EARLY STATISTICS.—­CHART, KENT.

Perhaps some one of your numerous readers will be good enough to inform me whether any general statistical returns, compiled from our early parish registers, have ever been published.  An examination of the register of Chart next Sutton Valence, in Kent, which disclosed some very curious facts, has led me to make this inquiry.  They seem to point to the inevitable conclusion that the disturbed state of England during the period of the Great Rebellion retarded the increase of population to an extent almost incredible—­so as to suggest a doubt whether some special cause might not have operated in the parish in question which was not felt elsewhere.  But, as I am quite unable to discover the existence of any such cause, I shall be glad to learn whether a similar result appears generally in other registers of the period above referred to.

The register-book of Chart commences with the year 1558, and is continued regularly from that time.  During the remainder of the sixteenth, and for about the first thirty-five years of the seventeenth century, the baptisms registered increase steadily in number:  from that period there is a very marked decrease.  For the twenty years commencing with 1600 and ending with 1619, the number 260; for the twenty years 1620 to 1639, the number is 246; and for the twenty years 1640 to 1659, the number is only 120.

No doubt this diminution must be attributed partly to the spread of Nonconformity; but I believe that during the Protectorate, the registration of births was substituted for that of baptisms, and therefore the state of religious feeling which then prevailed bears less directly on the question.  And even after the Restoration the register exhibits but a small increase in the number of baptisms.  For the various periods of twenty years from that event up to 1760, the numbers range from 152 to 195.  And pursuing the inquiry, I find that the number of marriages, for any given time, varies consistently with that of baptisms.  If any of your reader can clear up the difficulty, I shall feel much obliged for any information which may tend to do so.

Are the following extracts from the register above referred to of sufficient interest to merit your acceptance?

“1648.—­Richard, the son of George Juxon, gent., and Sarah, his wife, who was slayne 1 Junii at Maydestone Fight, was buryed on the third daye of June, anno predicto.”

“Joseph, the son of Thomas Daye, and An, his wife, who was wounded at Maydestone Fight 1 Junii, was buryed the eleventh daye of June.”

It is hardly necessary to mention, that the fight here referred to took place between the parliamentary forces under Fairfax, and a large body of Kentish gentlemen, who had risen, with their dependants, in the hope of rescuing the king from the hands of the army.  After an obstinate engagement, in which the Kentish men fully maintained {330} their character for gallantry, they were defeated with great slaughter.