The Elizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial Aspects Part 1

The Elizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial Aspects.

by Sedley Lynch Ware.

PREFACE

These chapters are but part of a larger work on the Elizabethan parish designed to cover all the aspects of parish government. There is need of a comprehensive study of the parish inst.i.tutions of this period, owing to the fact that no modern work exists that in any thorough way pretends to discuss the subject. The work of Toulmin Smith was written to defend a theory, while the recent history of Mr. and Mrs. Webb deals in the main with the parish subsequent to the year 1688. The material already in print for such a study is very voluminous, the acc.u.mulation of texts having progressed more rapidly than the use of them by scholars.

My subject was suggested to me by Professor Vincent, to whom as well as to Professor Andrews I am indebted for advice and a.s.sistance throughout this work. In England I have to thank Messrs. Sidney Webb, Hubert Hall and George Unwin, of the London School of Economics, for reading ma.n.u.script and suggesting improvements. For similar help and for reference to new material my acknowledgments are due to Mr. C.H.

Firth, Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford, and to Mr. C.R.L.

Fletcher, of Magdalen College. At the British Museum I found the officials most courteous, while the librarians of the Peabody Inst.i.tute, Baltimore, have given me every aid in their power.

CHAPTER I.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT OF THE PARISH.

The ecclesiastical administration of the English parish from the period of the Reformation down to the outbreak of the great Civil War is a subject which has been much neglected by historians of local inst.i.tutions. Yet during the reign of Elizabeth, at least, the church courts took as large a share in parish government as did the justices of the peace. Not only were there many obligations enforced by the ordinaries which today would be purely civil in character, but to contemporaries the maintenance of the church fabric and furniture appeared every whit as important as the repairing of roads and bridges; while the obligation to attend church and receive communion was on a par with that to attend musters, but with this difference, that the former requirement affected all alike, while the latter applied to comparatively few of the parishioners.

In the theory of the times, indeed, every member of the commonwealth was also a member of the Church of England, and conversely. Allegiance to both was, according to the simile of the Elizabethan divine, in its nature as indistinguishable as are the sides of a triangle, of which any line indifferently may form a side or a base according to the angle of approach of the observer[1]. The Queen was head of the commonwealth ecclesiastical as well as of the commonwealth civil, and as well apprized of her spiritual as of her temporal judges[2]. For both sets of judges equally Parliament legislated, or sanctioned legislation. Sometimes, in fact, it became a mere matter of expediency whether a court Christian or a common law tribunal should be charged with the enforcement of legislation on parochial matters. Thus the provisions of the Rubric of the Book of Common Prayer were enforced by the justices as well as by the ordinaries. Again, secular and ecclesiastical judges had concurrent jurisdiction over church attendance, and--at any rate between 1572 and 1597[3]--over the care of the parish poor. Finally, it must not be supposed that the men who actually sat as judges in the archdeacon's or the bishop's court were necessarily in orders. In point of fact a large proportion, perhaps a large majority of them, were laymen, since the act of Henry VIII in 1545 permitted married civilians to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[4]

In the treatment of our subject the plan we shall follow is, first, to make some preliminary observations as to the times, places and modes of holding the church courts; second, with the aid of ill.u.s.trations drawn from the act-books of these courts, to show how their judicial administration was exercised over the parish, either through the medium of the parish officers or directly upon the parishioners themselves; third, to a.n.a.lyze the means at the command of the ecclesiastical judges to enforce their decrees; and, finally, to point out that from its very nature the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction was liable to abuses, and must at all times have proved unpopular.

Speaking generally (for the jurisdictions called "peculiars" formed exceptions), England was divided for the purposes of local ecclesiastical administration and discipline into archdeaconries, each comprising a varying number of parishes. Twice a year as a rule the archdeacon, or his official in his place, held a visitation or kept a general court (the two terms being synonymous) in the church of some market town--not always the same--of the archdeaconry. The usual times for these visitations were Easter and Michaelmas. The bishops also commonly held visitations in person, or by vicars-general or chancellors, once every third year throughout their dioceses. Yet at the semiannual visitations of the archdeacon as well as at the triennial visitations of the bishop, the mode of procedure, the cla.s.s of offences, the parish officers summoned, the discipline exercised--all were the same, the bishop's court being simply subst.i.tuted for the time being for that of the archdeacon.

