[From Crosby Records, 1887]

INTRODUCTION .

BY THE LATE RIGHT REV. ALEXANDER GOSS, D.D.

THE story of the Harkirke forms an episode in the history of James I. His predecessor, Elizabeth, whilst she upheld with a firm hand the freedom of England against foreign aggression, trampled without remorse on the liberties of her subjects at home. Not content with a simple oath of allegiance, she enforced obedience to the royal supremacy in matters of faith, as well as in affairs of State. Her lieges were required " humbly to confess her majestie to be the supreme governor in all things as well ecclesiashcall as temporall within the realm;", dissent from the national church was punished with the same penalty as treason against the State. Under her sister Mary she had conformed to the Catholic Church, so that it was not unreasonable to expect that she would treat the religious scruples of her former co- religionists with tenderness; but her temper was soured by the knowledge that they looked upon her as the illegitimate fruit of an adulterous connexion, and her feelings were exasperated by the efforts of the Spanish party in favour of Mary Queen of Scots. During her reign there suffered capitally no less than 204 Catholics. Fifteen of these were condemned for denying her supremacy, one hundred and six for the exercise of priestly functions, and the others for being reconciled to the Catholic faith, or for harbouring, aiding or assisting priests.

With regard to the great part of these victims, the law was fully and literally executed. After being hanged up they were cut down alive, dismembered, ripped up and their bowels burnt before their faces; after which they were beheaded and quartered.' This enumeration does not include those who perished in prison. The number of those who were banished was also very great. No wonder, then, that Catholics who had groaned under her own yoke for nearly half a century looked forward to the accession of James with hopeful anticipations. Among the secret advertisements addressed to Sir Francis Walsingham is the following:- "He (Edmond's, alias Hunte the Jesuit) seemeth to be p'swaded that the Kinge of Scotts shall marry wth ye Kinge of Spayne his daughter. Where uppon he dothe infer that the country of Scotland wyl become papists and for the Kyngs affection to Papistry he standeth nothinge doubtful, this rather for the great credytt that Holte the Englishe Jesuyte and some other of the Semanaryes have about the Kynge there and some of his counsell (as he supposethe)." 2 Many of the hardships which they had endured under his predecessor had been brought upon them by their adherence to the cause of his mother, the unfortunate Queen of Scots; and it was con- fidently expected, if his gratitude did not reward their devotion, his justice would at least mitigate their suffer- ings.' Whilst his accession to the English throne was still doubtful many of them had advocated his claims, and he had promised to the princes of their communion, as well as to their own envoys and to the nobility, that they should be well dealt withhal, and should not only be quiet from molestations, but should also enjoy such liberty in their houses privately as themselves would desire, and have both priests and sacraments, with full toleration and desired quiet.2 He had promised the Pope, Clement VIII., through his ambassador, that no attachment to his own creed should ever induce him to act with harshness or severity toward that numerous body of his subjects who had adopted a contrary faith, and that all the advantages of justice, peace, and protection by their fellow citizens, should be extended freely and equally to them, and that neither the Pope nor any other man of reasonable judg- ment should ever have ground to complain of his admin- istration. 3 His professions went even still further. He admitted the Catholic to be the ancient mother religion of all the rest, and recognised the Pope to be Primus eiscopus inter omnes étiscótos, and princéj>s e piscoporum, and declared his willingness to honor the saints and to reverence her who, " blessed amongst women," is the Mother of God, in glory both above angels and men. He was, in fact, currently and credibly reported to be secretly a Catholic. Wade writes to Walsingham from Paris:- " The Scotch Ambassador hath not stuck to tell the Lord Hamilton, in the hearing of others, that the King is secretly Catholic.", ,The King by vord and promiss has accepted thair offer of money to be paid, how sone he shall publish liberty of conscience. Thai (Henry Constable and Lord Bonington) have desyrit the abay of Newabay on the west border to be a retreat to such as for thair conscience shall fle out of Angland, wch the King promisses to do connivently." 2 Another consideration, of no little weight with an absolute sovereign, augmented his leaning in favour of Catholics. He knew them to be loyal from principle, and he was glad to have their support against the Puritan devils by whom he declared that his mother and himself had been haunted from their cradles.

His experience of government in Scotland had nourished the belief that where there was no bishop there would be no King, and he made no secret of his persuasion that the hierarchy was the firmest support of the throne.

