the entry on the page on which the substituted 
 entry was made. That in one case a series of entries were scratched 
 or erased out of the register book, and four leaves cut out of such book 
 under circumstances showing that such cutting out must have been 
 recent. That certain marriage bonds, deposited in the registry of the 
 Archdeacon of Richmond and the Bishop's registry at Chester, were 
 pronounced by two independent gentlemen of great experience in 
 deciphering old MSS. to be forgeries, and were professed to be entered 
 into by parties who were conclusively proved to have been dead when 
 the bonds were given. 
 
 It is impossible, however, to form an adequate notion of the said 
 alleged tamperings and forgeries, or of the importance they may have 
 in frustrating or impeding the course of justice, \nthout a full detail of 
 the facts connected with the said cases, which are as follows : — 
 
 On the 13th day of December, 1863, Richard Harrison, late of 
 Warrington, gentleman, died intestate, possessed of considerable real 
 estates in Lancaster and Chester, and having no near relation. 
 
 Amongst the papers of the deceased was found what purported to be 
 a copy of the will of John Harrison, of Lea, in the parish of Preston, 
 who died in 1669, and as part of the property in the possession of 
 the intestate at his death was identified by name as a portion of that 
 comprised in the will of the same John Harrison, it was a fair inference 
 that John Harrison, of Lea, was the common ancestor from whom 
 the descent had to be traced. 
 
 As the name of " Harrison " was a very common one in the parish 
 of Preston and the adjoining parishes, there were many persons who 
 prosecuted searches with a view to establishing their titles as heir. 
 Amongst these was one Richard Harrison, of Preston. He at first 
 considered that he might possibly be entitled, but further enquiries 
 and searches led him to believe that the descent was to be traced 
 through a less remote ancestor, and he accordingly entered into an 
 arrangement with Ann Mayor, Ellen Porter, and Nicholas Nickson, 
 for transferring to them the information he had obtained by his searches 
 and to continue his searches on their behalf. 
 
 In the year 1866 commissioners of escheat, under the seal of the 
 Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster, were appointed, and by an 
 inquisition taken on the 3rd of December it was found by the jury 
 that the said Richard Harrison died on the 13th of December, 1863, 
 intestate, without known heirs, and that his lands and heraditaments 
 in Lancashire had escheated to Her Majesty in right of the said Duchy. 
 
 L!R!C ^
 
 Several claimants to the heirship appeared before the commissioners, 
 but no evidence was given by such persons on the suggestion of the 
 commissioners, that by submitting to a verdict in favour of the Duchy, 
 the claims of the parties could be investigated at less trouble and 
 expense than would attend hostile proceedings in ejectment against 
 the tenants. 
 
 Some two or three years after the taking of the inquisition the 
 plaintiffs received information from the Duchy that their claim had 
 not been established, but could obtain no information as to the grounds 
 of objection to such claim, and they accordingly were under the 
 necessity of traversing the inquisition, the trial of which traverse came 
 before Mr. Justice Denman and a jury on the 24th of June, 1873. 
 
 The plaintiff's title was derived through Ellen and Margery, the 
 daughters of Lawrence Harrison (who was the fifth son of the above 
 mentioned John Harrison, of Lea), by Frances his wife, formerly 
 Frances Maudsley. 
 
 In the course of the trial, and after the evidence of the plaintiffs 
 had been nearly wholly completed, the Attorney-General for the Duchy 
 produced a certificate, dated in 1866, under the hand of the Vicar of 
 Kirkham, of an entry in the register of the 21st of March, 1685, 
 of the baptisms of " Ellen and Margery, the daughters of Frances 
 Maudesley, of Ingol, spinster," which entry, if valid, would necessarily 
 have defeated the plaintiffs' claim. 
 
 The plaintiffs were taken by surprise at the production of this 
 certificate, as the register had been most carefully searched, and the 
 Attorney-General of the Duchy admitted that he had never before 
 heard of such an entry. The certificate was in fact produced by 
 an adverse claimant, who had withheld all knowledge of it from the 
 Duchy, and the plaintiffs were in consequence driven to withdraw the 
 case from the jury and to submit to the decision of an arbitrator. 
 
 Upon a careful examination of the register at Kirkham it was found, 
 and adduced in evidence before the arbitrator, that the entry in 
 question was written, or nearly so, upon an erasure, that the entry was 
 smeared with grease both on the front and back, and that the entries 
 for several lines above and below were touched up with a different 
 coloured ink from that of the other entries in the book. On an 
 examination of the transcript of the parish register deposited at 
 Lancaster the whole, or by far the greater portion, of the entry was 
 found to be written on an erasure, and the entries above and below 
 were touched up with a different coloured ink from the other entries in
 
 6 
 
 the transcript, in a siniilar manner to the parish register, and that the 
 back of the parchment was scraped, both above and below the entry, 
 so as by reducing that portion of the page to an uniform thickness, to 
 render it difficult for any one looking at the front of the skin readily to 
 detect the line of erasure, and the remains of old writing could be seen 
 in juxta position with the erasure, which appeared to have formed part 
 of a previous obliterated entry. 
 