There were other visitations: those of the Queen's High Commissioners, and those of the Metropolitan. There were a very great number of other courts, but for the purposes of the every-day ecclesiastical governance of the parish the two cla.s.ses of courts or visitations above mentioned are all that need concern us. It is, however, important to state, that while churchwardens and sidemen were _compelled_ to attend the two general courts of the archdeacon (and of course the bishop's court) and to write out on each occasion formal lists of offenders and offences ("presentments" or "detections") these parish officers might also at any time make _voluntary_ presentments to the archdeacons. Those functionaries, in fact, seem to have held sittings for the transaction of current business, or of matters which could not be terminated at the visitation, every month, or even every three weeks. Others may have sat (as we should say of a common-law judge) in chambers.[5] Before each general visitation an apparitor or summoner of the court went about and gave warning to the churchwardens of some half-dozen parishes, more or less, to be in attendance with other parish officers on a day fixed in some church centrally located in respect of the parishes selected for that day's visitation.

The church of each parish was, indeed, not only its place for worship, but also the seat and centre for the transaction of all business concerning the parish. In it, according to law, the minister had to read aloud from time to time articles of inquiry founded on the Queen's or the diocesan's injunctions, and to admonish wardens and sidemen to present offences under these articles at the next visitation.[6] In it also he gave monition for the annual choice of collectors for the poor;[7] warning for the yearly perambulation of the parish bounds;[8] and public announcement of the six certain days on which each year every parishioner had to attend in person or send wain and men for the repair of highways.[9] In the parish church also proclamation had to be made of estrays before the beasts could be legally seized and impounded.[10] Here, too, school-masters often taught their pupils[11]--unless, indeed, the parish possessed a separate school-house. Here, in the vestry, the parish armor was frequently kept, and sometimes the parish powder barrels were deposited;[12] here too, occasionally, country parsons stored their wool or grain.[13]

Finally, in the parish church a.s.sembled vestries for the holding of accounts, the making of rates and the election of officers. Overseers of the poor held their monthly meetings here. Occasionally the neighboring justices of the peace met here to take the overseers'

accounts or to transact other business;[14] and in the church also might be held coroners' inquests over dead bodies.[15] Last, but not least in importance, in the churches of the market towns the archdeacon made his visitations and held his court; and on these occasions the sacred edifice rang with the unseemly squabbles of the proctors, the accusations of the wardens and sidemen or of the apparitor, and the recriminations of the accused--in short, the church was turned for the time being into a moral police court, where all the parish scandal was carefully gone over and ventilated.[16]

The ecclesiastical courts carried on their judicial administration of the parish largely, of course, through the medium of the officers of the parish. These were the churchwardens, the sidemen and the inc.u.mbent, whether rector, vicar or curate.[17]

First in importance were the churchwardens. Though legislation throughout the time of Elizabeth was ever adding to their functions duties purely civil in their nature, and though they themselves were more and more subjected to the control of the justices of the peace, nevertheless it is true to say that to the end of the reign the office of churchwarden is one mainly appertaining to the jurisdiction and supervision of the courts Christian.

The doctrine of the courts that churchwardens were merely civil officers belongs to a later period.[18]

After a churchwarden had been chosen or elected, he took the oath of office before the archdeacon. In this he swore to observe the Queen's and the bishop's injunctions, and to cause others to observe them; to present violators of the same to the sworn men (or sidemen), or to the ordinary's chancellor or official, or to the Queen's high commissioners; finally, he swore to yield up a faithful accounting to the parish of all sums that had pa.s.sed through his hands during his term of office.[19]

Before each visitation day, as has been said, the archdeacon's or the bishop's summoner went to each parish and gave warning that a court would be held in such and such a church on such and such a day.

