If the parson neglected his duties it was incumbent upon the wardens to exhort him to perform them.[67] When at the visitation of the bishop of Chester in 1592 it was found that there was no surplice at Bolton Church, Manchester Deanery, not only did the judge admonish one of the Bolton wardens to buy the surplice, but he was instructed “to offer hit to thee Vicar at the time of ministering the sacraments, and to certify of his wearing or refusing of hit before the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord next."[68]

By virtue of searching articles of inquiry administered to them,[69] such as, Is your vicar a double-beneficed man, and, if so, is he lawfully dispensated?  Does he keep hospitality?

If non-resident does he give the fortieth part to the poor?  Does your minister wear a surplice at the appointed times, yea or no?  Does he use the cross in baptism and the ring in marriage?[70] Does your schoolmaster teach without licence of his ordinary under seal, or no?  Do you know any person excommunicate in your parish who repairs to church?  Do you know anyone ordered by law to do penance, or excommunicate for not doing the same, who still continues unreformed?—­by virtue of this strict questioning by the ordinary put to them in written articles before each visitation, church wardens, and their coadjutors, the sworn men or sidemen, were compelled to exercise a continual supervision over their minister’s conduct as well as over that of the parishioners generally.  This fact, coupled with the circumstance that they were themselves liable to be reported to the court and punished if they failed to indict, accounts for the cautious presentments made by these Elizabethan wardens.

Those of Great Witchingham, Norfolk, for instance, inform the chancellor that their parson “holdeth two benefices, but whether lawfully dispensated they know not,” and they add that a schoolmaster in their parish “teacheth publicly, but whether licenced or not they know not."[71] The wardens of Ellerburn, Yorkshire, present Jane Gryme for fornication, and add “but whether the curate did churche hir or no they cannot say."[72] And the following year they bring to the court’s knowledge “that their vicar ... is not resident upon his vicaredg, but what he bestoweth upon the poore they know not."[73] Lastly, the very prudent wardens of Pickering in the same peculiar bring in their presentment in this fashion:  “Qui dicunt et presentant there vicar for that he for the moste parte, but not alwaies dothe weare a surplesse in tyme of dyvyne service.  They present there vicar for that they ar vncerteyne whether his wif[e] was commended vnto him by justices of peace, nor whether he was licenced to marrye hir according to hir Maiestie’s iniuncions."[74] The almost unseemly interest here displayed by the wardens in their vicar’s matrimonial relations is explained by the provisions of article xxix of the Queen’s Injunctions of 1559, which ordain that no priest or deacon shall wed any woman without the bishop’s licence and the advice and allowance of two neighboring justices of the peace first obtained.