It was, no doubt, this connection, rather than doctrinal considerations, that led him to abandon the pure Kirk of Scotland, which he found to agree " as well with monarchy as God with the devil," in favour of episcopacy, although he had repeatedly expressed his gratitude to God, "that he belonged to the purest Kirk in the world," and had publicly declared that, " as long as he should brook his life, he would maintain its principles."'

In July he made an effort or pretence to fulfil these promises. He conferred on several Catholics the honour of knighthood, and he invited some of the most distinguished amongst them to Hampton Court, where they were received by the lords of the council with marks of respect. He promised also to exonerate them from the penalties of recusancy " as long as they kept themselves upright in all civil and true carriage towards his majesty and the states without contempt." 2

It was, however, the misfortune of James to live in an intolerant age; and if he was ever disposed to befriend Catholics, the fear of giving offence to his Protestant subjects compelled him to abandon his resolution. He even went so far as to assure his council in the most solemn manner that he had never any such intention; and, on his authority, Coke, his attorney-general, declared that "the eyes of the Catholics should sooner fall out than they should ever see toleration." 3 But truth was not counted a royal virtue by the house of Stuart,' and James never hesitated to deny what he found it inconvenient to acknowledge, " for whereas if before the King had promisit to the Pope and to uthor catholiques in France (as to the Guisardes) yet in respect he did after- vart deny the said promisses and did somwhat to the contrari (as in the beheading of Fentun), tharfor his sincerite was much suspected wth thamm."' His conduct goes far to justify epithets of mean, fiedantic, and contemptible, though hardly his designation as a "compound of blood and mud, only remarkable for the hardness of his heart and the softness of his brains. "3

When reminded by Watson of his promises of protec- tion, he observed to a bystander: "Na, na, good fayth, we'es not neede the papists now;" and for this selfish motive he did not hesitate to abandon them to the fanati- cism of their adversaries. He was even mean enough to pretend that he had never forgiven the penalties of recusancy; and by demanding the arrears, which had the effect of crowding thirteen payments of /20 per month into one, he reduced many respectable families to indi- gence. His net income from the fines of recusancy amounted to thirty-six thousand pounds per annum.o

Abundant as were the resources placed at his command, as, compared with his sorry allowance in Scotland, James was constantly in want of money, for he was surrounded by needy and rapacious followers, and was himself immoderately fond of pleasure. This compelled him to have recourse to a parliament in order to replenish his exhausted treasury; but the House of Commons showed no disposition to encourage his extravagance. It no longer displayed the obsequiousness which it had exhibited in former reigns, and its members spoke with a boldness and freedom which, under Elizabeth or her royal father, would have sent them to the tower.

The reaction resulting from the remembrance of their late thraldom was aided by dissent, which was greatly on the increase, so that there was fostered in the House a spirit hostile to the prerogatives of a monarch, who claimed by divine right unlimited power over the lives, liberties and consciences of his subjects.

If the Commons eventually yielded to his importunities, they did so with reluctance, and usually accompanied the grant with a demand for an extension of rights, or the promise of a reform of abuses. An attentive observer might already have discerned the germs of that levelling spirit which, under his successor, upset the throne, crippled the power of the aristocracy, and raised the middle class to political pourer. Yet, however acrimonious the debates, and however exasperated the feelings of party against party, there was one subject on which both sides were mutually agreed, the persecution of the Catholics. "Conformists and Nonconformists," to borrow the words of Lord Macaulay,' "heartily joined in enacting penal laws of extreme severity against the Papists."

Additional severities were added to the oppressive and sanguinary code enacted in the reign of Elizabeth. A fine of not less than o100 was levied on any person sending a child or other person to be educated in a Catholic college abroad; and any person so educated was compelled, on his return, to conform to the established church under penalty of being rendered incapable of inheriting, or purchasing, or enjoying lands, annuities, chattels, or sums of money within the realm. Even the owners or masters of ships, conveying beyond the seas any woman or other person under the age of twenty-one without a license, were punished, the owners with the loss of their vessel, the masters with the forfeiture of their goods and imprisonment for twelve months. A penalty of forty shillings a day was inflicted on any person who should employ a tutor, and on any tutor who should presume to teach even the rudiments of grammar, unless provided with a license from the Diocesan. The legal fine of twenty pounds per lunar month for recusanty was rigorously exacted, and, in default of payment, all the cattle, household furniture, and wearing apparel of the recusants were seized and sold, and he forfeited in addi- tion two-thirds of his lands, tenements, hereditaments, farms and leases.