 On the hearing before the arbitrator, the evidence of Edward 
 Peacock, Esquire, of Bottesford Manor, Brigg, Lincolnshire, a gentle- 
 man of great experience as an antiquarian, and a justice of the peace 
 for the county of Lincoln, and Mr. W. E. Turner, of the MSS. 
 department of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, was that, in their opinion, 
 the handwriting of the entry in the original register and transcript was 
 not the same as that of the preceding entries, and both these gentlemen 
 expressed a confident opinion that the handwriting is modern and not 
 in the style or character of the period, though intended as an imitation. 
 It is also remarkable that the word '* spinster " cannot be found in 
 any entry throughout any of the registers, but illegitimacy was invari- 
 ably denoted by the letter B. prefixed to the entry. In this case 
 the letter B. was prefixed to the entry in question, but was different 
 in formation from the other B.'s in the book. 
 
 Although previously to the trial careful search had been made for 
 entries of the marriage of Lawrence Harrison with Frances, his wife, 
 and of the baptisms of their two daughters, and a reward offered for 
 infomiation as to such entries, no trace of them could be found, and 
 the plaintiffs' proof of the marriage and legitimacy of the children 
 consisted of the production of the wills of Lawrence Harrison and 
 Frances, his wife. In the former of which Lawrence gave one-third of 
 his property to " his loving wife Frances," and the remaining two-thirds 
 to his daughters Ellen and Margery ; and Frances, who describes 
 herself as a widow, bequeaths her property to her two daughters Ellen 
 Harrison and Margery Harrison, and appoints her brother Robert 
 Mawdesley and John Harrison, of Lea, executors of her will. 
 
 On a careful examination of the registers of the parish of Preston, it 
 was found that the entries for nearly two years, extending from 
 December, 1687, to September, 1689, had been cut out, aud from the 
 clean appearance of the cut, which was so deep as to pierce the 
 adjoining page, as well as from the whiteness of the string which kept 
 together the pages at the point where the skin was removed, the 
 cutting must have been recent. It was also discovered that after the
 
 heading in February, 1681, two or three lines of the register had been 
 erased by rubbing or scraping, and that marks of portions of previous 
 entries remained visible on the erased portions. 
 
 Subsequently to the trial, and pending the enquiry before the 
 arbitrator, several more extraordinary instances of gross tampering with 
 parish registers were discovered, in order to explain which it becomes 
 needful to refer to a portion of the plaintiffs' pedigree. 
 
 The descent was originally traced from the above-mentioned John 
 Harrison, of Lea, who married Margery Brown, on the 27th February, 
 1635, and was buried at Preston on the 4th of April, 1669. He left 
 five sons (namely) John, Richard, William, James, and Lawrence, and 
 two daughters, Ellen and Isabel, all of whom are mentioned in his will. 
 
 It was necessary, in order to establish a title through Lawrence, to 
 prove the failure of issue of John, Richard, William, and James. The 
 failure of issue of John was admitted or sufficiently proved by docu- 
 mentary evidence, and that of William and James proved by their wills, 
 by which their properties were given to collaterals. 
 
 The difficulty remained with regard to Richard. The only evidence 
 the plaintiffs could originally obtain was an entry in the register of 
 burials for the parish of Preston, of the 27th of January, 1670, of 
 '' Richard, son of Widder Harrison, of Lea," coupled ^yith the fact of 
 the name of Richard being mentioned in the will of his father, who 
 died in 1669, and unnoticed in that of his mother, which was dated the 
 23rd of May, 1672. 
 
 The person who searched on behalf of the plaintiffs treated the 
 word " widder" as meaning widow, as no entry in any of the registers of 
 the death of the child of a widower had been discovered nor heard of. 
 On the hearing before the arbitrator, however, it was contended that 
 the word meant widower, and, to give colour to such contention, an 
 entry was referred to in the parish register of Poulton of the baptism, 
 on the loth of November, 1668, of Richard, son of John Harrison, of 
 Lea, whose mother was three days afterwards buried at Preston, and 
 the entry of Richard, son of Widder Harrison, of Lea, was sought 
 to be referred to the death of this child. LTpon a reference, however, 
 to the parish register of Poulton it was found that the entry in question 
 was a manifest forgery, having been written with a pigment of a 
 different colour from the other entries. The entry was on the left-hand 
 side of the page, and a portion of the pigment overlaid the entries on 
 the right-hand side of the page which had been written subsequently to 
 those on the left-hand side of the page. The plaintiffs then procured
 
 8 
 
 Professor Attfield, of the Pharmaceutical Society of London, and Mr. 
 Coppock, of the firm of Messrs. Smith, Beck, and Co., opticians, of 
 Cornhill, carefully to examine the entry of the death of " Richard, 
 son of Widder Harrison, of Lea," the former of whom reported that the 
 word "Widdef " and the following letter "H" were written with a fluid 
 the pigment of which was reddish brown and different in .shade from 
 the brown colour of the other entries, whilst Mr. Coppock was enabled 
 to report positively that the surface of the parchment on which the 
 above word and letter were written had been previously removed. 
 
 Mr. Peacock and Mr. Turner also deposed that, in their opinion, the 
 letters " er " at the end of " Widder " were a spurious addition to the 
 entry, and that the mode of interpolation by double dots was unknown 
 in ancient documents, and indicated modern tampering with the entry. 
 
