in the same period, with the highest single-year totals reached in1765 (46),1717
(43), and 1725 (30).27 Essex, a Tidewater county across the Rappahannock from
Richmond, witnessed similar grand jury activity. The extraordinary present-
ment of fifty-six persons in1772 might well reflect the   peculiar circumstances 
of a Baptist eruption in the region.28 But if so, it would only mean that Essex
County was adapting to new situations a longstanding practice. In a period of
sixty-four years there were 583 Essex presentments (an average of 9 per year)
for neglect of attendance.29
Prosecutions were not limited to the Northern Neck. Princess Anne
County, fronting on the Atlantic to the south of Chesapeake Bay, also system-
atically pursued nonchurchgoers: 65 (46 men and19 women) in the1710s; 60 (41
men and19 women) in the1720s;101 (64 men and 37 women) in the1730s;125 (78
men and 47 women) in the 1740s; 44 (32 men and 12 women) in the 1750s; 77
(44 men and 33 women) in the 1760s; and 11 (10 men and 1 woman) between 1770
and 1775 for a total of 483 presentments in sixty-four years (an annual average
of between seven and eight).30
Virtually every county for which court records are extant recorded non-
attendance presentments at least 3,685 in forty-one counties between 1690
and 1775.31 But practice did vary greatly from county to county. Eighty-six
percent (3,151) of identified presentments were made in the older Tidewater
counties. Of the latter the Northern Neck alone accounted for 1,690 (46 per-
cent).32 Accomack and Northampton Counties on the Eastern Shore provide
a stark contrast a handful of 27 presentments (less than 1 percent) for the
entire period.33
Piedmont counties further complicate understanding. Between 1724 and
1772 Spotsylvania County grand juries charged ninety-five persons on this
count, but sixty-three of the total were presented between 1724 and 1730, the
years immediately following the organization of the county. Further present-
ments numbering from two to seven persons annually marked the years from
the mid-1730s to the mid-1740s. No actions were recorded from1744 until1761,
when five persons were charged. Another decade elapsed before the attendance
law was again applied against a single parishioner in 1771 and two in 1772.34
Spotsylvania s practice is puzzling. Decisive early enforcement of attendance,
it might be argued, may have made further action unnecessary. Early experi-
ence, on the other hand, may have indicated the futility of trying to enforce the
law; local authorities may have thrown in the towel in the face of rapid popu-
lation growth and mobility, increasing ethnic and religious diversity, practical
difficulties determining compliance, or such a widespread nonattendance as
.
246 parishioners