Pending that day wardens and sidemen drew up their bills of presentment. These bills were definite answers to a series of articles of inquiry founded on the diocesan's injunctions, themselves based on the Queen's Injunctions of 1559 and on the Canons.[20] Failure to present offences was promptly punished by the judge.[21] Failure to attend court when duly warned was no less promptly followed by excommunication, and then it was an expensive matter for the wardens to get out of the official's book again.[22] But of fees and fines more hereafter.

Among the churchwardens' princ.i.p.al obligations, as laid down in the injunctions and articles they were sworn to observe, was the keeping in repair of the church fabric and its appurtenances, as well as the procuring and the maintaining in good condition of the church "furniture," a term which in the language of the time included all the necessaries for worship and the celebration of the sacraments: church linen, surplices, the communion cup, the elements themselves, bibles, prayer books, the writings of authorized commentators on the Scriptures, or the works of apologists for the Anglican Church; tables of consanguinity and other official doc.u.ments enjoined to be kept in every parish by the diocesan.[23]

The visitation act-books of the period abundantly show the processes employed by the ecclesiastical authorities in enforcing these and other duties (which will be detailed in their turn), and prove that the courts Christian were emphatically administrative as well as judicial bodies. To show these courts at work it will be necessary to give a number of ill.u.s.trative examples taken from the visitation entries. Thus the wardens of Childwall, having been presented at the visitation of the bishop of Chester, 9th October, 1592, because their church "wanteth reparac[i]on," are excommunicated for not appearing.

On a subsequent day John Whittle, who represents the wardens, informs the court that the repairs have been executed. Thereupon the wardens are absolved and the registrar erases the word "excommunicated" from the act-book.[24] At the same visitation the wardens of Aughton are presented because "there bible is not sufficient, they want the first tome of the homilies, Mr. Juells Replie and Apologie[25] [etc.]...."

The two wardens are enjoined by the judge to buy a sufficient bible and to certify to him that they have done so.

But--so careful is the supervision over parish affairs--mere certification by vicar or wardens that a certain article has been procured in obedience to a court order will not always suffice. If the thing can be produced in court the judge often orders it to be brought before him for personal inspection. Accordingly, when at the visitation of the chancellor of the bishop of Durham, the 13th March, 1578/1579, the wardens of Coniscliffe are found to "lacke 2 Salter bookes [and] one booke of the Homelies," they are admonished to certify "that they have the books detected 4th April and to bringe their boks. .h.i.ther."[26] Thus, too, the wardens of St. Michael's, Bishop Stortford, record in 1585 that they have paid 8d. "when we brought in to the court the byble and comunion booke to shewe before the comysary."[27] There is a curious entry in the same accounts some years earlier, viz.: "pd for showing [shoeing] of an horse when mr Jardfield went to london to se wether it was our byble that was lost or no and for his charges...."[28]

At the visitation held at Romford Chapel, Ess.e.x Archdeaconry, 5th September, 1578, the wardens of Dengie "broughte in theire surplice, which surplice is torne & verie indecent & uncomly, as appereth; whereupon the judge, for that theie neglected their othes, [ordered them to confess their fault and prepare] a newe surplice of holland cloth of v s. thele [the ell], conteyninge viii elles, _citra festum animarum prox_." Remembering that money was then worth ten to twelve times what it is today, this was probably considered too great a burden by the parishioners of Dengie. A pet.i.tion must have been presented to be allowed to procure a cheaper surplice, for on the 6th October following the wardens were permitted to prepare a surplice containing six ells only at the reduced price of 2s. 8d. per ell.[29]

It seems to have been the practice in the Dean of York's Peculiar for the judge to threaten the churchwardens occasionally with a fine for failure to repair their church or supply missing requisites for service by a fixed day. Thus at Dean Matthew Hutton's visitation, July, 1568, the churchyards of Hayton and of Belby were found to be insufficiently fenced. The order of the court was: "_Habent ad reparanda premissa citra festum sancti Michaelis proximum sub pena XX s_."[30]

