Alias Hunt & Johnson and the Commonwealth Gap

In the same way, that I had (wrongly, as it turned out) assumed that my ancestors had stayed pretty firmly in Rowley Regis, I tended also to have assumed that, by and large, they would have been law abiding, if somewhat inclined to non-conformism.

So I was intrigued to find, early on in my researches, that from about 1665, some of my ancestors were appearing in the Parish Registers with an alias which continued over several generations! Johnson, alias Hunt.  I could not imagine what could have given rise to this. And they were not alone. Other families in the village also appeared to have aliases. I tended to associate the use of aliases with murky deeds but it seemed a bit odd that so many families had apparently turned outlaw and over such a long period.

We Rowley family historians owe a great debt of gratitude to Miss Henrietta Mary Auden, as she had transcribed most of the older parish registers before many of them were destroyed or damaged in the church fire in 1913. This enabled these records to be published in book form by the Staffordshire Parish Registers Society after the fire and this book, in Smethwick Local Studies Library, was an important source of information for me when I began researching. I would go to the library with a list of ancestors who I needed to check and I was very grateful that the book was indexed, thus saving me precious research time. Nonetheless, I can remember my frustration that I often ran out of time and had to continue on my next visit.

I could not have known then how developments in technology would change this process beyond recognition. Some years ago, I was able to purchase a digital copy of the entries from the Registers from Midland Ancestors, which could also be searched digitally; later still, searching to see whether any second hand copies of this book were available to buy, I was amazed to find that I could purchase a facsimile copy of it for a few pounds, photographed from a copy deposited in a library in the USA and printed to order for me. Such luxury, I could now browse the Register to my heart’s content! And sometimes, there is no substitute for reading through a parish register in sequence over a period of years for building a picture of a family or a place.  Miss Auden commented in her introduction to the book (which I now had time to read properly) on the number of families in the village using aliases. She said “there are many curious nicknames and aliases’. So what was happening that so many people in this little village were apparently using two different names?

My first alias was used after the union of my 8xgreat-grandfather Richard Hunt and Elizabeth Johnson. I say union because I have never found a record of their marriage. It is quite possible that this is because some records at this period were lost or it may be that they simply did not get married. Their first child John Johnson alias Hunt was born in 1655. The date was my first clue.

This was just after the Civil War and was during the period of Government known as the Commonwealth, under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell. The Commonwealth Parliament passed an Act regulating the keeping of civil records of births marriages and deaths, taking this responsibility away from the church.  It was called ‘An Act touching Marriages and the Registring thereof;  and also touching Births and Deaths.’ It was quite clear. Officers were to be appointed by each parish, to be called the ‘Parish Register’ and all marriages now had to be performed by a Justice of the Peace.  The wording was clear –

‘no other Marriage whatsoever within the Commonwealth of England, after the 29^th Sept, in the year One thousand six hundred and fifty three, shall be held or accounted a Marriage according to the Laws of England.’

 Photograph from ‘Birth, Marriage and Death Records’ by David Annal and Audrey Collins.

Oh my, what a huge change for ordinary people from the customs which had been practised from time immemorial. So how did this affect that little village of Rowley? A lot, it seems.

These are extracts from the Parish Registers for the time, the spelling is the original spelling in the Register!:

“12 Mar 1654      William DOBBES, minister, buried.

These names of Birthes, Burials and Marriages above mentioned were entred in another paper booke by Mr Dobbes & written out in this as it was entred by him.

Stafford. At Wolverhampton the 20th day of March 1654.

O Tempora! Memorandum that Josias ROCKE, of Rowly Regis, was this day sworne before us by virtue of the Act of Parliament of the 24th of August 1653, to execute the office of Parrish Registor for Rowly aforesaid according to his best skill and knowledge & according to the said Act so longe as hee shall continue in the said office.

Witness our handds the day and yeare above written.

John WYRLEY

Hen. STONE

Staff. At Walsall, ye 22th June 1657.

Be itt remembred that William WHITTORNE, of Rowley Regis, in ye said county was this day sworne before mee to execute ye office of parrish Register there according to ye forme of a late Act of Parliamt. Intituled An Act touching Marriages and the Registring thereof and touching birthes and burialls soe long as hee shall continue in ye said office.

