THE PLAGUE REACHES ENGLAND.
The plague first attacked England in the autumn of 1348. It has
already been pointed out that Northern France was suffering under the
scourge in the summer of that year, and that in August the pestilence
had visited Normandy and was found at Calais, then in possession of
the English. Probably, also, at this time, Jersey and Guernsey, with
which England was in constant communication, were decimated by the
disease. So greatly did these islands suffer that the King's taxes,
usually raised upon the fishing industries, could not be levied. "By
reason," writes the English King to John Mautravers, the Governor,
"of the mortality among the people and fishing folk of these islands,
which here as elsewhere has been so great, our rent for the fishing,
which has been yearly paid us, cannot be now obtained without the
impoverishing and excessive oppression of those fishermen still
left."[121]
Rumours of the coming scourge reached England in the early summer. On
August 17th, 1348, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Ralph of Shrewsbury,
sent letters through his diocese ordering "processions and stations
every Friday, in each collegiate, regular, and parish church, to beg
God to protect the people from the pestilence which had come from the
East into the neighbouring kingdom," and granting an indulgence of
forty days to all who, being in a state of grace, should give alms,
fast or pray, in order, if possible, to avert God's anger.[122]
The "neighbouring kingdom" spoken of by the Bishop [p072] in his
letter may be taken almost certainly to refer to France. From
Calais it is probable that the pestilence was brought into England
in certain ships conveying some who were anxious to escape from
it. Most of the contemporary accounts agree in naming the coast of
Dorsetshire as the part first infected. Thus Galfrid le Baker, a
contemporary, says "it came first to a seaport in Dorsetshire, and
then into the country, which it almost deprived of inhabitants, and
from thence it passed into Devon and Somerset to Bristol."[123] Two
or three of the chronicles, also, more particular than the rest, name
Melcombe Regis as the memorable spot where the epidemic first showed
itself in England. "In the year of our Lord 1348, about the feast
of the Translation of St. Thomas (July 7th)," writes the author of
the chronicle known as the _Eulogium Historiarum_, who was a monk
of Malmesbury at this time, "the cruel pestilence, terrible to all
future ages, came from parts over the sea to the south coast of
England, into a port called Melcombe, in Dorsetshire. This (plague)
sweeping over the southern districts, destroyed numberless people
in Dorset, Devon, and Somerset."[124] So, too, a continuation of
Trivet's chronicle, taken down to the death of Edward III. by a
canon of Bridlington, who was thus probably a contemporary of the
event, says that "the great plague came into England to the southern
districts, beginning by some (ships) putting in from the sea into a
town called Melcombe."[125]
Melcombe Regis, or Weymouth, was at that time a port of considerable
importance. In 1347-8, for example, it furnished Edward III., for his
siege of Calais, with 20 ships and 264 mariners; whilst Bristol sent
only 22 ships and 608 sailors, and even London but 25 boats and 662
men.[126] [p073] This fact is of interest, not merely as showing the
importance of Melcombe Regis as a port on the southern coast, but
as evidence actually connecting the place at this very period with
Calais, and, doubtless, with other coast towns of France. It is not
at all improbable that by the return of some of the Melcombe boats
from Calais, the epidemic may have been conveyed into the town. No
evidence is known to exist as to the mortality in the port itself;
but an item of information as to the effect of the disease in the
neighbourhood is afforded at a subsequent period. Three years after
the plague had passed the King, by his letters patent, forbade any
of the inhabitants of the island of Portland to leave their homes
there, or, indeed, to sell any of their crops out of the district,
"because," he says, "as we have learnt, the island of Portland, in
the county of Dorset, has been so depopulated in the time of the
late pestilence that the inhabitants remaining are not sufficiently
numerous to protect it against our foreign enemies."[127]
The actual date when the pestilence first showed itself in
Dorsetshire has been considered somewhat doubtful. The earliest day
suggested is that assigned by the monk of Malmesbury in his _Eulogium
Historiarum_, who names July 7th (1348) as the time when it commenced
at Melcombe Regis. The latest date is that given by Knighton, the
sub-contemporary canon of Leicester, who mentions generally that it
began in the autumn of the year 1348. One chronicle gives July 25th,
and two others August 1st, whilst another merely names August as the
month. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that its
arrival in England was apparently unknown to the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, who was then in his diocese, in the middle of August, it seems
more than likely that the terrible scourge did not make itself felt
in the West of England until after the middle of that month and not
later than its end. [p074]
The early commencement of the disease is borne out by a document
in the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. Archbishop
Strafford died on St. Bartholomew's Eve, August 23rd, 1348, and
before the end of September the Prior of Canterbury, acting with
archiepiscopal power during the vacancy, addressed a mandate to
the Bishop of London, as the Dean of the College of Bishops, to
issue directions to the suffragans of Canterbury to hold public
processions in their respective dioceses to pray God's aid against
"the mortality" which was already assuming alarming proportions.[128]
The summer and autumn of 1348 were abnormally wet in England, and
the chronicles record that from St. John the Baptist's Day (June
24th) to Christmas it rained either by night or by day with hardly an
exception. In such a season, naturally unhealthy, the sickness, of
its own nature most deadly, found every condition suitable for its
rapid development.
