ABUSES.
Even a book like this, which professes to deal with the humbler details of
parochial life, rather than with the greater matters of ecclesiastical
history, would be defective if it failed to take some note of the
administrative abuses against which all Europe complained for centuries,
and tried in vain to get them amended in the three great Councils at Pisa,
Constance, and Basle. We shall treat of them very briefly, and chiefly in
their relation to our special subject.
It was soon found that the new relations of the Church of England to the
patriarchal authority of the See of Rome, which had been a consequence of
the Norman Conquest, had opened the door to a flood of evils which had not
been foreseen. We can only enumerate them without going into their
history.
* * * * *
The claim of the popes to present to all ecclesiastical benefices was
opposed by the king with respect to the rights of the Crown to the
nomination to bishoprics and abbacies, and on the part of the nobles and
gentry with respect to their patronage; but by partial encroachments the
popes did in fact, from time to time, nominate to many bishoprics, and
dignities, and to a considerable number of parochial benefices. Curiously
enough, the most important of these invasions of the rights of others are
the most capable of extenuation. The kings, as we shall presently have
occasion to say, at length used their power of practical nomination to
bishoprics, not to give the Church the best Churchmen as bishops, but to
pay for the services of their ministers of State with the rank and
revenues of bishoprics. Their nomination at all was an infringement of the
constitutional liberties of the Church, and their use of their power of
practical nomination in this way was a grievous wrong. In the reigns of
John and Henry III., when the popes took upon themselves to nominate to
sees, they were careful to select Churchmen of learning and character, who
contrasted favourably in the eyes of the nation with the king’s nominees
thus superseded. In the reign of Edward I., the king and the pope played
into one another’s hands, the king did not oppose the Papal nomination,
but the pope readily nominated men whom the king recommended. Later kings
successfully maintained their right of nomination against the popes, but
the pious and feeble Henry VI. again yielded to papal encroachments.
The _intrusion_ by the pope _of foreigners_, chiefly Italians, into
English benefices was a great practical grievance while it lasted, _i.e._
during part of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Bishop Grostete
estimated that the revenues of the alien clerks, whom Innocent IV. had
planted in England, equalled seventy thousand marks, while the king’s
revenue was not more than a third of that sum. This abuse was so unpopular
that it provoked a serious resistance. About 1230, a secret association,
countenanced, it was said, by men of position, wrote to bishops and
chapters, warning them not to encourage these encroachments, and to the
monks, who farmed the benefices of the aliens, not to pay them their rent.
The tithe barns of the alien rectors were plundered, and the contents sold
or given to the poor, and some of the men themselves were seized and put
to ransom. In the reign of Richard II. (1379), an Act of Parliament
forbade any to farm the benefice of an alien, or to send money out of the
realm for such farm, under the penalties of the Statute of Provisors. But
the evil was checked by the Acts of Provisors (1350) and Premunire (1353),
and these encroachments of the Roman See were extinguished by the end of
the fourteenth century.
* * * * *
A great grievance inflicted by the Crown upon the Church was _the use of
Church patronage_ for the payment of the political, diplomatic, judicial,
and other officers of the civil administration. The result was that a
large number of the greatest offices of the Church were served by deputy;
the details of diocesan work were done by suffragans, archdeacons
performed their duties by officials, rectors by parish chaplains. It was
inevitable that the work should be imperfectly done; rank and wealth are
attached to Church benefices in order to enhance the dignity and influence
of the holders and their power of fulfilling the duties of their office,
and a _locum tenens_, though he were intrinsically as able a man, can
never fulfil the place or do the work of the real holder of the office.
It was Henry II. who adopted it as a normal practice, and not without
protest. When this king asked Bishop St. Hugh of Lincoln for a prebend for
one of his courtiers, the bishop replied: “Ecclesiastical benefices are
not for courtiers, but for ecclesiastics. Those who hold them must serve
not the palace or the treasury, but the altar. The king has wherewithal to
compensate those who work for him and fight his battles. Let him allow
those who serve the King of kings to enjoy their fitting remuneration, and
not to be deprived of it.” When King Richard, through the Archbishop of
Canterbury, desired Bishop Hugh to send him a list of twelve of his canons
to be employed in his affairs, Hugh replied that “he had often prohibited
his clerks from intermeddling in secular affairs, and he certainly was not
going to encourage such a thing now. It was quite enough to have
archbishops forgetting their sacred calling.” All the canons had not the
courage of their bishop, or were ambitious of court appointments, for some
of them went off to the king at Fontevrault without the bishop’s leave;
but all were relieved from their difficulty by the king’s death.[332]
* * * * *
A kindred evil was that of _pluralities_, since the holder of several
benefices must needs put a _locum tenens_ into all of them save one, with
the disadvantages just mentioned. John Mansel, Henry III.’s chancellor, is
said by Matthew Paris to have held the revenues of seven hundred
benefices, amounting to four thousand marks.