 Previously to the trial letters of administration to the effects of 
 Richard, the son of Widow Harrison, of Lea, were found to have been 
 granted on the 21st of March, 1670, to his brother John Harrison, and 
 from the inventory which accompanied the grant of administration it 
 appeared that the deceased was an adult, and must have died a 
 bachelor. This in itself was strong proof of the falsification of the 
 entry, but the proof was rendered conclusive by a reference to the 
 court rolls of the manor of Lea, hereinafter mentioned. 
 
 The apparent object of the above falsification of the register, so far 
 as relates to the death of Richard Harrison appears to have been to 
 show that he did not die in 1670, but survived that period, and after- 
 wards intermarried with one Ellen Fletcher, at Kirkham, in 167 1, 
 through whose family one of the claimants sought to establish a title to 
 the escheated property. 
 
 To give currency to such conclusion, evidence of the most startling 
 character was imported into the case. 
 
 The plaintiffs in the course of their searches were unable to find any 
 entry of the marriage of William, the third son of John and Margery 
 Harrison, but as the will of William shewed that he died without issue 
 the proof of marriage became immaterial. Previously to the trial, 
 however, the plaintiffs were informed that an entry of such marriage 
 would be found in the transcript of the parish registry of Penwortham, 
 in the diocese of Chester, then deposited in the Bishop's Registry at 
 Chester, the parish registry having been destroyed by fire, and applied 
 to the registrar for a certificate of the marriage. This the registrar in 
 the first instance refused to give, on the ground that the validity of the 
 entry was open to question, but aftenvards gave a special certificate
 
 setting forth the particulars of the entry. At the same time a copy of 
 the bond required by the canons to be entered into on every marriage 
 by Hcense was furnished to the plaintiffs, and purported to be entered 
 into by William Harrison, of Lea, in the parish of Preston, husbandman, 
 and Richard Harrison, his brother (ejus frater), of Westby, in that 
 parish, as his surety, in the penalty of ;£"ioo, and was witnessed by 
 Richd. Clegge, vicar of Kirkham. It followed, therefore, from the 
 statement of this bond, if true, tha tRichard Harrison, the son of John 
 and Margery Harrison, was not the Richard Harrison whose death is 
 recorded in 1670, but that he was, at the time of his brother William's 
 marriage, in 1672, residing at Westby. 
 
 Upon an examination of the transcript in question, it appeared that 
 the entry of the marriage of William Harrison was coupled with a 
 similar entry of the marriage of Ralph Freckelton, who by the will of 
 William Harrison appeared to be his brother-in-law and a legatee of his 
 residuary estate, and a similar bond was entered into by Ralph 
 Freckleton and William Harrison, as his surety in reference to the 
 marriage of the former. 
 
 As before stated the entries of these two marriages are not in the 
 body of the transcript, but are endorsed under the heading "Omissiones 
 in conjugiis nuptice," a.d. i67-|, and are in the following form : — 
 
 William Harrison de Lea paro de Preston setat xxxij et Alice Freckelton pare de 
 Kirkham setat xvij per Licentiam Vic Clegge Jany xP. • 
 
 Ralph Freckelton de Freckelton paro de Preston aetat xix et Isabel Harrison paro 
 de Preston setat xxij per licentiam Vic Clegge Eodem die. 
 
 The endorsed entries are open to the following remarks : — 
 
 I St. They are in totally different handwriting and different coloured 
 ink from the entries in the body of the transcript, and have the appear- 
 ance of having been touched up at several times with different coloured 
 ink. 
 
 2nd. The initials of the Christian and surnames attached to the 
 endorsed entries differ materially from the initials of the signatures 
 of the minister and churchwardens appended to the transcript. 
 
 3rd. The entries are altogether different in form from the entries 
 in the body of the transcript, and in any other of the registers produced 
 in evidence in the case, as they contain a reference to the ages of the 
 parties and to the authority under which the ceremony was performed, 
 which cannot be found in the case of any other registered entries of 
 marriage.
 
 10 
 
 4th. The marriages are stated to have been solemnized in January, 
 whilst the transcript is not made out until after the 26th of March. If 
 these entries had been in the body of the parish register, as they ought 
 to have been (the canons providing that births, marriages, and deaths 
 occurring during any week shall be entered in the register on the suc- 
 ceeding Sunday), it is in the highest degree improbable that six lines 
 would have been omitted by the transcriber. 
 
 5th. The marriages in question having been solemnized in a parish 
 where neither of the contracting parties resided, and also out of the 
 Archdeaconry of Richmond, would, though not absolutely void, be 
 clandestine marriages within the Canon Law, and render the parties 
 liable to the penalties attaching to such marriages ; and would also 
 subject the officiating minister, and the minister by whom the license 
 was granted, to suspension from office. 
 
 The above entries and marriage bonds underwent a critical investi- 
 gation by Mr. Peacock and Mr. Turner, who both expressed most 
 decided opinions that both the entries in question and the bonds were 
 forgeries. 
 
 The grounds on which they formed their conclusions are principally 
 the following, namely : — 
 
 I St. The instruments in question were evidently imitations of writings 
 supposed to have been used at the date of 1672, but showed that they 
 could not have been then written. 
 