Witness my hand ye day and yeare  above written.

O mores!

Hen Stone”

Several pages of births, baptisms and burials follow. The marriage record which follows is the most detailed of those recorded and shows the effort required to be married under the new system. Some of the marriages, starting in 1655, had notice published in the church on three Sundays but others went through a more elaborate procedure.

“John MARTINE, of Rowly, Co. Stafford, Joyner, & Joyce COLBURNE, d. of John COLBURNE, of Rowly, Gentleman, was published in the market towne of Walshall (being conceived to bee the next market towne to the p’ish church of Rowly afforesaid) three market dayes sevrally each after other between the howers of Eleaven & two of ye Clocke (that is to say) the 14th, 21th and 28 dayes of August 1655, without contradiction of any.  As by the Certificate of the pish Register of Walshall doth appeare. The said John MARTINE & Joice COLEBURNE above named were declared Husband and Wife Sept 29 1655.

By mee, Hen Stone.”

There are then several pages in the Parish Register of ‘marriages’ performed by these Magistrates, most of which say that they were performed at Hampsted, a few at Walsall or Kidderminster, presumably transferred from the Registers kept during the Commonwealth period.

Note that Walsall (9 miles away) and not Dudley (less than 4 miles away) was deemed to be the closest market town, presumably because Dudley was in Worcestershire, Walsall in Staffordshire. Not too much of a problem if you had a horse or carriage of some sort but in this period, most poor people did not have this, they had to walk. The minor inconvenience of the extra miles to be walked which this implied for the parties to the marriage was apparently not considered.

I was puzzled by the references to Hampsted as I wasn’t familiar with this place. The only Hamstead I could find anywhere near was on the Handsworth border, more than seven miles away from Rowley. For some years, I couldn’t work out why marriages should have taken place there.  Then, while I was reading “A Birth, a Death and a Barrellage” by Kate Creed which is about Ridgacre at Quinton, she commented in connection with some land transactions

“The Wyrleys were the earliest family recorded as being seated at Hamstead. They came from Little Wyrley and although some of them were referred to as ‘de Hamstede’, they finally adopted  the name de Wyrley. They continued to hold Hamstead for generations and became the largest landholders in Handsworth.” And I have since read that in early times the Wyrley family also held a lot of land in Rowley.

So that was why so many Rowley marriages took place in Hamstead, John Wyrley, who was one of the magistrates appointing the Register right back at the beginning, lived there and anyone wanting to be married had to go to him. Imagine the nuisance for poor folk who had to miss a day’s work and walk a fifteen mile round trip, instead of being able to be married in the parish church – one suspects quite a lot just didn’t bother. By 1658 there is no mention of where the marriages took place and by 1659 it seems that some marriages were happening in churches again, but it isn’t absolutely clear. 

Unfortunately for family historians, and probably for all the reasons mentioned above, the new secular system was not a success. It is not clear whether proper records were not kept or whether these were lost in the upheavals but many places have gaps in their registers around this time – it is known in genealogical circles as the ‘Commonwealth Gap’.

But after the Restoration of the Monarchy, in 1660, these regulations were revoked and responsibility for records reverted to the church.  The legitimacy of all marriages by Justices was confirmed by the Government so that children of these marriages were not deemed illegitimate.  However, what of the children born to couples who had not been married at all or where there was no record of the marriage, as with my Richard Hunt and Elizabeth Johnson? And apparently, some of the newly restored Clergy refused to recognise the circumstances or perhaps the marriages and any children born of that marriage were called by their mother’s name, alias their father’s name. Hence my Johnson, alias Hunts. Imagine how those fathers must have felt, not being allowed to give their name to their own children (almost like a mother who takes her husband’s name on marriage, even now!). I suspect that is why the aliases continued for so long, it was the only way to keep the paternal name in use. There were still Johnson Hunts in the parish many years later. No wonder the Puritans came to be so disliked!

So if you have an alias in your family at around this date, this is probably the reason – the Commonwealth Gap and the problems caused by a remote government imposing demanding new rules without any apparent understanding of the problems this would cause for poor people. Plus ca change, you might think, I couldn’t possibly comment…