The popes in the thirteenth century exerted their authority to put an end
to the abuse, but met with a strenuous resistance. At the Council of
London, 1237, under Otho, when the Canon against pluralists of the recent
Lateran Council was proposed to be adopted, Walter de Cantilupe, Bishop of
Worcester, warned the Legate that the attempt to impose it on the English
clergy would be resisted by force by the young men who were bold and
daring, and not without the approbation of some of their elders;[333] and
the question was postponed. But the popes exercised pressure by refusing
to confirm the elections to bishoprics of men who were pluralists, and the
Archbishops[334] gave their authority to the cause of reform. In time the
evil was lessened; there were fewer benefices held in plurality, and those
who held them were required to obtain a dispensation, and to provide in
the benefices on which they did not reside proper substitutes with a
sufficient provision for themselves, and for the hospitalities and
charities of the benefices.
We have had occasion to make several allusions to the _farming of
benefices_; this was another abuse which may require a few words of
explanation. The incumbent for a definite annual payment put the
emoluments of his benefice into the hands of another to make what he could
out of it. The monks at one time were great farmers of benefices. The evil
of it was that the farmer, having no responsibility towards or interest in
the people, was tempted to be strict in exacting his dues, and deaf to
claims of charity. For example, in 1532 the Convent of Merton granted a
lease of the rectory of Kingston-on-Thames with all the profits and the
presentation to the vicarage for twenty-one years.[335]
A danger connected with this farming of benefices for a long term of
years, which is not apparent at first sight, is indicated in the following
instance. In 1267, Bishop Richard of Gravesend made Dunstable Priory give
up the Church of Lidlington; they had farmed it from an absentee rector,
and on his death they seem to have assumed the rectorial rights.[336]
* * * * *
Among the greatest and most widespread abuses, was that of admitting to
benefices men who were not qualified to fulfil the duties of the office.
This was the case more or less with ecclesiastical benefices from
bishoprics downwards; but it was specially the case with rectories.
This abuse, of course, arose from the fact that in the majority of cases
the patronage of the rectory was in the hands of the lord of the manor,
the descendant, or at least the representative, of the original donor of
the benefice, and was usually regarded as a natural provision for one of
the younger sons of the family. It was, perhaps, not in theory so bad an
arrangement as some people think it. In those feudal times the lord of the
manor was the petty king of all the people, and if one of his sons had the
personal qualifications, perhaps no other priest could fulfil the duties
of rector of the parish with equal advantages. The relations of squire and
parson in a country village are a little difficult, and a son of the
ruling family could exercise an influence in the parish which a stranger
could not; he could mediate between the lord and the people with greater
influence on both sides than a stranger; and the people would generally
pay a loyal regard to him which they would not to any other priest.
The great abuse was that so many of these rectors remained in minor
orders, exercising perhaps a good influence, fulfilling the hospitalities
and charities of their office, but leaving its spiritual duties to be
performed by a parish chaplain. This did not seem so objectionable to them
as it does to us, because they were under the influence of the feudal
ideas, which tended to make all offices hereditary, and to consider that
the holders of office did all that was required of them if they provided
that the duties of the office were satisfactorily performed by
subordinates.