 2nd. That the contractions and accentuations were not those in use 
 at the time when the instruments professed to bear date ; that the 
 contractions are not uniform throughout the instruments ; and that many 
 of them are meaningless and absurd, and they give numerous examples 
 in support of their opinions. Mr. Turner, in reference to one of these 
 contractions, states that it showed such evident ignorance as "must lead 
 any one at all conversant with writing of this date to declare against its 
 genuineness." 
 
 3rd. That both the bonds, including the signatures, as well as the 
 entries in question, were written by the same hand and at the same 
 time. 
 
 4th. That neither the fillings up of the bond, nor the signature **Ric 
 Clegge Vicar," were in the handwriting of Richard Clegge, vicar of 
 Kirkham, having been compared with the genuine handwriting of Mr. 
 Clegge and of his signatures extending over a period of between thirty 
 and forty years. 
 
 5 th. That the bond entered into by William Harrison and Richard
 
 11 
 
 Harrison does not show the parish in which Richard Harrison the 
 alleged bondsman resided. The word used in the bond is " hujus," 
 but no parish is mentioned to which the word could apply, nor does 
 Clegge in his signature append the name of the parish of which he 
 was vicar, so that the word " hujus " was meaningless, Clegge was, 
 however, vicar of Kirkham, and Westbie was within that parish. 
 
 6th. That Ralph Freckelton, being nineteen years of age as stated 
 in the bond relating to his marriage, could not enter into such a bond 
 without the consent of parents or guardians, as required by law. 
 
 In addition to the above the following peculiarities are observ- 
 able : — 
 
 I St. The signature of Ralph Freckelton to the marriage bond differs 
 materially from his signature to his will, and to a receipt given by him 
 for the original will of Richard Harrison, of Freckelton. 
 
 2nd. Mr. Clegg never put an accent (^) over his c's, which mark is 
 unusual, and yet in the bond, and also in the signature, this mark is 
 made. 
 
 3rd. The bonds are stated to have been given to the Bishop of 
 Chester and the Archdeacon of Richmond. The Archdeacon of Rich- 
 mond, however, had no jurisdiction within the parish where the marriage 
 was solemnized, and a license granted by him under his authority would 
 have been void under the loist canon. 
 
 4th. The bond did not contain the condition imperatively required 
 to be inserted in such bonds by the loist canon (namely) "That the 
 parties should celebrate the marriage publicly in the parish church or 
 chapel where one of them resides, and in no other place." Not only 
 was there no such condition inserted in the bonds, but the parties 
 were married in the church of a parish where neither of them resided. 
 
 5th. The loist canon provides that "no license shall be granted but 
 unto such as shall be of good state and quality. Both Ralph Freckelton 
 and William Harrison are described in the bond as husbandmen, and 
 as the latter by his will bequeaths his best coat and breeches to his 
 fellow-servant^ it is difficult to conceive that he would have been 
 regarded in 1672 as a person of state and quality to whom a license to 
 marry would have been granted, and as it appears by his will that the 
 highest pecuniary legacy thereby bequeathed was forty shillings, he 
 would hardly have been regarded by the vicar of his parish as a person 
 whose bond for ;£'ioo could be safely accepted. 
 
 Subsequently to the trial, and during the hearing before the arbi- 
 trator, access was obtained to the court rolls of the manor of Lea, which
 
 12 
 
 afforded the most conclusive proof of Richard Harrison, the son of 
 Joha and Margery and brother of Willliam, having died previously to 
 167 1, and therefore could not have been surety for his brother William 
 in 1672. 
 
 To understand the effect of the court rolls it is necessary to premise 
 that John Harrison, the elder, by his will devised three closes called 
 Darginsons Crofts, held upon lease for lives, to his son Richard and the 
 heirs of his body, and, in default of such issue to his son William and 
 the heirs of his body, with like remainder over to his sons James and 
 La^vrence in succession. 
 
 On the death of John Harrison, the elder, Richard was entered on 
 the rolls as tenant of the leaseholds, and at a court held for the manor, 
 on the 3rd of May, 167 1, the jury presented that there were three crofts 
 in Lea called Darginsons Crofts which were in the possession of 
 Richard Harrison deceased, and there was then no one entered tenant 
 for them, and found that William Harrison was the right owner of the 
 said crofts, and ordered the said William to come and enter himself 
 tenant and do suit and service for the same. It appears therefore not 
 only that Richard was dead at the time of the alleged marriage of his 
 brother William, but that William was then in possession of the 
 property devised to Richard under the wil lof his father. 
 
 An attempt was made by the Duchy to shew that Richard Harri- 
 son, the son of John and Margery, was married to one Ellen Fletcher, 
 at Kirkham, in 1671, and had several children by her. The evidence 
 adduced in support of this fact was first a certificate of the entry of 
 the marriage in the parish register at Kirkham on the 12th of October, 
 167 1, and secondly a marriage bond executed on the occasion of 
 the marriage. 
 
 The entry in the parish register was as follows : — " Richard 
 Harrison and Ellen Fletcher de Westby." The entry therefore imports 
 a marriage between two persons both residing in the parish of Kirkham, 
 as whenever one of the parties resided out of the parish where the 
 ceremony was performed the address of such person was invariably 
 inserted in the register. By the bond, however, Richard Harrison is 
 described as of Lea, in the parish of Preston, which is at variance with 
 the entry in the register. Mr. Turner, in his evidence before the 
 arbitrator, gave it as his decided opinion that the bond was a forgery, 
 and was marked by the same peculiarities as the Chester bonds before 
 referred to, and was written by the same person who wrote those 
 bonds.
 