Starting from Melcombe Regis, the wave of contagion spread itself
very quickly over Dorset, Devon, and Somerset, with the other
counties comprised in the dioceses of Salisbury, Exeter, and Wells.
"It passed," writes Robert of Avesbury, the contemporary Registrar
of the Court of Canterbury, "most rapidly from place to place,
swiftly killing ere mid-day many who in the morning had been well,
and without respect of persons (some few rich people excepted), not
permitting those destined to die to live more than three, or at most
four, days. On the same day twenty, forty, sixty, and very often more
corpses were committed to the same grave."[129] In fact, over the
West of England during the late autumn of 1348 and the first months
of the following year the words of the old play must have had only
too true an application—
"One news straight came huddling on another
Of death, and death, and death." [p075]
In dealing with a case of this kind a first object is to control
as far as possible, by means of definite statistics, the general
and vague statements of chroniclers and other contemporary writers;
whilst in the absence of such statistics lies one of the great
difficulties in dealing with the history of the Middle Ages. Owing
partly to the troublesome and intricate nature of the subject, as
well as to the poverty of the material and the inherent dryness of
such matters, modern writers have made little advance to a more
correct knowledge of the population of European countries in those
ages. Much, however, might be done. As usual, the ecclesiastical
documents form the surest basis for any calculation, and the
episcopal registers enable us to arrive at actual numbers.
Accordingly, in the present inquiry, these registers are of the
highest importance, and it is necessary constantly to recur to them,
as they furnish the only means of arriving at any adequate knowledge
of the proportion of the population swept away by the plague.
Possibly the mortality may have been greater among ecclesiastics than
among lay persons; but only from the number of the clergy carried
off by the epidemic can an estimate be formed as to the number of
lay people who died. Accordingly, in the course of this work, the
mortality of the clergy is systematically investigated.
To understand the nature and value of the evidence thus afforded
as to the extent of the mortality, a few words of explanation are
necessary. In each diocese there was kept by the Bishop's Registrar a
list of all the institutions made to vacant benefices by the Bishop.
As a rule, not only was the name of the place and of the out-going
and the incoming incumbent, together with the date expressed, but
the reason of the vacancy was stated, whether arising from death,
exchange, or resignation. These lists, then, for the fatal period, or
the autumn of 1348 and the year 1349, afford some means of gauging
the extent of the mortality among the clergy. It must, however, be
borne in mind that these registers record only the institutions of
the actual [p076] incumbents, and take no account of the larger
body of curates and chaplains, to say nothing of the monks, canons,
and friars of a diocese. It has been calculated by a recent writer
that non-beneficed clergy more than equal in numbers the holders of
benefices, and that the total number of institutions of a diocese may
fairly be doubled in estimating the deaths of the clergy during this
epidemic.[130] These Books of Institutions, moreover, by furnishing
the dates of the appointments made to various livings, afford a means
of determining, at least approximately, the time when the plague was
rife in a district, and even, making allowances for any delay in
filling up the benefice, in any given place.
Besides the special register of each diocese a series of official
state documents, called the _Patent Rolls_, contains much evidence of
the destructive powers of the disease. On these rolls, amongst every
variety of public document, are entered royal grants, licenses, and
presentations made by the Sovereign to such vacant ecclesiastical
livings as were at the time in the royal gift. These were ordinarily—
(1) Benefices of which the King was by right the patron.
(2) Those to which he presented, as guardian of the sons of tenants
_in capite_ during their minority, and
(3) Livings to which bishops and abbots of sees and monasteries, then
vacant, ordinarily presented. At this period, 1348-9, moreover, the
royal presentations were largely augmented by the patronage attached
to the alien religious houses existing in England, the possession of
which, "by reason of his war with France," as the official phrase
runs, "the King had seized into his own hands."
