Parish register burials annotation query

[Missange]

I have been searching Marden, Kent parish registers from the 1600-1700s and have come across quite a few burial entries which end with the word "aff." followed by a number. On googling this I found mention of it in a Wikipedia article about the priest John Disney (1677-1729/30) which said: 'The entry for his death in the parish registers is followed by the abbreviation "Aff." This was in accordance with the law passed in 1678, which demanded an affidavit that the bodies had been buried in woollen shrouds." What I am not sure of is the number that follows the "aff." Perhaps it is just the affidavit number. Does anyone know? Thank you.

Angela.

[Missange]

I notice this post has been moved, to under the Kent heading, but I am not sure the 1678 law which demanded affidavits in relation to burial shrouds was specific to Kent: this "aff." annotation may appear in other burial registers around the country also?

Anyway, having studied further, I believe the number following the "aff." may refer to the date of the affidavit: it appears that if a burial took place on e.g. the 12th of the month, it will say "aff. 12" or "aff. 13." One burial took place on 31 March, and the entry was followed by "aff. April 7."

But then an entry for a burial on 25 December was followed by "aff. 19" with no month (January?) shown, so I can't be certain.

If anyone knows any more about this I'd be very interested to hear. Thank you.

Angela.

[Linda_J]

Hi Angela
I have seen several affidavit annotations in many Kent parishes but I believe it was a requirement for all English burials and not just Kent.
I noted that some parishes kept a separate register of affidavit receipts as well as the actual burial register. So a burial might appear twice in the registers with one date being the actual burial and the other the date the affidavit was received.
Linda

[stanmapstone]

The Burial in Wool Acts 1667 and 1678, was legislation intended to promote the wool trade, requiring that corpses should be buried in wool. Initially the officiating priest was required to certify that a deceased person had been 'buried in wool' and later, relatives of the deceased had to swear an affidavit within eight days of a 'woollen burial.' This was recorded in the registers. Failure to comply resulted in a fine of 5GBP which was levied on both the estate of the deceased and on those associated with the burial. The acts were repealed in 1814.
The 1678 Act stated that'.....no corpse of any person (except those who shall die of the plague), shall be buried in any shirt, shift, sheet or shroud or anything whatsoever, made or mingled with flax, hemp, silk, hair, gold or silver, or in any stuff or thing other than what is made from sheep's wool only....'
If someone was buried in linen an informer was entitled to half the fine. In consequence of half the fine going to the informant, the relatives of the deceased usually arranged that a relation or dependent should "inform" and thus secure the reward for the family.

Stan

[Missange]

This is fascinating; thank you very much, Stan. It explains why the annotation appeared only through a certain period of burial records, also that the number would most probably be the date on which the relatives of the deceased swore their affidavit.

How interesting that legislation motivated by the country's economy had such a big impact on what was essentially a religious rite. I guess there was no other way for the government to "reach" the people except through the church.

Since your post I have discovered another thread, under the Common Room, headed "Buried in Woollen," where researchers have discussed other examples of this.

Angela.

[veeblevort]

I have read, but not found an example, that people sometimes directed
in their wills which person was to report the offence. This was by way of
being a legacy, since the informant received half the fine.

vv.

[Missange]

I noted that some parishes kept a separate register of affidavit receipts as well as the actual burial register. So a burial might appear twice in the registers with one date being the actual burial and the other the date the affidavit was received.
Linda

Hi Linda, thanks for replying. Sorry, I had missed your message because we'd been moved, but now we appear to be back again!  I do recall seeing "double" entries many years ago, in the actual registers rather than in online (or CD) transcripts. They didn't appear for any of the names I was looking for at the time, so I didn't seek to ask why - and it would have been difficult back then to find someone to ask; now we have this site where everyone can share their experiences & knowledge (wish I'd found it sooner!). 

Angela.

[Missange]

I have read, but not found an example, that people sometimes directed
in their wills which person was to report the offence. This was by way of
being a legacy, since the informant received half the fine.

vv.

Thanks vv - I guess if this law was in place for over 100 years families would have long worked out ways of minimising the impact. If the relatives paid the £5 fine and the designated informant got half of it back, by comparison would there be a record of how much the woollen shroud itself would have cost the family?

Angela.

[Guy Etchells]

A transcript of the 1677 Act (came into force 1 January 1678) is on my website at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1677.htm

Cheers
Guy