 13 
 
 Upon inquiry, it turned out that Richard Harrison who married 
 Ellen Fletcher was the son of William Harrison, of Westby, who by his 
 will, dated the isth of January, r68o, bequeathed legacies to his grand- 
 children, the children of his son Richard, by name, which names 
 correspond with the registered entries of the baptisms of the children of 
 Richard and Ellen Harrison, of Westby, born before the death of 
 William, the father, besides which the court tolls of the manor of Lea 
 clearly proved that Richard Harrison, of Lea, died previously to this 
 marriage. 
 
 There are circumstances connected with the above bond to which it 
 is necessary to refer. 
 
 The plaintiffs' solicitor received a copy of the bond from the Duchy, 
 and on proceeding to Lancaster to examine the same with the original, 
 was informed by the registrar's clerk that the same had been mislaid 
 and could not be found, but subsequently he was informed that the 
 original had been found, and the same was then carefully examined by 
 Mr. Turner. 
 
 On further enquiries made of the registrar's clerk subsequently to the 
 conclusion of the case, he stated that the bonds and duplicates of 
 the registers were lying loose in a room which was seldom frequented 
 by the clerks, that there was no difficulty in any of the documents 
 being abstracted from the office, taken away or altered in any shape, 
 and brought back again and placed with other papers, or if it suited 
 the parties they might destroy them altogether, as the clerks were not 
 paid for looking after them, and that any person desirous of examining 
 the bonds and transcripts might be left alone with them for any length 
 of time. 
 
 The clerk states that the above bond was brought to him by the 
 person who produced at the trial the certificate of the marriage of Ellen 
 and Margery, daughters of Frances Mawdsley, spinster, and that he 
 made a copy at the dictation of such person, as he did not sufficiently 
 understand Latin. That after the bond was copied, the clerk thinking 
 it might be required at a future time locked it up in his desk, and shortly 
 afterwards the Probate Office was broken into and several desks forced 
 open, and it is not improbable that the above bond disappeared from 
 the clerk's desk, and although several searches were made for the bond 
 it could not be found for a length of time, and ultimately it was found 
 on a table in one of the rooms by a person sent to examine it on behalf 
 of the Duchy. 
 
 Evidence was adduced before the arbitrator to shew that some portion
 
 14 
 
 of the tampering had been effected since the death of the testator, and 
 after searches had been made on behalf of the plaintiff. It is material 
 to observe that if the two daughters of Lawrence Harrison were 
 illegitimate, the person to inherit would be the descendants of Ellen 
 Harrison and Isabel Harrison, the two daughters of John Harrison, the 
 father, the former of whom married, or is alleged to have married, 
 Henry Barton, and the latter of whom is alleged to have married one 
 Thomas Weeton. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Richard 
 Harrison, who prosecuted searches on the part of the plaintiffs, that on 
 searching the parish register of Preston he fell upon an entry dated 5th 
 of February, 1682, of the marriage of Isabel Harrison with Thomas 
 Weeton. He copied the entry into his memorandum book and inserted 
 a reference to it in the pedigree first sent in by him to the Duchy. 
 
 Upon subsequently searching the register he found that an entry had 
 been obliterated by rubbing or scraping, and on referring to his book he 
 discovered to his surprise that it was the entry he had noted down on 
 the former occasion, and on a later search he found that the portion of 
 the book containing the entry (which was on the top of the page) had 
 been cut out. In the course of further searches he found an entry of 
 this marriage in the same register book as having been solemnized on 
 the 5th of February, 1680. Upon an examination by Mr. Peacock 
 and Professor Attfield of this entry, it appeared on the last line but one 
 of the page and was preceded by an entry of the marriage of " Thomas 
 Whitacre, of the Castle Parish, in Clithero, and Janet Hatch, of Preston," 
 and was followed by an entry of the marriage of " John Preston and 
 Catherine Blacoe, of Preston." The entry in question and the succeed- 
 ing entry were in faint ink, quite different in colour from the previous 
 entries, and traces of former ^vriting were visible. The transcript 
 was then examined, when it appeared that the previous entry com- 
 prised a line and a quarter of the transcript, and that the words 
 '' Hatch, of Preston," (occupying a quarter of a line) were erased, 
 and the entry in question was then written on this line, and the word 
 " Hatch " interlined by a caret on the preceding line instead of the 
 words ** Hatch, of Preston," so that by the omission of " of Preston " the 
 entry in the transcript did not correspond with that in the parish register. 
 
 Mr. Peacock in his report says the whole is in light ink and must 
 have been written after a crease was made, which would not be there 
 when the duplicate was made, and that the whole of this line, and the 
 one above it, had been touched up. No entry of the marriage in 1682, 
 which was cut out of the parish register, appears in the transcript, but if
 
 15 
 
 this entry was itself a forgery (as in all probability it was) it would not 
 be there. The transcript also does not contain any entry of the mar- 
 riage of John Jackson with Catherine Blacoe, which immediately follows 
 the entry in question in the parish register. 
 