The evidence of the mortality among the beneficed clergy during the
great pestilence, as witnessed by the entries on the patent rolls,
may be here briefly summarised. In 1348, in the period from January
to May, the King presented to [p077] 42 livings, and to 36 during
the following four months; so that in the eight months, immediately
before the arrival of the plague in England, the average number of
presentations monthly was below ten, the previous _yearly_ average
being hardly more than a hundred. The roll, upon which are entered
the grants and presentations from September to the close of the
year, affords conclusive proof that in the last four months of the
year 1348 death had been busy among those holding royal preferments.
Eighty-one more livings had to be filled up by the Sovereign during
that period.
The patents for 1349, in the same way, occupy three parts, or rolls.
On the first part are enrolled the presentations from January 25th
to the end of May. This large roll is a curiosity, since a very
great part of the parchment record is devoted to the entry of
Royal presentations to the vacant livings, no fewer than 249 being
recorded, as against 42 during the same period of the previous year.
The second part registers the livings filled by King Edward from
June to the middle of September, 1349, when the number reaches the
extraordinary figure of 440, as against 36 in the corresponding
period of 1348.
The third period, ending on January 24th, 1350, shows a decline in
the number, although it still stands at the considerable total of
205. Altogether, therefore, from January 25th, 1349, to the same date
in 1350, the King alone presented to 894 livings, which had become
vacant. Comparing the figures thus obtained with the normal period
of 1348 it may be said roughly that out of the 1,053 presentations,
made by King Edward in the two years, at least 800 must have been due
to the mortality caused by the great plague. This will be seen to
be sufficiently terrible when it is remembered that, even allowing
for the large number of presentations then in the hands of the King,
they would form but a very small portion of the total number of
institutions to vacant livings at this period.
The whole question of statistics in their details, as also [p078]
any special indications of the effects which followed upon the
ravages of the plague, will be dealt with in subsequent chapters in
order to interfere as little as possible with the consecutive story
of the visitation itself. Among the presentations made by the King,
in the autumn of this year, frequent mention is made of vacancies in
the diocese of Sarum, in which the county of Dorset is situated. From
October 8th, 1348, to January 10th, 1349—that is, in the space of
three months—the Crown presented to no fewer than 30 livings in the
diocese. Most of these were in the county of Dorset, and Abbotsbury
Abbey, apparently the first monastery attacked, and Bincombe rectory,
to which Edward III. presented on October 8th, 1348, were both close
to Melcombe Regis, where the plague commenced its ravages.
Judged merely by the few royal presentations it is curious to observe
how closely the epidemic in this country clung to the rivers and
water-courses. The neighbourhood of Blandford, for instance, must
have suffered severely enough during the November and December
of 1348, the two Winterbournes and Spettisbury, together with
Blandford—all four close on the river Stour—losing their incumbents.
To Spettisbury, indeed, the King presented thrice in a very short
space of time. Even before John le Spencer, of Grimsby, to whom the
living was granted on December 7th, could have been installed in his
cure—in fact, probably even before the grant was made—he was dead,
for on December 10th, only three days later, another letter patent
is issued, upon the death of Spencer, to Adam de Carleton. Adam in
his turn did not hold the benefice long, and on January 4th, 1349,
Robert de Hoveden was appointed in his place. Nor are these the only
instances, even among the few presentations recorded on the patent
rolls, of Dorset incumbents following one another in rapid succession
during the last months of 1348.
Looking at the number of institutions in each month of this period,
and making due allowance for the fact that the [p079] vacancy had
probably occurred some little time before it was filled up, it is
evident that the epidemic was prevalent in the county of Dorset from
October, 1348, to February, 1349, and the mortality was highest in
December and January.[131] The existence of the epidemic begins to
be manifest in the institutions for October, 1348. Previously only
twelve institutions are recorded during that year. West Chickerell,
a place close to Weymouth, received a new incumbent on October 14th,
whilst to Bincombe, close by, which was then vacant, as is proved by
the King's presentation on the 8th of the month, no new incumbent
was inducted till November 4th. Warmwell and Combe Kaynes, a little
to the eastward, received new parish priests on October the 9th and
19th, and Dorchester, the capital, was attacked apparently about the
same time.
Following the indications afforded by the Bishop's registers the
ravages of the pestilence are apparent on the coast early in
November, when many vacancies begin to be noted in the coast towns.