By this depauperising process, repeated every six months, numerous families were reduced to such utter ruin that they had not even a bed to lie on. The poor who could not pay were imprisoned. No place was exempt from the severity of the law, for the clergy were bound under ecclesiastical penalties to denounce all re- cusants above the age of thirteen years living within their parishes.' The warrants of distress were issued by the judges at the assizes, by the magistrates at the sessions, and by the commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, mostly the "most earnest and base Puritans whom other- wise the King discountenanceth."' With what rigour these warrants were executed by the constables and pursui- vants to whom they were entrusted, may be seen from the fact that, in the county of Hereford alone, four hun- dred and nine families were reduced by these penalties to a state of beggary. Life itself under such circumstances was rendered burdensome. Nocturnal searches for the discovery of priests were resumed with all that train of injuries, insults, and vexations which characterised them in the reign of Elizabeth ;3 " no night passing commonly but that soldiers and catchpoles walk into quiet men's houses, when they were asleep, and not only carried away their persons into prisons at their pleasure, except they would brybe them excessively, but whatsoever lyked them best besydes in the house. And these searches were made with such violence and insolency, as divers gentlewomen were drawn or forced out of their beds, to see whether they had any sacred thing or matter belong- ing to the use of the Catholic religion, either about them or under their bedds. If any resistance was offered to these illegal extortions, the persuvants availd themselves of their warrents to make a forced search, in which neither pot nor pan, nor bedding nor ringe, nor jewells, nor anything escapeth their hands." I

At the summer assizes for 1604, no fewer than six thousand four hundred and twenty-six recusant convicts were returned. The gaols were crowded with prisoners, and twenty-three priests and three laymen were arbi trarily selected and sent into banishment for life .2 "The judges nowe openly protest," writes Garnet to Persons, "that the Kinge nowe will have blood and hath taken blood in Yorkshire; that the Kinge hath hitherto stroaked the papists, but nowe will strike." And the King was as good as his word. Several persons were executed, though it has been denied that any perished before the Gunpowder Plot.3 During his reign twenty-five Catholics are said to have been executed for exercise of their religion.+

The ingenuity or malice of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere suggested to Bancroft, who had lately been translated from London to Canterbury, a new method of subduing the obstinancy of the more opulent and zealous of the Catholics.

The Primate lost no time in following his directions. On the i Zth of March, 1605, he instructed his suffragans to excommunicate " the gentlemen recusants, landlords, and some other ringleaders of that sort, that so they who have not learned how to use their former liberty, may be better instructed by chastisement in prison."' At the end of forty days the names of the offenders were to be certified into chancery, and writs de excommunicaío cátiendo were to be sent out. The effects of this measure were equivalent to a sentence of outlawry. The delin- quents were placed out of the King's protection, were subjected to forfeiture and imprisonment, and were ren- dered incapable of recovering debts or rents, or lands, or goods, or damages for injuries. They could not buy or sell, or interchange merchandise, or be a witness in a court of justice, or act as executor or administrator, or be an advocate, or swear in a jury, or convey their estates by deed or will.2 This penalty could be inflicted for neglecting to have a child baptized or to receive com- munion, or to go to divine service, or for error in the matter of religion or doctrine. The effects of excommunication pursued them beyond the grave. Those who, whilst living, had been debarred from all society and communication with the faithful were, when dead, deprived of Christian burial in consecrated ground. Nay, the clergy not only refused to read the service over them, but forbade the body to be buried in the churchyard. The parish register of St. Nicholas, New- castle, under date December 31, 1664, records that " In- fant Knight and Mary Watson being excommunicated, were buried in a garden.' The refusal of the Curate of Allenmoor, near Hereford, to allow the interment of Alice Wellington, a Catholic, in the churchyard, led to a tumult, which compelled the Bishops of Hereford and Llandaff, two notorious persecutors, to flee for their lives. Her friends, aided by the Catholics, buried her by force, and beat off the civil officers. This affair was deemed to be of such moment that the Earl of Worcester, himself a Catholic, hastened from court to restore order. His efforts were supported by messengers sent from the missionaries and other Catholics in the neighbouring counties.' Meanwhile the Star Chamber was stimulated to increased activity and severity by an address from the Lord Chancellor. In those days the subject had little chance of obtaining justice in prosecutions ordered by the Crown.- " The tribunals," writes Lord Macaulay,3 "offered no protection to the subject against the civil and ecclesiastical tyranny of that period. The judges of the common law, holding. their situations during the pleasure of the King, were scandalously obsequious. Yet, obsequious as they were, they were less ready and less effi- cient instruments of arbitrary power than a class of courts, . the memory of which is still, after the lapse of more than two centuries, held in deep- abhorrence by the nation. Foremost among these courts in power and infamy were the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the former a political, the latter a religious inquisition. Neither was a part of the old constitution of England. The Star Chamber had been remodelled, and the High Commis sion created by the Tudors. The government was able, through their instrumentality, to fine, imprison, pillory and mutilate without restraint."

