ABSTRACT
The English Reformation is often assumed to have brought about the beginning of the end for the ecclesiastical courts. Such an assumption draws on traditional criticisms of the church courts as unpopular and ineffective, modern notions that they were at odds with the major social and political developments of the post-Reformation period, and also the understanding that their effectiveness decreased dramatically in the aftermath of the Reformation.1 Despite seeing a dramatic increase in their business from the middle of the sixteenth century, the English ecclesiastical courts were undoubtedly weakened by the Reformation and they reached the limits of their development in the succeeding decades.2 Although the courts became more closely integrated into the Tudor administrative machinery, and were more closely identified with the crown after the Reformation, their increased workload was not supported by any increased power or indeed strengthening of the existing mechanisms. This is evident in the Diocese of York. The extent to which the religious laws and injunctions issued by the successive Tudor governments were implemented within the parishes of the diocese of York was undoubtedly influenced by the religious views of the court officials. Arguably, as the Reformation progressed, the spiritual sanctions imposed by the ecclesiastical courts lost their efficacy as people grew hostile or indifferent to the established Church. Many puritans came to see the courts as relics of the Catholic past and believed
they were unsuitable instruments for Godly Reformation.3 The Court of High Commission established in the Northern Province in 1561 had the ability to impose fines, bonds and sentences of imprisonment. However, only a small proportion of all the cases dealt with by the ecclesiastical administrative machinery of the north went before the High Commission and its impact was correspondingly limited.4