 Notwithstanding the strong evidence of tampering and forgery above 
 referred to, the arbitrator found that the entry of the burial of " Richard 
 son of Widder Harrison of Lea," the entry in the register for the parish 
 of Kirkham of the baptism of " Ellen and Margery daughters of Frances 
 Maudsley of Ingol Spinster," and the entries in the transcript of the 
 register of Penwortham, deposited at Chester, of the marriage of William 
 Harrison with Alice Freckelton, were genuine entries, and that the 
 marriage bond entered into on the marriage of William Harrison, and 
 deposited at Chester, and the bond entered into on the marriage of 
 Richard Harrison and Ellen Fletcher, of Wesby, were genuine bonds, 
 and the finding of the arbitrator precluded the plaintiff from getting the 
 peculiarities of the tamperings before the court. 
 
 Since the arbitrator completed his award searches were made in the 
 parish registers of Preston, Kirkham, Poulton, and Lytham, and the 
 transcripts at Lancaster, and it was found that no less than between 
 thirty and forty entries, connected with the family of Harrison, had been 
 tampered with or fraudulently inserted in the said registers and tran- 
 scripts, in some of which cases entries in the parish register did not 
 appear in the transcript, whilst in other cases entries in the transcripts 
 did not appear on the face of the parish register. 
 
 Allusion has already been made to the loose manner in which the 
 transcripts and marriage bonds are kept at Lancaster, and as to the 
 facility afforded to persons of obtaining sole access to the same. 
 
 The mode in which the old parish registers are kept is scarcely less 
 open to objection. These registers are generally permitted to remain 
 in the custody of the parish clerks or their families. In one case such 
 registers were in the possession of a woman at the death of the intestate, 
 and the registers have been allowed to remain in the possession of 
 parties desirous of searching the same without any one else being present. 
 In one case where the parish registers was kept in the church, persons 
 wishing to search them were allowed to have the same brought into the 
 butler's pantry of the vicarage, and to remain in the sole possession 
 thereof for a considerable period. It cannot, therefore, be a matter of 
 surprise that the entries in the registers should have been tampered with 
 or destroyed. 
 
 Great obstacles were thrown in the way of a microscophic examination
 
 16 
 
 of the said registers and bonds, and the testing the genuineness or 
 spuriousness thereof by the appHcation of chemical tests, which would 
 have been conclusive, was disallowed. 
 
 Considering the great importance of old parish registers and docu- 
 ments connected therewith in deducing the title to estates and honors, 
 it is to the interest of the public that a parliamentary enquiry should be 
 made into the state of the old registers of the above-mentioned parishes, 
 and the transcripts thereof and the documents in connection therewith, 
 and if it should appear on enquiry that the registers and transcripts and 
 the documents connected therewith have recently been tampered with, 
 mutilated, and forged, every effort should be made for providing gener- 
 ally for the better custody and protection of old parish registers and 
 transcripts and the documents connected therewith, and for facilitating 
 the testing of the genuineness thereof by microscopic, chemical, or other 
 tests. 
 
 The above statement of facts can, if required, be verified by the 
 solicitor and one of the counsel engaged in the above-mentioned action.
 
 The following is a SCHEDULE of Doubtful and 
 Suspicious Entries in relation to Parties connected 
 with the Family of the Harrisons, of Lea, not 
 noticed in the body of the above Statement : — 
 
 These entries are both inserted out of the ordinary 
 course and at the end of the months. Both entries 
 are \vritten in a different coloured ink from the other 
 entries, and by a different hand. One or both of 
 these entries are omitted from the dupHcate at Lan- 
 caster. 
 
 PARISH OP 
 PRESTON. 
 
 1672, 
 December 18. 
 Baptism-Elizabeth, 
 daughter of Henry 
 Barton, of Lea. 
 
 1674, 
 
 March 17. 
 
 Baptism — William, 
 
 son of Henry Barton, 
 
 of Lea. 
 
 1674, 
 May 17. 
 
 Written upon an erasure ; portions of the erased 
 letters apparently much blacker than the other lines ■....- - v i 
 in the page. Parchment dirty ; shews signs of having jj^JJ-^^^^^^ 
 been rubbed or scraped, and is in a much stiffer hand. 
 
 ison and Alice 
 Carver de Lea. 
 
 Words *' Robert" and "Thomas Weeton " on 
 erasures ; writing traceable underneath. The letter 
 
 1686, 
 November 28. 
 
 T " in Thomas in a different character to the other son of Thoma° ^^ ' 
 *' T's " in the page, and seems of a very modern form. Weeton, of Lea. 
 
 Word " Isabel " altered from some other word. 
 
 Ink of a superficial character and purplish colour, 
 giving less stain to the parchment than the fluid 
 with which other parts of the page are written, and 
 part of the parchment in which entry made dis- 
 coloured, as if from the action of liquid. In one case 
 an indication of erasure. Letter " B " at the end of 
 the line (meaning baptized) different from other letters 
 " B," and very similar to the " B " in the entry from 
 the Kirkham register. 
 
 1690, 
 April 22. 
 Baptism — Isabell, 
 daughter of Thomas 
 Weeton, of Lea. 
 
 1648, 
 May 10. 
 J. fill. Willi, et 
 Gracie Harryson de 
 Lea.
 
 18 
 
 1648, 
 
 November. 
 Grace fill. Willi. 
 Harrison de Lea. 
 