Hume says= that the Commissioners were directed to make inquiry not only by the legal method of juries and witnesses, but by all other means and ways which they could devise, that is, by the rack, by torture, by inquisi- tion, by imprisonment. It must excite the surprise of the reader that the Catholics made no attempt to shake off this galling yoke. There were amongst them men of high lineage, great possessions, and powerful connections; but they had been taught that any attempt at revolution would incur the guilt of rebellion. Pope Clement V I I I. had warned them by a special messenger to exhibit all becoming attachment, and reverence, and obedience to their rulers, to commit no act which might disturb the public peace, offend their princes and magistrates, or bring their religion into hatred and suspicion; but to render to God the things- that are God's, to Caesar the things that: are Caesar's, and to abstain from mixing up theconcerns of religion with the foreign affairs of State. He further informed the King that he could withdraw from the country any of the missionaries of whose loyalty his highness might have conceived any rational suspicion:, Even Garnet, who suffered death for his supposed com- plicity in the Gunpowder Plot, implored the Pope, as soon as he had an inkling of it, to prohibit under censure all recourse to arms.2 Yet there were a few desperate men who denied the right of the Pope to prohibit them from defending their lives and liberties. Catesby, with twelve associates, formed the atrocious design of blowing up the King and his parliament; and but for the remorse of one of the conspirators, they would, in all probability, have succeeded in their wicked adventure, notwithstanding that Salisbury (Cecil) had sufficient advertisement that they had a practise in hand for some " stirre" this parlia- ment; it was, however, thought better not to interrupt their devilish practice, but to suffer them to go on till the end of the day.'

In his subsequent attempt at insurrection he could not gather round him as many as fifty followers, which clearly shows that he did not possess the sympathy of his co- religionists.+ Yet, although it was manifest to all that the plot was not a Catholic plot, the parliament in its next session passed two new bills containing more than seventy articles inflicting penalties on the Catholics., Recusants were forbidden the court, or to reside within ten miles of London, or to go beyond five miles from their own homes without special license. They were disabled from serving in civil or military offices, or from practising in surgery, physic, or law; they could not keep arms or Catholic books. Their children could not be christened or married, except by a minister of the Church of England, under a fine of a hundred pounds, or be buried in other than a Protestant cemetery under a penalty of twenty pounds. Every child sent abroad, unless he returned and conformed, forfeited his rights of property, which passed to the Protestant next of kin. Every householder, no matter what his creed, was liable to a fine of ten pounds per month for every Catholic visitor or servant staying in his house. All who refused the oath of allegiance, even married women, were subjected to perpetual imprison- ment in the common gaol, with the forfeiture of their rents and personal property. The oath contained not only a promise of allegiance, which all might have taken, but also a declaration, as unmeaning as it was impolitic, that to maintain the deposing power was impious, here- tical, and damnable.' In 16 to the murder of the French King by Ravai-llac disquieted James, lest some villainous and traitorous attempt might be intended against himself, and afforded a pretence for executing the penal laws with renewed vigour.' At the petition of the two houses of parliament, he issued a proclamation against priests and jesuits, and an Act was passed ordering all persons above eighteen years of age to take the oath of allegiance under the penalty of premunire, and married women, popish recusants, to be committed to prison till they would receive the sacrament in the Church, unless they were redeemed by their husbands with the payment of ten pounds per month.'