Bridport, East Lulworth, Tynham, Langton, and Wareham had all been
visited by this time, whilst before the end of the month the epidemic
had crossed the county and appeared at Shaftesbury. On December 3rd
two vicarages in the south, quite close together, Abbotsbury and
Portesham, received new incumbents.
At Shaftesbury appointments were made to St. Laurence's on the 29th
of November, to St. Martin's on the 10th of December, to St. John's
on the 6th of January, 1349, and to [p080] St. Laurence's again on
the 12th of May. At Wareham, the small alien priory became vacant
before November 4th, for on that day the King appointed a successor
to Michael de Molis, lately dead,[132] and appointments were made
to St. Martin's, Wareham, on the 8th of December, to St. Peter's
on the 22nd of December, to St. John's on the 29th of May, and to
St. Michael's on the 17th of June. Three changes were registered as
having taken place at Winterbourne St. Nicholas, between December
27th and May 3rd. As far as can be judged by the dates of these
institutions it would appear as if a fresh outbreak of peculiar
violence occurred towards the end of April.
The Bridport Corporation records show that four bailiffs held
office in 1349, in place of the usual two, on account of the
pestilence.[133] In common with most places in the land, Poole, which
was then of sufficient importance to be called upon to furnish four
ships and 94 men for the siege of Calais, suffered greatly from the
pestilence, and received a considerable check to its prosperity. "At
Poole," writes Hutchins, "a spot on the projecting slip of land,
known as the _Baiter_, is still pointed out as the burial-place of
its victims."[134] And the same writer adds that the country did not
entirely recover for the next 150 years; since, in the reign of Henry
VIII., "Poole and other towns in Dorsetshire" were included in that
numerous list of places whose desolated buildings were ordered to be
restored.
Before the close of the year 1348 the pestilence had spread itself
far and wide in the western counties of England. The diocese of Bath
and Wells, and that of Exeter, the former conterminous with the
county of Somerset, and the latter comprising those of Devon and
Cornwall, were infected in the late autumn of that year, and all over
the west, as the old chronicle relates, the sickness "most pitifully
destroyed people innumerable." [p081]
Indeed, so terrible had been the effect of the scourge among the
clergy of Somerset that, as early as January 17th, 1349, the Bishop
of Bath and Wells felt himself constrained to address a letter of
advice to his flock. The document is of such interest, both as
evidence of the straits to which at that early date the diocese had
been reduced by the excessive mortality, and for the advice that it
contains, that it is here quoted at considerable length, since it
proves the depth of degradation to which the whole religious life was
reduced by the terror inspired by the disease. Every bond was loosed,
and every ordinary ecclesiastical regulation and provision set aside,
because none could now be enforced, or, indeed, observed. "The
contagious nature of the present pestilence, which is ever spreading
itself far and wide," writes the Bishop, "has left many parish
churches and other cures, and consequently the people of our diocese,
destitute of curates[135] and priests. And inasmuch as priests cannot
be found who are willing out of zeal, devotion, or for a stipend to
undertake the care of the foresaid places, and to visit the sick
and administer to them the Sacraments of the Church (perchance for
dread of the infection and contagion), many, as we understand, are
dying without the Sacrament of Penance. These, too, are ignorant
of what ought to be done in such necessity, and believe that no
confession of their sins, even in a case of such need, is useful or
meritorious, unless made to a priest having the keys of the Church.
Therefore, desiring, as we are bound to do, the salvation of souls,
and ever watching to bring back the wandering from the crooked paths
of error, we, on the obedience you have sworn to us, urgently enjoin
upon you and command you—rectors, vicars, and parish priests—in all
your churches, and you deans, in such places of your deaneries as
are destitute of the consolation of priests, that you at once and
publicly instruct and induce, yourselves or by some other, all who
are sick of the present [p082] malady, or who shall happen to be
taken ill, that _in articulo mortis_, if they are not able to obtain
any priest, they should make confession of their sins (according to
the teaching of the apostle) even to a layman, and, if a man is not
at hand, then to a woman. We exhort you, by the present letters, in
the bowels of Jesus Christ, to do this, and to proclaim publicly
in the aforesaid places that such confession made to a layman in
the presumed case can be most salutary and profitable to them for
the remission of their sins, according to the teaching and the
sacred canons of the Church. And for fear any, imagining that these
lay confessors may make known confessions so made to them, shall
hesitate thus to confess in case of necessity, we make known to all
in general, and to those in particular who have already heard these
confessions, or who may in future hear them, that they are bound by
the precepts of the Church to conceal and keep them secret; and that,
by a decree of the sacred canons, they are forbidden to betray such
confession by word, sign, and by any other means whatever, unless
those confessing so desire. And (further) should they do otherwise,
let such betrayers know that they sin most gravely, and incur the
indignation of Almighty God and of the whole Church." And further to
stir up the zeal of both clergy and laity to this work the Bishop
grants ample indulgences to such as follow the advice here given them.