The law made a man who had received the lowest of the minor orders capable
of holding a benefice;[337] the bishops, therefore, could not refuse the
patron’s nomination in such cases, and the bishops’ registers contain
records of the institution of young men, who were sometimes only acolytes,
or even clerks; they had to do the best they could for the well-being of
both the young rectors and their parishes, with some consideration for the
rights of patrons and the opinion of the age. In very many cases the newly
instituted rector received at once a licence of non-residence for a year,
that he might study, generally, or in Oxford or Paris specifically. The
leave of non-residence is sometimes extended to two or three years, or
renewed from time to time. Sometimes it is stipulated that the rector
shall take orders as sub-deacon within the year, or that he shall pass
through all the orders up to priest’s within the time of non-residence
allowed. There is frequently further licence given to put the benefice to
farm, with a stipulation for a donation to the poor of the parish, or the
fabric of the church, or the like.[338]
William, the son of Gilbert FitzStephen, presented to the parish of
Kentisbury, was refused by Bishop Stapledon on the ground that he was too
illiterate for such a charge. The influence of powerful friends was
brought to bear upon the bishop, and he conceded thus far--that the young
man should go to school (_scolas grammaticales_), and if, after awhile, he
could admit him with a good conscience, he would do so, and would not, in
the mean time, take advantage of the law which made the nomination lapse
to himself at the end of six months. But it does not appear in the
Register that William FitzStephen was ever instituted; and the institution
of John de Wyke, priest, in the following year, by the patron, indicates
that the illiterate young man abandoned the idea of becoming Rector of
Kentisbury, and perhaps did service, such as he was qualified to perform
satisfactorily, under his father’s banner in the field. Sometimes the
bishop dealt with a case more peremptorily. Bishop Grostete refused a
presentee whom he described as “a boy still in his Ovid.” The same bishop
refused to admit to a benefice a man presented by the Chancellor of York,
on the ground that he was almost illiterate; and sends the young man’s
examination papers that the chancellor may judge for himself. He refused
to institute W. de Grana on the presentation of W. Raleigh, the treasurer
of Exeter, because of his youth and ignorance; but that Raleigh may not
think him ungrateful, he promises to give his nominee a pension of ten
marks a year till he gets a better benefice. In answer to a request of the
Legate Otho to institute Thomas, a son of Earl Ferrers, to a benefice, he
begs to be excused; but if the matter is pressed, he begs that a vicar may
be appointed to the parish, and that Thomas may have some provision out of
the living without cure of souls.[339] In 1530, Bishop Holbeach of Lincoln
rejected a Canon of Ronton nominated to the Vicarage of Seighford as
_indoctus et indignus_. Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford (1283-1316),
refused to institute a boy of sixteen, of the name of Baskerville, to the
Vicarage of Weobley, on the presentation of the Prior and Canons of
Llanthony, though pressed by a powerful relative of the boy.
In 1283, in the time of Bishop Quivil of Exeter, Barthol le Seneschal,
who had been presented to the Rectory of St. Erme, was found to be not
in Holy Orders, and not old enough to be ordained; but both
difficulties were evaded, for, though not at once instituted as
rector, “the sequestration and custody of the church were committed to
him,” and so he was enabled to act as rector in the management of
affairs, and to receive the income, and to appoint a vicar or chaplain
to do the spiritual work of the parish.[340]
Robert de Umfrenville, clerk, was instituted in 1317 by Bishop
Stapledon of Exeter, on the presentation of Henry de Umfrenville--very
likely his father--to the rectory of Lapford; but the bishop required,
under a penalty of a hundred shillings, that he should go to Grammar
School, and should come to the bishop at least once a-year, that the
bishop might know what progress he was making. The young man would
seem not to have given himself to study, and, at the end of three
years, to have found the position untenable, for he sent in his
resignation by letter, dated June, 1320.
In 1317, a rector of Bath and Wells diocese, on his institution, was
bidden to keep a good chaplain to teach him, since he was but
indifferently learned. As he was the presentee of the king, the bishop
had special inducement to be lenient.[341]
But the refusals of the bishops to admit men in minor orders were very
exceptional. A large proportion of the rectories were occupied by such
men. The canons of the diocesan synods show that the ecclesiastical
authorities were continually urging them to proceed to priest’s orders;
but the bishops had no power to compel them to do so;[342] and the
parochial lists of incumbents bear witness that some of the rectories were
occupied by men in minor orders in almost unbroken succession.
