Numberless are the surnames sprung from it. It is thus we get our ‘Ellises’ and ‘Ellices,’ our ‘Ellsons’ and ‘Ellisons,’ our ‘Elkins’ and ‘Elkinsons,’ our ‘Elcocks’ and ‘Ellcocks,’ and our ‘Ellicots,’[81] ‘Elliots,’ and ‘Elliotsons.’ In the north ‘Alis’ seems to have gained the supremacy. Thus it is we have our many ‘Allisons’ or ‘Alisons,’[82] ‘Allkins’ or ‘Alkins,’ ‘Allcocks’ or ‘Alcocks,’ and ‘Allots.’ ‘Alecot,’ as a synonym with ‘Elicot,’ I do not find to be at present existing, but as a Christian name it occurs at the same period with the above.[83] ‘Fitzellis,’ as the more aristocratic Norman form, is not yet, I believe, extinct. Thus the prophet at Carmel and the forerunner at the Jordan have made their mark upon our English nomenclature. Peter claims our attention next. When we consider how important has been the position claimed for him it is remarkable that in an age when, so far as England was concerned, this respect was more fully exacted than any other, his name should be so rarely found, rarely when we reflect what an influence the ecclesiastics of the day themselves must have had in the choice of the baptismal name, and what an interest they had in making it popular. It is to them, doubtless, we must refer the fact of its having made any mark at all, for ‘Peter’ was odious to English ears. It reminded them of a tax which was the one of all least liked, as they saw none of its fruits. It is to country records we must look for the ‘Peters’ of the time. The freer towns would none of it. Among the rude peasantry ecclesiastic control was well-nigh absolute; in the boroughs it was proportionately less. I have already quoted an instance of 133 London names where Peter is discovered but once to 35 Johns. In the Norwich Guild already mentioned, the proportion, or rather disproportion, is the same. To 128 Johns, 47 Williams, 41 Thomases, 33 Roberts, and 21 Richards, there are but 4 Peters. On the other hand, in Wiltshire, out of 588 names, we find 16 Peters to 92 Johns. This wide difference of ratio I find to be fully borne out in all other groups of early names. Thanks then to the ecclesiastics it did exist, and its relics at any rate are numerous enough. It is hence we get the shorter ‘Parr,’ ‘Piers,’ ‘Pierce,’ ‘Pears,’ ‘Pearse,’ and ‘Peers.’ It is hence with the patronymic added we get our ‘Parsons,’ ‘Pearsons,’ ‘Piersons,’ and the fuller ‘Peterson.’ It is hence once more with the pet desinences attached we get our ‘Perrins’ and ‘Perrens,’ our ‘Perrets,’ ‘Perretts,’ ‘Parrots,’ and ‘Parrets,’[84] our ‘Peterkins,’ ‘Perkins,’ ‘Parkins,’ and ‘Parkinsons,’ besides our ‘Perks’ and ‘Perkes’ innumerable.