"And since late repentance," he says "(when, for example, sickness
compels and the fear of punishment terrifies) often deceives many,
we grant to all our subjects, who in the time of the pestilence
shall come to confession to priests having the keys of the Church
and power to bind and to loose, before they are taken sick, and who
do not delay till the day of necessity, forty days of indulgence.
To every priest also who shall induce people to do this, and hear
the confessions of those thus brought to confess whilst in health,
we grant the same by the mercy of God Almighty, and trusting to the
merits and prayers of [p083] his glorious Mother, of the Blessed
Peter, Paul, and Andrew the Apostles, our patrons, and of all the
Saints."
"You shall further declare," he adds, "to all thus confessing to lay
people in case of necessity, that if they recover they are bound to
confess the same sins again to their own parish priest. The Sacrament
of the Eucharist, when no priest can be obtained, may be administered
by a deacon. If, however, there be no priest to administer the
Sacrament of Extreme Unction, faith must, as in other matters,
suffice for the Sacrament."[136]
These large derogations from the usual ecclesiastical practice,
though consonant alike with Christian charity and the teaching of
the Church, are resorted to only in cases of the direst need, and
the circular letter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells witnesses to the
extreme gravity of the situation throughout the diocese, as early as
the month of January, 1349. Already, as is certain from the Bishop's
words, the dearth of clergy had made itself felt, and people were
dying in the county of Somerset without the possibility of obtaining
spiritual aid in their last hours, and no priests could be found
to take the places of those who had already fallen victims to the
disease. The list of institutions given in the register of Bishop
Ralph of Shrewsbury shows that the mortality in that county was
considerable as early as the November of the previous year, 1348.
Taking the institutions of the diocese as a guide to the time when
the plague was most violent, and bearing in mind that the death
would have occurred some little time before the institution, and
that according to the Bishop's letter some delay had been inevitable
in the filling up of benefices, the months when the pestilence
was at its height in the county of Somerset would appear to be
December, 1348, and January and February, 1349, although the number
of institutions each month remains high until June. The [p084]
mortality was apparently highest about Christmastide, 1348.[137]
The Bishop of Bath and Wells remained at his manor of Wiveliscombe
till the worst was past in May of 1349. Thither came the long
procession of priests to receive their letters of institution to
vacant benefices. Day after day for nearly six months the work went
on with hardly any cessation. Singly, or in twos and threes, often
four and five, once, at least, ten together, the clergy came to be
instituted to cures which the disease had left without a priest.
How the epidemic entered into the county, and the course it pursued,
it would be now impossible, even if it were profitable, to discover.
In December it would seem to have gained a foothold in most parts
of the county. It was at Evercreech about November 19th, and
about a fortnight later at Castlecary and Almsford, in the same
neighbourhood. The fact that Bridgwater, Clevedon, Weston-super-mare,
Portishead, and Bristol were amongst the earliest places in the
county to be attacked would almost make it appear that the contagion
was carried to these coast towns by a boat passing up the Bristol
Channel. This supposition, moreover, is somewhat confirmed, as will
be seen subsequently, by the fact that the towns of North Devon were
attacked by the disease almost simultaneously with those on the south
coast, and very much about the same time as those of North Somerset.
Bath suffered under the scourge in the early part of January, 1349.
On the 9th and 10th of that month several [p085] institutions to
livings, either in the city or the neighbourhood, being recorded. In
the same month it had spread to the abbey of Keynsham, on the road
between Bath and Bristol, and its path can almost be traced along
the line of communication between Bath and Wells. Thus the villages
of Freshford, Twerton, Hardington, Holcombe, Cloford, Kilmersdon,
Babington, Compton, and Doulting, as well as several benefices in
Wells itself, all fell vacant at this time.