 1645, 
 
 Baptism — Richard, 
 son of Grace Harri- 
 son. 
 
 1655, 
 September 20. 
 William Harrison 
 de Hardhorn and 
 Grace Darginson. 
 
 PARISH OF 
 KIRKHAM. 
 
 1693, 
 
 1 8th 
 Tho. Isabelle 
 Weeton Westby. 
 
 June 16. 
 Baptism — Robt. F. 
 Thomas Weeton, 
 Plumpton, Henry 
 F. W^iUiam W^ar- 
 beck, Freckleton. 
 
 The characters forming " fill. Willi." purplish, and 
 other characters touclied up with ink of the colour 
 used in producing the purplish characters. 
 
 The characters of this entry are purplish, the tint 
 being similar to that of the indorsed entries of the 
 Penwortham transcript. 
 
 The word " William " formed of purplish brown 
 superficial pigment. The word " Thomas," close by, 
 is of a brown colour, and the colours penetrate the 
 parchment. 
 
 This entry is in lighter and redder ink than the one 
 above, and in many ways resembles the entry of 
 baptism of " Ellen Margery, daughter of Frances 
 Maudesley, spinster," contended to be a forgery (see 
 paragraph 12 of petition). See " I " in Isabelle, " le " 
 in Mawdesley, and "le" at the end of "Isabelle." 
 (No duplicate for this year at Lancaster.) 
 
 The words "Weeton" and "Warbeck" on rough dis- 
 coloured parchment and apparently on erasures ; the 
 ink and writing different to the remainder of the 
 entry. (No transcript at Lancaster for this year.) 
 
 1723, 
 
 4th of 
 Burial — Isabel F. 
 Thomas Weeton, 
 Plumpton. 
 
 "Sth 
 Jennett F. Simon 
 H. Freckleton. 
 
 Word "Weeton" on erasure and in different coloured 
 ink from rest of entry; word under "Weeton" so rubbed 
 as to make it illegible. Ink in entries above and be- 
 low perfectly legible, so that the word below "Weeton" 
 could not have faded through age. Remains of a 
 former entry traceable where " Weeton" written, which 
 is apparently in different handwriting to that in which 
 rest of entry is written. 
 
 The transcript at Lancaster of the Kirkham registers 
 of baptisms, marriages, and burials for the year 1723 
 are on separate pieces of parchment joined together, 
 and the sheet of burials contains the following entry : 
 
 4. Issabel Thomas W^eeton, Plumpton. 
 
 5. Jennet S. Hall, Freckleton. 
 
 These two entries are in the same handwriting as
 
 19 
 
 the rest of the sheet, in the same ink and free from 
 erasures. The coincidence may be accounted for by 
 a person first tampering with the parish registers and 
 then fearing detection through comparison with the 
 transcript restoring the former to its original condition, 
 or by an attempt to give currency to other falsified 
 entries by shewing that an entry on an erasure and in 
 different coloured ink from other entries is consistent 
 with an unimpeachable transcript. 
 
 These remarks are, however, made upon the assump- 
 tion that the sheet of burials is genuine; but, inas- 
 much as the signatures of the vicar and churchwardens 
 which it bears differ, it is thought materially, from those 
 attached to the baptisms and marriages. This sheet is 
 open to the suspicion of being an entire forgery. 
 
 This entry appears genuine, but to have been 1722, 
 
 rubbed after it was written to give it its present ap- . July 26. 
 pearance. Burial — Isabel ux. 
 
 In the transcript at Lancaster for the same year Westby. 
 there occurs the following entry : — 
 
 26. Issabel ux Thom. Weeton W. C. Westby. 
 
 The words " ux," " Thom," " Weeton," and 
 " W. C." are all on erasures. There is an erasure 
 above the entry, and the word " Salthouse " in the • 
 entry above Weeton and the word " Weeton " shine 
 as if rubbed with something. The ink of " ux," 
 " Thom," " Weeton," '' W. C," and " Salthouse " is 
 brown. The parchment appears to have been 
 scratched. 
 
 This case appears to be the converse of the pre- 
 ceding one, being an instance of an entry, apparently 
 genuine in the parish register, the transcript of which 
 has evidently been tampered with. 
 
 The fact of entry in the transcript being tampered 
 with affords grounds for the supposition that the sheet 
 of the transcript containing the entry in the last pre- 
 ceding case may have been entirely fabricated for the 
 purpose of supporting as genuine the falsified entry in 
 the parish register. 
 
 The surfiice of nearly all this portion of the parch- 1725. 
 
 ment has been disturbed. The entry is at the bottom . .^^^U' 
 
 of a page, apparently in different coloured ink and in Weeton^ Westby? 
 different handwriting to the other entries, and seems
 
 20 
 
 PARISH OF 
 
 POULTON-LE- 
 
 FYLDE. 
 
 February. 
 Robte, the sonne of 
 Ricliard Harrison, 
 of Little Marton, 
 bapt. xvii th. 
 
 1668, 
 November. 
 Richard, sonne of 
 Joh. Harrison, of 
 Lea, Preston Parish, 
 crisned x. day. 
 
 1656, 
 
 May. 
 Balye, sonn of 
 William Harrison, 
 of Lea, was buried 
 the xvi. day. 
 