Another kindred evil was that of simple _absenteeism_, not because the
rector was engaged in other occupations elsewhere, or that he was a
pluralist, and could not be everywhere, but simply because he preferred to
be somewhere else than in his parish. He put his benefice to farm,
appointed a parish chaplain, and departed. He needed a licence of
non-residence, if absent for any lengthy period. We have glimpses of the
reasons for which licences of non-residence were sometimes given. The
commonest is for leisure to attend schools, which we shall have to speak
of at length presently. Another reason is that the licensee may go on
pilgrimage; for example, in 1225, Archbishop Gray gives a licence to
Godfred, vicar of St. Felix, who has taken the cross, to put his benefice
to farm for three years during his visit to the Holy Land. Bishop
Grandisson of Exeter gives a licence of non-residence to Sir Ralph
Kerneyke, Rector of St. Erme, till 2 February 1331-2, to visit the
thresholds of St. James in Galicia and the Court of Rome, and then without
any delay to return to his church. In 1329, Ady de Tavistock, Rector of
St. Gerundus, Cornwall, had a licence to make a pilgrimage to Rome;[343]
and similar cases occur in other bishops’ registers. Frequently the
absence is said to be granted at the request of so-and-so,[344] very
likely the patron of the parish, who thus confirms the reasons which the
incumbent has alleged, and signifies his consent to his parson’s absence.
The patron had sometimes a personal reason for his action in the
matter.[345] For example, Gerard Myghell (or Mychell), Rector of Theydon
Garnon, Essex, in 1507 put his rectory to farm for three years to Sir
William Hyll, chaplain, and Francis Hamden, esquire, in order to become
tutor to John Hamden during his travels on the Continent of Europe. It
appears that Francis Hamden was the squire of the parish, and John was his
son, and probably Sir William Hyll, chaplain, was the priest who was to
take charge of the parish during the rector’s absence, which seems a very
good choice of trustees. The rector lets to farm, all his church and
parsonage with all manor of tithes, fruits, profits, rights, commodities,
and emoluments, whatsoever, with all the lands, pastures, leases, for £8 a
year; but he reserves all the whole “lochynge” [lodging] at the gate (of
the churchyard), viz. a parlour with a chimney and a larder at the end of
the said parlour, and two chambers over a study, and a wyddraughte [?
drain], perhaps to lodge his old housekeeper in during his absence. There
is still an ancient house in the churchyard which may possibly be the
lodging here mentioned. There is a letter from the rector, from Rouen,
relating how he and his pupil are getting on, and very naturally asking
for supplies of money and clothing.
* * * * *
We had occasion to deal with the subject of _slavery_ in the Saxon period,
concluding with the estimate of Sharon Turner,[346] that, of the
population of England at the end of that time, as calculated from Domesday
Book, three-quarters of the population of two millions were in a state of
slavery.
We may introduce here the statement that, although the Church all along
the ages used its influence in favour of the just treatment of the serf
population, in the spirit of St. Paul; and encouraged manumission, and set
the example; and freely gave dispensations to sons of serfs to enter into
Holy Orders and hold church benefices; yet the status of serfage was
suffered to continue among the tenants of the Church after it had almost
disappeared elsewhere.[347]
We add a few notes on the subject in mediæval times. Here is one which
tells us the value of a serf. Gregory, Abbot of Whalley, in 1309, sells
his _nativus, cum tota sequela sua, et omnibus rebus suis habitis et
habendis_, for 100_s._ sterling.[348]
In the Register of Walter Stapledon, Bishop of Exeter, is an entry under
date 1315--
Be it known to all present and future, that we, Walter, etc., have
given and granted “Magistro de la Gale, clerico, Richardum de la Gale,
filium Edwardi de la Gale, nativum nostrum, cum tota sequela sua et
omnibus catallis suis,” so that neither we nor our successors may be
able to make any claim for service from the said Richard.
It seems to be the case of granting to a clerk the freedom of a relative
who was a _nativus_ (serf).
So late as 1536, the Registers of Chichester supply an example of
manumission by Bishop Sherburne. The deed of manumission begins, as is
usual in deeds of manumission of that time, with a quotation from the
Institutes of Justinian, “Whereas at the beginning nature brought forth
all men free, and afterwards the law of nations placed certain of them
under the yoke of servitude; we believe that it is pious and meritorious
towards God to manumit them, and restore them to the benefit of pristine
liberty;” therefore the bishop emancipates Nicholas Holden, a “native and
serf,” who for many years had served him on his manor of Woodmancote and
elsewhere, from every chain, servitude, and servile condition by which he
was bound to the bishop and his cathedral, and, so far as he can, to make
him a free man.