It may be said with considerable certainty that fully half the number
of beneficed clergy fell victims to the disease in this diocese. Many
livings were rendered vacant two and three times during its course;
whilst a not inconsiderable number had four changes of incumbents
within these few months. Bathampton, for example, had four parsons
appointed in this period. At Hardington, not far from Frome, from
January, 1349, to the middle of March, there were certainly three and
perhaps four changes due to the disease; and at Yeovil, from the 15th
December, 1348, to the 4th February, 1349, three priests held the
living, one after the other.
Little or no information is forthcoming as to the religious houses
of the county at this time. Both Athelney and Muchelney lost their
abbots, and probably also many of their members. The fact that the
great abbey of Glastonbury, which previously contained within its
walls a community of some 80 monks, is found in A.D. 1377 to have
44, seems to indicate that it must have suffered very severe losses
through the epidemic.
At Bath, in 1344, only five years before the outbreak of the disease,
the community at the Priory consisted of thirty professed monks
under Prior John de Ford.[138] A list on the roll of the Somerset
clergy, on whom a clerical subsidy was levied at the close of Edward
the Third's reign, in 1377, shows that the number had been reduced
to sixteen,[139] [p086] and at this number it apparently remained
to the time of the final dissolution of the house in the sixteenth
century.[140]
It is not difficult to understand that the plague must have raged
with great virulence in the larger cities, where in those days the
most elementary notions of sanitation were almost unknown. In the
west, Bristol, of course, suffered severely. "There," says the
sub-contemporary writer, Knighton, "died, suddenly overwhelmed by
death, almost the whole strength of the town, for few were sick more
than three days, or two days, or even half a day." Nor need this be
a subject of wonder when, according to the description of a modern
writer, speaking of the city at this very period, the streets were
very narrow; in the busier parts the ground was honeycombed with
cellars for storing wine, salt, and other merchandise, whilst refuse
streamed down the centre ditch. So small was the distance between the
houses that no vehicle was allowed to be used in the streets, and all
goods were carried on pack-horses or porters, a custom which even in
the 17th century excited the wonder of Samuel Pepys.[141]
"Here in Bristol," says the local historian Seyer, quoting an old
calendar of the town, "in 1348 the plague raged to such a degree that
the living were scarce able to bury the dead. The Gloucestershire men
would not suffer the Bristol men to have access to them. At last it
reached Gloucester, Oxford, and London; scarce the tenth person was
left alive, male or female. At this period the grass grew several
inches high in High Street and Broad Street; it raged at first
chiefly in the centre of the city. This pestilence came from abroad,
and the people near the sea-coast in Dorsetshire and Devonshire were
first affected."[142] By the wholesale destruction of the population
of this western port the same authority accounts for the reduction of
the King's taxation of the city from £245 to £158. [p087]
Lastly, in Bristol, as indeed without doubt in most places, the
cemeteries did not long suffice for the multitude of the dead.
Of this there is an example upon the Patent Rolls. The parson of
Holy Cross de la Temple soon found the necessity of enlarging his
graveyard. For this purpose he obtained half-an-acre adjoining the
old cemetery, and so great and pressing was the need of this fresh
accommodation that it was done without the required royal license,
for which subsequently a pardon had to be sued from the King.[143]
The diocese of Exeter, comprising the two counties of Devon and
Cornwall, was stricken by the disease apparently about the same time
as the county of Somerset.[144] For eight years before 1348 the
average number of livings annually rendered vacant in the diocese
was thirty-six,[145] whilst in the single month of January 1349, the
Bishop instituted to some thirty livings, which shows that death had
already been busy among the clergy.
The number of institutions in each month of the year points to
the conclusion that the disease lingered somewhat longer in these
counties than elsewhere. It is not till the close of September that
any great decrease in the number of vacancies is seen, and although
probably beginning in December, the height of the plague was not
reached till March, April, and May.[146] [p088]
Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph thus describes the state of the Exeter
episcopal registers at this period:—"There is very little direct
information about the Black Death in Bishop Grandisson's register;
but there is a great deal of indirect information. The _Registrum
Commune_, which is wonderfully full before and after the fatal year,
records scarcely anything during the year itself. The ordinary work
of the diocese seems to have been all suspended, with a single
exception. The register of institutions—a separate volume—is a record
of incessant and most distressing work. Its very outward aspect for
this period tells a tale of woe. The entries are made hurriedly and
roughly, in striking contrast with the neatness and regularity of
the rest of the Register. They are no longer grouped, as before,
in years, but in months, and the changes in each month exceed the
changes of a whole ordinary year, when there was no pestilence.