So, too, the Thornton wardens at the same visitation are warned to repair the body of their church "betwixt this and Michlmes next upon paine of X s."[31] But as spiritual tribunals had no legal power to fine[32] or to imprison, apparently the usual penalty prescribed by the judges in case of disobedience to, or neglect of, their orders to repair or replace by a certain day, was, in the words of Bishop Barnes addressed to the churchwardens in Durham diocese, the "paynes of interdiction and suspencion [_i.e._, temporary excommunication] to be p.r.o.nounced against themselves."[33] Yet here, too, the wardens did not escape indirect amercement, for absolution from interdiction or excommunication often meant a payment of various court fees, which in many cases were by no means light. These fines the wardens put to their credit in the expense items of their accounts if they could possibly do so, and it is probable that the parish always paid them except in cases of very gross individual delinquency in office. Thus the wardens of St. Martin's, Leicester, record: "Payd to Mr.

Comyssarye whe[n] we was suspendyd for Lackynge a Byble & to hys offycers xxiij d."[34] The wardens of Melton Mowbray register: "Ffor our chargs & ma.r.s.ements at Lecest[e]r ... for yt ye Rood loft whas not takyn down & deafasyed iiij s. iiij d."[35]

In the same accounts we find some years later: "Payde to ... at the vicitacion houlden at Melton for dismissinge us oute of there bookes for not reparinge the churche iij s. ij d."[36] So, also, we read in the St. Ethelburga-within-Bishopsgate Accounts: "Paid in D[octor]

Stanhope's courte beinge p[re]sented by p[ar]son Bull aboute the gla.s.se windowes xvj d." And nine years later: "Paid for Mr Gannett and myselfe ['Humfery Jeames'] for absolution iiij s. viij d." Also: "Paid for our discharge at the courte for [from] our excomm[uni]cacon xvj d."[37]

The act-books abundantly show that ecclesiastical courts were very far from being limited to mere moral suasion or to spiritual censures.

They could never have accomplished their work so thoroughly if they had been. This point will be brought out much more clearly, it is hoped, when we come to consider excommunication as a weapon of coercion.[38] The courts fined parishioners individually[39] and they fined them collectively. What matters it that these fines were called court fees, absolution fees, commutation of penance, or by any other name? What signifies it that the proceeds could be applied only _in pios usus_? The mulcting was none the less real. On the score of bringing stubborn or careless wardens to terms through their purses, the following extract from a letter written in 1572 to the official of the archdeacon of the bishop of London is in point. The letter informs the judge that Jasper Anderkyn, a churchwarden, "hathe done nothing of that which he was apoinnted by your worshipp at Mydsomer to do, for the churche yarde lyeth to commons and all other thynkes in the churche is ondonne.... I praye you dele w[i]t[h] hym so yt he maye be a presydent for them that shall have the offyce; for they wyll but jess att itt, and saye it is b.u.t.t a mony matter: therefore lett them paye well for the penaltie whiche was sett on theire heads."

Continuing, the writer states that his reason for writing is "that you be not abewseid in youre office by there muche intreatyng for themselffes, for Jesper Anderkyn stands excommunicated."[40]

Sometimes for failure to perform the ordinary's[41] injunctions a whole parish was excommunicated or a church interdicted.[42] Thus in the Abbey Parish Church[43] Accounts we read under the year 1592 how troublesome and how costly it was "when the church was interdicted" to ride to Lichfield and there tarry several days seeking absolution. For this 20 shillings was paid, a very large sum for the time, not to mention a fee to the summoner, travelling expenses and the writing of letters on the parish's behalf.[44] The wardens of Stratton, Cornwall, had a similar experience "when the churche wardyns & the hole p[ar]ysch was exco[mu]nycatt" in 1565. Among the expense items relating to that occasion is a significant one: "ffor wyne & goodchere ffor the buschuppe ys s[er]vantt[s] ij s. viij d."[45]

So close is the supervision of the ordinary over the churchwardens, so effective the discipline of the church courts, that we seem to hear occasionally a sort of dialogue going on between judges and wardens, the former directing certain things to be executed, the latter replying and reporting from time to time that progress is being made on the work to be performed, or that the missing objects will be soon supplied. Accordingly, at the archdeacon of Canterbury's visitation in 1595, we find the wardens of St. John in Thanet (Margate) reporting: "The chancel[46] is out of repairs, for the repairing whereof some things are provided."[47] Two years later they state to the court: "For repairing of the churchyard we desire a day."[48] At the same visitation the wardens of St. Lawrence in Thanet (Ramsgate) present: "Our Church is repaired, saving that some gla.s.s by reason of the last wind be broken, the which are [sic] shortly to be amended."[49]