 1657, 
 
 April, 
 Ellis, son of Wil- 
 liam Harrison, of 
 Lea, was buried 
 xiiii. day. 
 
 to resemble the Weeton entries in the Preston register. 
 This entry does not appear at all in the transcript at 
 Lancaster^ although the entries above and below follow 
 in order. 
 
 The word '' Robte " and the Christian name in the 
 next entry are written on erasures in different ink and 
 in quite a different hand. The " R " is of a much 
 more modern form than those in the entries not 
 tampered with. 
 
 See comments on this entry, paragraph 24 
 petition. 
 
 of this 
 
 This and the three preceding entries seem to have 
 been touched up — they are much darker. Some of 
 the letters have double lines. 
 
 This and three other entries for this month are 
 written in blacker ink than those for the rest of the 
 month, and cast a shade like that of May, 1656, as 
 if they had been touched up. The paper is also much 
 discoloured, as if something had been smeared over it. 
 This discolouration is on and around the above entry, 
 about three-parts, and extends to the bottom. 
 
 1670. 
 
 January 20. 
 Richard, son of 
 Grace Harrison, 
 widow. 
 
 1658, 
 October. 
 Grace Harrison 
 buried xxiiitli. 
 
 1659, 
 January. 
 William Harrison, 
 of Lea, within 
 Preston, was buried 
 xx^h day. 
 
 Different to adjoining entries and in different ink. 
 
 Much smeared. 
 
 The word " Grace " written with brown ink ; " fil 
 William " purple ink ; adjoining entries touched up. 
 
 Smeared. A gentleman remarks : — "I have turned 
 over many of the leaves of this book which is on 
 paper, and have seen no smears of this character, ex- 
 cept in the case of Harrison's entries. 
 
 This entry presents some features as that of Ellis 
 Harrison. Something has been smeared over the
 
 21 
 
 paper, and there are the same appearances as in that 
 one. I very much doubt the authenticity of both 
 entries." 
 
 The registers at Poulton are contained in three 
 books. The dates of the entries extend from October, 
 1592, to January, 1637. Those in book No. 2 com- 
 mence April, 1654, and end May, 1663. The first 
 marriage in book No. 3 is dated 19th of May, 1664. 
 The next entry on that page is June, 1672, then Julhe, 
 1672, then follow in different ink and in a different 
 hand three entries followed by one entry in August, 
 1672. On the next page by another hand, and in 
 different ink, is the entry noted in the margin, dated 
 Maye, 1666 (that is six years prior to the date of the 
 immediately preceding entry), and is followed by an 
 entry of Jullie, 1666, and the entries then appear to 
 go on regularly. The whole of the page on which 
 the marriage of Richard Harrison is written is in one 
 hand writing, and not that of the person who wrote 
 the other entries. 
 
 1 666, 
 
 May. 
 Richard Harrison, 
 of Berks, within 
 Wesby, and Alles 
 Barker (or Barter) 
 was married xx^h 
 day. 
 
 A gentleman remarks concerning this register as 
 follows : — " This register is much mutilated, and in 
 many instances on detached leaves of parchment 
 which makes it difficult to examine. The leaves are 
 muddled together indiscriminately without regard to 
 dates. I have no means of ascertaining the sequence 
 of the entries, nor whether it is a perfect and con- 
 tinuous register. It would be easy for any person to 
 abstract or add a leaf, the book having fallen to pieces. 
 It would require considerable time to put the leaves 
 together according to date and to examine the register 
 so as to be able to form an opinion of its value 
 and to ascertain what entries it really comprises. I 
 merely examined those submitted to me by Mr. 
 Harrison." 
 
 PARISH OP 
 LYTHAM, 
 Lancashire. 
 
 This entry has been touched up, the parchment 
 appears to have been wetted, and the ink is of a 
 different colour from the rest of the page. The 
 parchment is much diSpoloured in a similar manner to 
 the entries in the Poulton register. 
 
 1686, 
 Feby. 6. 
 John, the son of 
 Richard Harrison, 
 of the Berks, 
 Westby, was bap- 
 tized, the 8th of 
 February, 1686.
 
 22 
 
 January. 
 Ricliard, son of 
 James Harrison, 
 Lajit. Jan. I4tli, 
 1715- 
 
 This entry has been interUned between an entry of 
 December the 26th, 17 14, and one of March, the loth, 
 1 7 14, and is, therefore, in its wrong place. It is in 
 altogether different coloured ink from the rest of the 
 entries on the page, and the interlineation is "quite 
 plain. The handwriting appears to be the same as 
 the rest of the page. A more careful examination of 
 the entry is required. 
 
 T/iis entry is not in the duplicate at Lancaster. 
 
 1679, 
 Oct. 2. 
 
 Elling, wife of 
 Willie Harrison, of 
 Lythani, buried the 
 iith Oct., 1679. 
 
 The words " ii Oct." are on an erasure. 
 
 1679, 
 
 Feb. 8. 
 Will Harrison, of 
 Lytham, buried 
 Februer the eightli, 
 1679. 
 
 The word '' Februer '' is much more stoutly written 
 than the rest of the entry and in darker ink. Between 
 the word " the " and " eighth " a word has been erased, 
 and the word " eighth " is in lighter coloured ink than 
 the rest of the entry, so that three different coloured 
 inks have been used.