The scribe leaves off the customary 'vacant _per mortem_,' as if
he dreaded to write the fatal word. The clergy must have fallen by
wholesale; evidently they were faithful, and, for their flocks' sake,
faced the foe without flinching. And, as each of them fell, another
was ready at his Bishop's call fearlessly to fill the vacant place.
Some incumbencies lasted but a few weeks. And, when all was over,
the survivors were, comparatively, so few that there was no small
difficulty in filling many a subsequent vacant benefice; this result
of the sickness is to be traced for some time after the mortality had
ceased.
"The Bishop never left his diocese, and the continuous presence
of so strong, so earnest, and devoted a prelate must have been an
unspeakable consolation and help to his grievously afflicted flock."
An examination of the institutions of the diocese, in relation to the
time when the plague visited the various parts of it, appears to show
that it commenced almost simultaneously in both north and south. In
North Devon it is found at both Northam and Alverdiscott on the 7th
of [p089] November, at Fremington in the same district on the 8th,
and at Barnstaple on December the 23rd. It is found in November at
villages on the Exe, and had possibly also reached Exeter before the
close of the month. In the South, the fact of the close proximity of
the part first infected to Dorsetshire explains the course of the
epidemic; but the early outbreak in the coast villages at the mouth
of the estuary leading to Barnstaple points to the conclusion that
the infection was brought by a ship passing up the Bristol Channel,
which subsequently infected other towns further up on the Somerset
shore of the passage.
It is of interest also to note how greatly the coast towns generally
appear to have suffered, as the contagion was very probably carried
from one place to another by the fishing boats. Up some of the
estuaries it would seem as if the passage of the disease could be
traced by the dates of the institutions. Thus, to take one example,
in March, 1349, there is an institution to a living at the mouth of
the Fowey in Cornwall; a week later there is another at St. Winnow's
Vicarage higher up, and on March 22nd the sickness had reached
Bodmin, at no great distance from the river, and a place with which,
in all probability, the passage up the estuary of the Fowey would be
an ordinary and usual means of communication.
As to the result of the sickness in the religious houses of the
diocese some few details are known. At St. Nicholas', Exeter, the
Prior died in March, 1349; his successor, John de Wye, was admitted
on the 26th of that month, but died almost immediately. The next
Prior was not installed until June 7th, and the house was found to be
in a deplorable state.[147] So also at Pilton Priory two superiors
died within a few weeks one of the other. At the alien priory of
Minster, Cornwall, William de Huma, the Prior, was carried off by the
sickness on 26th of April, 1349, and the house was so impoverished by
the death of tenants [p090] and labourers that it could not support
both its members, and the chaplain they were bound to find to do the
parish work, as neither the prior nor his brethren spoke English, "or
rather Cornish."[148]
At the Cistercian abbey of Newenham the register records that "in the
time of this mortality or pestilence there died in this house twenty
monks and three lay-brothers, whose names are entered in other books.
And Walter, the abbot, and two monks were left alive there after the
sickness."[149]
At the Augustinian abbey of Hartland, Roger de Raleghe, the abbot,
died, and the proclamation of the election of his successor is dated
18th March, 1349. At Benedictine Tavistock also the abbot died, and
his successor, Richard de Esse, was taken ill after his confirmation,
and, "detained by so grave a sickness," could not go to the King,
who, on October 17th, commissioned Bishop Grandisson to receive his
fealty.[150]
At Bodmin, according to a note taken by William of Worcester from a
register in the Church of the Friars Minor there, it was estimated
that 1,500 persons died of this sickness.[151] Amongst these was
the Vicar, whose successor was appointed on April 8th, 1349. The
Augustinian priory in the town was almost depopulated. The prior,
John de Kilkhampton, and all his brethren but two were carried off by
the sickness. The two survivors, on March 17th, wrote to the Bishop
saying that they "were left like orphans," and begging that he would
provide a superior [p091] for their house at once. The next day,
March the 18th, 1349, an inquisition was held under a writ of the
Prince of Wales. The jury found that the priory was free, and that
the last prior had died "on Friday, next after the feast of St. Peter
in Cathedra then last past" (February 27th).[152]
On March 19th Bishop Grandisson wrote to the prior of Launceston
setting forth the facts, and appointing a member of that house to the
office. Three days later the mandate for his induction was issued,
in the hopes that "by his careful watchfulness the said priory may
recover from the calamity."[153]
The plight to which the Augustinians of Bodmin were reduced by the
disease is, after all, typical of that of many religious houses
throughout the country. Meantime, however, the epidemic had not
confined its ravages to the western counties, but continued to spread
the same desolation in every direction, as the wave of pestilence
rolled onward over the length and breadth of the land.