As a final ill.u.s.tration on this score may be adduced the report of the conscientious wardens of Kilham, Yorkshire, who certify to the judge of that peculiar, August, 1602, "that there churche walles ar in suche repaire as heretofore they have beyne. But not in suche sufficient repaire as is required by the Article[50] for that effect ministred vnto us."[51]

But the upkeep of the church and its requisites[52] was only one of the churchwardens' many tasks. They had to look to it that the people attended church regularly; that the victuallers and ale-houses received no one while service was being held or a sermon was preached; that each person was seated in his or her proper place, that each conducted himself with decorum and remained throughout the service.

Accordingly the act-books tell their interesting story of ministers on beginning service sending wardens and sidemen abroad to command men to come to church. The churchwardens and their allies have all sorts of experiences: they break in upon "exercises" or conventicles;[53] they peep in at victuallers' houses or at inns where irate hosts slam doors in their faces and give them bad words on being caught offending;[54]

they come across merrymakers dancing the morris-dance on the village green during Sunday afternoon service,[55] or they surprise men at a quiet game of cards at a neighbor's house during evening prayer.[56]

When admonished by the wardens to enter church, some merely gave contemptuous replies, such as "what prates thou?";[57] others, when the wardens approached, took to their heels and ran away.[58] Once inside the church the wardens' task was by no means ended. They had the care of placing each one in his or her seat according to degree;[59] according to s.e.x;[60] and, in case of women, according as they were old or young, married or unmarried.[61] Finally, as has been said, the wardens were expected to keep watch lest some one slip out before the service was over or the sermon ended.[62]

But while they have one eye on the congregation lest they offend, wardens and sidemen must keep another on the minister while service proceeds or the sacraments are administered, in order that the rites be duly observed and the Rubric followed. The curate of Theydon Gernon (Ess.e.x) is presented by wardens and sidemen "_quia non fecit suam diligentiam in dicendo preces_, viz. the communion and Litany";[63]

while the rector of East Hanningfield in the same archdeaconry is not only complained of to the ordinary for not maintaining the book of articles, and not using the cross in baptism, but he is also indicted on the same occasion for not praying for the Queen "accordinge to hir injunctions, viz. he leaveth out of hir stile the kingdome of Fraunce."[64] The court's order was that the rector should acknowledge his error on the following Sunday "_coram gardianis_." The wardens of Wilton, Yorkshire, report to the commissary of the Dean of York that their curate recites divine service "very orderlie," but not at a fit time, for he holds service at eight in the morning and two in the afternoon.[65] Finally, the rector of Pitsea is complained against to the archdeacon of Ess.e.x for "that he is unsufficient to serve the cure ine that theie are not edified by him...."[66]

If the parson neglected his duties it was inc.u.mbent upon the wardens to exhort him to perform them.[67] When at the visitation of the bishop of Chester in 1592 it was found that there was no surplice at Bolton Church, Manchester Deanery, not only did the judge admonish one of the Bolton wardens to buy the surplice, but he was instructed "to offer hit to thee Vicar at the time of ministering the sacraments, and to certify of his wearing or refusing of hit before the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord next."[68]

By virtue of searching articles of inquiry administered to them,[69]

such as, Is your vicar a double-beneficed man, and, if so, is he lawfully dispensated? Does he keep hospitality?

If non-resident does he give the fortieth part to the poor? Does your minister wear a surplice at the appointed times, yea or no? Does he use the cross in baptism and the ring in marriage?[70] Does your schoolmaster teach without licence of his ordinary under seal, or no?