The private letters of this period show the dismay with which the Catholics were overwhelmed by these acts. "Here with us things never went so hardly; what will become of us all God knoweth." "Our perplexities do daily grow so great, that you may not expect so frequent correspondence from me. London was never so ticklish. The pursuivants, by apprehending priests and Catholics, are grown so rich, that they hire spies to serve their turn; insomuch that there is not an host, chamberlain, or ostler which is not ready to inform them of the behaviour of their guests." "Our persecution here proceedeth roundly against us. The oath is more and more exacted; no man is reputed a good subject that refuseth." " Catholics were never in like terror and fright; neither man nor women knowing which way to turn them, or how to avoid utter ruin of themselves and posterity." " The sheriff and his officers, if they find the least thing against any Catholic, are ready to: arrest their persons, to drive away their goods, and to use all disgrace they can against them." " Our miseries daily increase. Every hour we look for the dispersion of this family. Our friends abroad are stripped of all their goods, even to their very skin." From one lady the sheriff carried off even the very smock she used, although she had com- pounded; another they beat on one side of her face till it was as black as a coal; another was wheeled to a market town in a barrow, such as is used for the carrying of dung; and another was trailed at a horse's tail to the church. From one poor woman they took the blankets and coverlets off the beds; from another they carried away pots, pans, and pewter; nay, they did not even spare the very pot that was boiling' on the fire; and a poor palsied cripple had the very bed on which he lay carried from under him.'

As it is not the object of this preface to give á digest of the penal laws, but only to put the reader in possession of the state of things when the Harkirk first claims our notice, the subject will not be pursued further.

In a previous page mention` has been made of the penalties of excommunication inflicted on recusants, and of the riot which ensued near Hereford on the refusal of the curate to bury the body of a Catholic. In 1610 the storm visited Lancashire. The parson of Seftön refused to bury the corpse of a poor Catholic woman on the plea of her being excommunicated; and her sturdy friends not wishing to carry it home again, buried it outside the churchyard in the highway. Some swine that had the run of the lanes, happening to come to the spot, grubbed up the body, and partially devoured it.'

This outrage coming to the ears of William Blundell, Esq., of Little Crosby, who was himself a popish recusant convict, he enclosed a piece of ground, part of a plot called the Harkirk, within his own domain, in the lordship of Little Crosby, for the burial of such Catholic recusants deceasing either of the same village or of the adjoining neighbourhood as should be denied burial at their parish church of Sefton. It was already separated on two sides from the road that connected the villages of Little Crosby and Sefton by a stone wall, and during the winter he cast up an earthen mound to divide it, on the other two sides, from the rest of the Harkirk. The first burial took place on the seventh of April in the following year, 1611. Next day the cow-boy, passing through the inclosure, picked up several silver coins, which, with boyish glee, he exhibited on his return in the servants' hall. Fortunately Mr. Blundell saw them, and,. accompanied by various members of his family, renewed the search with considerable success. He sets down the number found at eighty pieces, none bigger than a groat, and none less than a two-penny piece; but his grandson, writing in 1686, says that upwards of three hundred pieces were found, as well as some few small pieces of uncoined silver. There is no reason to distrust his statement, for he adds that he had a great number of them in his own keeping till the year 164.2, when he sent them for greater security, during the Civil War, into Wales, where they were lost. A true portraiture of thirty-five of them was engraved on copper, and published at the time by Mr. Blundell.

Whatever the learned may have thought of this contri- bution to numismatic science, the government looked with little favour on his " settinge upp and mainteyninge a church yard for the buriale of Seminarie Priests and popish Recuscants contrarie to the laws of the King dome and canons of the Church of England." To add to his misfortune, he was accused of "settinge on, countenane- inge and mainteyninge severall Riotts and Riottors who endeavoured to prevent the execution of the Sheriff's warrant for the Seizure of four oxen, seventeen sheep, nine kine, and certain swine corn and hay of the Defendant Blundel', by sore beating and wounding his bailiffs." For these two offences he was summoned by Sir Ralph Ashton, the High Sheriff, before the Star Chamber, and condemned to pay a fine of two thousand pounds, and a compensation of a hundred marks to the bailiffs. He was committed to the Fleet, and the walls and mounds of the churchyard were ordered to be pulled down by the Sheriff,- and the ground laid waste, and the Decree to be read at the Assizes.