FOOTNOTES:
[121] Originalia Roll, 24 Ed. III., m. 2.
[122] B. Mus., Harl. MS. 6965, f. 132.
[123] _Chronicon Galfridi le Baker_, ed. E. M. Thompson, p. 98.
[124] _Eulogium Historiarum_ (ed. Rolls series), iii, p. 213. It
seems not at all improbable that this account was written whilst the
plague was still confined to the west of England.
[125] Harl. MS. 688, f. 361.
[126] Hutchins, _History of Dorset_ (3rd ed.), ii, p. 422.
[127] Rot. Pat., 26 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 5.
[128] _Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eighth Report_, App., p.
338.
[129] _De Gestis Edwardi III._ (ed. Rolls series), p. 406.
[130] As will be seen subsequently, this estimate of Dr. Jessopp is
certainly too low, and it is probably more correct to suppose that
the non-beneficed clergy, including under that head the religious,
were four times as numerous as those holding benefices.
[131] The following table will show the actual number of institutions
in Dorsetshire for some months:—
+-------------------+-------------------------------+
| 1348. | 1349. |
+-----+------+------+------+------+--------+--------+
|Oct. | Nov. | Dec. | Jan. | Feb. | March. | April. |
+-----+------+------+------+------+--------+--------|
| 5 | 15 | 17 | 16 | 14 | 10 | 4 |
+-----+------+------+------+------+--------+--------+
[132] Originalia Roll, 22 Ed. III., m. 4.
[133] _Hist. MSS. Comm., Sixth Report_, p. 475.
[134] _History of Dorset_, i, p. 5.
[135] _Curates_ here and elsewhere is used for Rectors or Vicars, who
had the actual cure of souls.
[136] Wilkins, _Concilia_, ii, pp. 735-6.
[137] The following is a table of the institutions in Somersetshire
for some months:—
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1348. | 1349. |
+------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| Nov. | Dec. | Jan. | Feb. | March. | April. | May. | June. |
+------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| 9 | 32 | 47 | 43 | 36 | 40 | 21 | 7 |
+------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
[138] Bath Chartulary (Lincoln's Inn MS.), p. 119. This is now being
edited for the _Somerset Record Society_, and the list is given at p.
73 of Mr. Hunt's edition.
[139] R. O. Clerical Subsidy (Somerset), 4/2.
[140] See list given in _Deputy Keeper's Report_, vii, p. 280.
[141] W. Hunt, _Historic Towns_, _Bristol_, p. 77.
[142] S. Seyer, _Memoirs of Bristol_ (Bristol, 1823) ii, p. 143.
[143] Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 4.
[144] For information about the institutions of this diocese and
other matters concerning Devon and Cornwall, I am indebted to the
kindness of the Rev. Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph.
[145] Curiously enough the number of institutions in 1891 was 36.
[146] The following table will give the number of institutions in
Devon and Cornwall in each month:—
+-----------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 1348. | 1349. |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+-----+
|Nov. |Dec. |Jan. |Feb. |Mar. |April. |May. |June. |July. |Aug. |Sept.|
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+-----+
| 10 | 6 | 30 | 34 | 60 | 53 | 47 | 45 | 37 | 16 | 23 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-----+------+------+-----+-----+
[147] The Prior of St. James', Exeter, also died: "postea tempore
pestilencie subito mortuus est." (Reg. Grand., i, fol. 27b).
[148] Rot. Pat., 29 Ed. III., pars 2, m. 19.
[149] B. Mus., Arund. MS. 17, fol. 55b. Oliver (_Monasticon Dioecesis
Exoniensis_, p. 359) adds: "And no fewer than 88 persons living
within the Abbey gates." In Noakes' _History of the Monastery and
Cathedral of Worcester_, p. 94, it is said that the virulence of
the plague of 1349 may be judged "from the fact that in the Abbey
of Newenham, in the West of England, out of a hundred and eleven
inmates, only the Abbot and two monks survived." No authority is
cited by these writers.
[150] Reg. Grandisson, i, 26b.
[151] _Itinerarum_, ed. J. Nasmith, p. 112.
[152] Sir J. Maclean, _Deanery of Trigg Minor_, i, p. 128.
[153] Reg. Grandisson, i, 26b.
[p092]