Do you know any person excommunicate in your parish who repairs to church? Do you know anyone ordered by law to do penance, or excommunicate for not doing the same, who still continues unreformed?--by virtue of this strict questioning by the ordinary put to them in written articles before each visitation, church wardens, and their coadjutors, the sworn men or sidemen, were compelled to exercise a continual supervision over their minister's conduct as well as over that of the parishioners generally. This fact, coupled with the circ.u.mstance that they were themselves liable to be reported to the court and punished if they failed to indict, accounts for the cautious presentments made by these Elizabethan wardens.

Those of Great Witchingham, Norfolk, for instance, inform the chancellor that their parson "holdeth two benefices, but whether lawfully dispensated they know not," and they add that a schoolmaster in their parish "teacheth publicly, but whether licenced or not they know not."[71] The wardens of Ellerburn, Yorkshire, present Jane Gryme for fornication, and add "but whether the curate did churche hir or no they cannot say."[72] And the following year they bring to the court's knowledge "that their vicar ... is not resident upon his vicaredg, but what he bestoweth upon the poore they know not."[73] Lastly, the very prudent wardens of Pickering in the same peculiar bring in their presentment in this fashion: "_Qui dic.u.n.t et presentant_ there vicar for that he for the moste parte, but not alwaies dothe weare a surplesse in tyme of dyvyne service. They present there vicar for that they ar vncerteyne whether his wif[e] was commended vnto him by justices of peace, nor whether he was licenced to marrye hir according to hir Maiestie's iniuncions."[74] The almost unseemly interest here displayed by the wardens in their vicar's matrimonial relations is explained by the provisions of article xxix of the Queen's Injunctions of 1559, which ordain that no priest or deacon shall wed any woman without the bishop's licence and the advice and allowance of two neighboring justices of the peace first obtained.

Other parish obligations enforced by the courts Christian through the churchwardens were the keeping of annual perambulations (or, as we should say today, beating the bounds of the parish) by parson, wardens and certain of the substantial men of the parish, in the second week before Whit-Sunday ("Rogation Week");[75] the exhibiting to the official of the parish register, or the putting in of copies of it once a year at Easter;[76] the choosing in conjunction with the parson of collectors for the poor up to 1597, in most parishes at any rate;[77] the levying of the 12d. fine on all those who absented themselves from service;[78] the putting down of all "superst.i.tious"

rites in the parish, such as the carrying of banners in perambulation week or the wearing of surplices on such occasions;[79] the ringing of the church bells on Hallowe'en, or on the eve of All Souls; excessive tolling of bells at funerals,[80] etc.

From the point of view of their fellow-parishioners, no doubt, the most important function of the wardens was that of administering the parish finances. This subject will be considered at length in the chapter which follows, but the fact that the spiritual courts enforced the levying of rates for church repair, etc., through the wardens, as well as an accounting to the parish of all monies received or disbursed, concerns us here. When the Ealing wardens were "detected"

to the chancellor of the bishop of London because they had no pulpit-cloth, no poor-box, nor the Paraphrases of Erasmus, they appeared and declared in court that they had not provided these things "nor can do it, for that there is no churche stock wherewith to do it." Hereupon they were admonished that the judge's pleasure was that they should procure Mr. Fleetwood and Mr. Knight (evidently two prominent parishioners) to make an a.s.sessment on the parish in order to purchase these articles, and further that they (the wardens) should certify to the court at a later day fixed that the rate had been laid and the missing requisites bought, unless, indeed, some refused to pay, in which case their names should be handed into court.[81] So, again, when rector and wardens of Sutton were presented in the same court for letting their church go to ruin, they protested that the reason was that 40 "will skant repayre it, and that so mutch cannot be levied of all the land in the p[ar]ishe." But this excuse was not for a moment admitted, and they were warned to appear in the next consistory court to take out a warrant for the a.s.sessment of the lands.[82]

Though the wardens did not themselves in practice always make the rate directed by the archdeacon, yet they were held responsible for its making. So true was this that if, after a duly called parish meeting for the purpose of laying the rate in obedience to the archdeacon's orders, no parishioners appear, then, in the words of the archdeacon's official to the wardens of Ramsden Bellhouse (Ess.e.x): "if the inhabitants of the said p[ar]ish will not join with the said church wardens &c., that then the said churchwardens shall themselves make a rate for the leveinge of the said charges [etc.] ..."[83]