This took place in the fifth year of the reign of Charles I., but the business was not finally disposed of till the year 1631, when the King reduced the fine to the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds, on a certificate from the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, that, upon consider- ation of his mean estate, which was well known unto him, he was of opinion that such sum was a " behoovefull Bargaine" for his Majesty.

Footnotes

1 Oath of William Alley, Bishop of Exeter. Notes and Queries, 3rd s. vol. vii. p. 355.

2 Rev. Sydney Smith's, " Letter on the Catholic Question."

3 Anno 1585, March. Vol. 177, No. 48, S.P.O.

4 Lingard, vol. vi. h. 639, "Garnet to Persons," April 16, 1603.

5 Father Gerard, cited in Tierney's Dodd, vol. iv. P. 37 ; Butler's Memoirs of Eng. Cath., II. chap. xliii.; Hume, vol. vi. chap. 47 P. 30.

6 King James to his ambassador Sir Thos. Parry, from S.P.O., cited by Tierney.

7 S.P.O. France, May 5th, 1581. Cited in Simpson's Campion, p. 380, note 248.

8 Mr. John Colville to Sir Robert Cicil, Aug. 21, 1599. S.P.O. Eliz., vol. 65, Art. 16.

9 Ling, vol. Vii. Pp. 26, 28; Chamber's Dom. An. Scot., vol. i. p. 160.

10 Tierney, vol. iv. PP. 37, 154; Ling, vol. vii. p. 25.

11 Tierney, vol. iv., citing Howell, vol. ii. P. 5.

12 Butler's Mem. of Cath., vol. ii. p. 76.

13 S.P.O. Scotland, Eliz. vol. 65, Art. t6.

14 Life and Letters of Lady Arabella Stuart, by Eliza Cooper, vol. ii. p. i. History of the Commonzvealth, by Andrew Bisset, vol. ii. p. 8o.

15 Ling, vol. vii. p. 18g, citing "Hardwicke Papers," vol, i. p. 446.

16 Hist. Eng. vol. i. p. 75.

17 Ling, vol. vii. p. 88. Butler's Mem. Eng. Cath. vol. ii. p, gr.

18 Can. cxiv.

19 "Garnet to Persons."

20 Ling, vol. vii. p. 50, citing "Persons' Judgment of a Catholic Englishman," p. 43, 4to, 1608.

21 Ling, vol. vii. p. 191.

21 Ibid., p. 46.

22 Ibid., p. 50.

23 Rev. Syd. Smith's " Letter on the Catholic Question." Tierney enumerates 24, with dates and places, vol iv. p. 180.

24 Wilkin's, vol. iv. p. 4ro, cited by Tierney; Butler's Hem. Eng. Cath., vol. ii. p. 9o, citing Bartoli.

25 Phillimore's Burn's Ecc, Law, Art. " Excom."

26 Hierurgia Anglicana, p. 333

27 ' Ling, vol. vii. p. 51.

28 Hist. Eng. vol. i. p. 90; Ling, vol. vii. pp. 177, 188, 377.

29 Hist. Eng. cxli., cited by Butler, vol. ii. p. 379.

30 The Nuncio to Dr. Wm. Gifford, Aug. 1, 1603, cited by Tierney.

31 Garnet to his superior, July 24, 1605, cited by Ling, vol. vii. p, 541.

32 Salisbury to Sir Charles Cornwallis. E. Bib. Cott.; Butler, vol. ii. P. 433.

33 Butler, vol. ii. p. 101 ; Collier, vol. ii. p. 689; cited by Tierney.

34 Ling, vol. vii. p. 87.

35 Ling, vol. v. pp. 87, 91.

36 Hist. of Pen. Laws, by R. R. Madden, p. 180; Tierney, vol. iv., clxvii.

37 Ling, vol. vii. p. r 18.

38 Tierney, vol. iv. clxvii. clxvii. c1xviii. c1xix. pp. r 6 r, 166, 172, 176._

39 This horrid circumstance is related by Wm. Blundell, the Cavalier, in a letter addressed to Mr. Jas. Scarisbrick which is inserted later on. It does not, however, quite appear from the context that it happened at Sefton.-[ED.]

Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received The Editor HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2006