In his brief history of deacons in the Church of England, Young seeks to show that a small but important group of men (and, much later, women) remained deacons for a variety of reasons, even though the evidence is scanty. These included failure to find a benefice and a secure income, lack of adequate education, or a career in a form of ministry that did not include the need to celebrate the eucharist, as with Oxford and Cambridge Fellows or schoolmasters. At one point there was even a deacon-schoolmaster training college, St Mark's in Chelsea, established in 1841. Many more spent much longer than the customary year – or sometimes even less – before they were ordained priest, probably for similar reasons. The author builds up his case using the limited evidence available. His main source is the multi-volume Cambridge Alumni Database which contains data for Cambridge graduates from 1560 to 1758. This reveals whether they went into the Anglican ministry, with dates of ordinations: rather than go through the whole alphabet he makes a detailed study of the letter A, and publishes the results in an appendix and an analysis in chapters i and ii. After a brief general history of the diaconate which draws on the ground-breaking work of John Collins, Young moves into a more detailed account of the Reformation period including the theology of the ordinal, as well as the various well-known deacons of the period, some of whom, such as Cuthbert Symson, suffered persecution and martyrdom. The survey continues through to the present day with particular emphasis placed on the theologies of diaconate that emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, as well as the efforts that were made to revive the diaconate as a form of ministry focused on work among the poor. Finally, he analyses the most recent work done during the brief period when women could be ordained deacon but not priest, as well as more recent reports. A brief conclusion outlines alternative futures, either with the abolition of the diaconate or with a restored distinctive diaconate. Although there are many idiosyncracies (including citing Richard Hooker from a 1723 edition by page number), and some errors (for example that a perpetual curate was a form of incumbent [p. 23]), this is a useful account of the history of a neglected office.