CHAPTER II
THE PARISH CHURCH
The “parish” is described by Bishop Hobhouse as the community dwelling in an area defined by the Church, organised for Church purposes, and subject to Church authority. “Within this area,” he says, “every resident was a parishioner, and, as such, owed his duty of worship and contribution to one stated church, and his duty of confession and submission to the official guidance of a stated pastor, entitled his Rector, or to the Rectors deputy, entitled Vicar.”
The centre of every mediæval parish, then, was its church. It was, as it were, the mainspring of the machinery of parochial life, which cannot be understood without a full knowledge of its position in regard to the people generally, and of all that it was to the inhabitants of a district in pre-Reformation days.
For our present purposes, we need not, of course, concern ourselves with trying to solve the vexed question as to who it was that first built the parochial churches. About this there is, and probably will remain, much obscurity. In the first instance, in England, very possibly, they were the creation of some nobles or rich landlords, who desired to secure the services of religion for the people dwelling upon their estates, as tenants, servants, or serfs, and who, having obtained from the bishop of the district his leave to set up an oratory or church, obtained the ministration of a priest. Whatever the origin, it is certain that long before the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries the parish church had practically come to be the property of the parishioners generally in a very definite manner, and, with certain exceptions, to which reference will presently be made, upon the inhabitants of a parochial district as a corporation lay the duty of repairing and rebuilding the fabric, of beautifying the edifice, of maintaining the services, and of seeing generally to its well-being. This they did as a matter of well-recognised obligation and duty; but obviously also as a matter which afforded them much satisfaction and pleasure.
The fabric of the church consisted of the nave, with its chapels and aisles, when it had any, and the chancel, which included the choir and presbytery. In England, at least, there was a well-recognised and very general distinction between the chancel and the nave. The former was sometimes called the “parson’s freehold,” and to him belonged the entire care of his “chancel,” and the duty of keeping it in repair. In fact, it was not disputed that one part of the tithe received by the priest from the parish was intended to furnish him with ample means for fulfilling this duty, and in the event of death removing an incumbent, where there were dilapidations in the chancel, which had not been seen to by him, his successor could, and frequently did, claim compensation from the heirs of the deceased.
The synodal directions given with regard to the care and repair of the chancels are definite. “In parish churches,” says one of 1350, taken as an example, “the chancel is to be found and maintained fittingly in all things by the Rector.” Bishop Brantyngham, of Exeter, issued a “declaration” as to the custom in his diocese as laid down by his predecessor, Bishop Quevil. In this he says that—
“the work of constructing and repairing the chancels of all mother churches belongs to the rectors of the parishes; but that of the naves pertains to the parishioners, without regard to any contrary custom. In the case of chapels, which have their distinct parochial district, the entire duty of maintenance belongs to the parishioners of the chapel, as it is for their convenience such chapels are built, and, moreover, they may be obliged to assist, in case of need, the mother church.”
This was the ordinary rule in England, as we see from the gloss on the Constitutions of Cardinal Othoboni, where Lyndwood calls it “the common custom in England that the parishioners repair the nave of the church where they sit,” and that if the rector has the fourth part of the tithe, which was intended for the repairs of the church, he should by law see to all the repairs. “By praiseworthy custom,” in England, however, the author adds, the repair of the chancel only is an obligation of the rector, although he cannot entirely free himself of all responsibility for the rest of the church. Sometimes, however, as the canonist notes, as, for example, in some London churches and elsewhere, the care of the chancel is also a matter for the parishioners, and the parson, although taking “the fourth part of the tithe” intended to meet the general expenses of church repairs, is yet held to be free of the obligation.
Sometimes, as may be seen in the visitations of parochial churches, difficulties arose about the precise obligation of parson and people as to the repair even of the chancel. In the Register of Bishop Stapledon, for instance, at the inquiry held in 1301, at St. Mary Church, the parishioners represented that, up to the time of the then vicar, they had been accustomed to repair the chancel, and because of this the tithe on all store cattle had not been demanded of them. The new vicar had made them pay this, but yet had not done the repairs to the chancel, and wanted them to continue to do so. So, too, during Bishop Grandisson’s episcopate, the question whether the parishioners paid the “decimas instauri” was the determining reason as to whether they should be compelled to repair the chancels or not.
In regard to the care of the fabric the case of appropriated churches was somewhat peculiar. The corporation to which the living was impropriated held the position of rector, the cure being administered by a vicar appointed by it and licensed by the bishop, just as in the case of a nomination to any benefice by a patron. As a rule the religious house, college, or official holding the impropriated tithes, got rid of the rectorial obligation of seeing to the maintenance of the chancel, by arranging with the bishop that the vicar should have sufficient regular income to cover all the expenses of dilapidations. In this case the usual practice was that, upon first becoming lawfully possessed of the appropriated tithe, the corporation was bound by the bishop, as one condition of his assent, to place the chancel in thorough repair and to see that everything, which the rector had been bound by custom to provide, was in good order. After this had been done, it was calculated, and indeed arranged, that out of the income of the vicar these could be maintained in good order. The arrangement, however, was subject to revision by the bishop, and although in practice the original agreement was usually upheld, there are to be found examples of the holders of impropriated tithes being compelled by the ecclesiastical authority to contribute to the repairs of chancels, etc., and even to undertake the entire work, where the means of the vicars were obviously inadequate to do what was necessary.
Some examples of this will illustrate the matter more completely than any statement of the practice. In 1296, Bishop Thomas de Bytton, of Exeter, was called upon to adjudicate upon this question in regard to the vicarage of Morwenstowe, the greater tithes of which had been previously appropriated to the Hospital of St. John at Bridgewater by Bishop Peter Quevil, with the consent of his canons. The grant had been made with the provision that fitting support should be allowed for the vicarage, the amount to be determined and arranged by the bishop and his successors. This, Bishop de Bytton did, in fact, determine by the document referred to. The vicar, according to this settlement, by reason of his vicarage, was to take certain tithes, which, amongst others, were to include that of all the hay and the mills in the whole parish, as well as the rent of certain crofts, etc. The brethren of the Hospital were to find or renew all the ornaments and books not provided by the parishioners, and it was agreed that these, once being set right, must afterwards be maintained by the vicar. He was also to see to all ordinary repairs, and even extraordinary repairs up to the amount of the fourth part of the tithe received by him. But “any other extraordinary expense, together with the upkeep, repair, or rebuilding of the chancel of the church, was to be met by the said religious brethren” of the Hospital of Bridgewater.
That this settlement was not at all exceptional could be proved by many documents; one must suffice. When Bodmin church was rebuilt between the years 1469 and 1472 the patrons, the Monastery of St. Petrock, defrayed the entire expenses connected with the chancel. On the other hand, to illustrate the usual practice, the case of the vicarage of Launcells in Devonshire may be cited. The Abbot and Monastery of Hartland held the appropriated tithes, and in 1382, the chancel standing in need of great repairs, apparently amounting almost to rebuilding, the vicar refused to carry out the injunctions of the archdeacon forthwith to undertake the work, on the plea that this was the duty of the Abbey of Hartland. The convent denied their obligation, but submitted themselves in the matter to the judgment of the bishop of the diocese. After holding an inquiry, Bishop Thomas Brantyngham declared that the vicar received tithes for the purpose of carrying out all repairs to the chancel, and that consequently the monks were free from the obligation.
What the material church was to the parishioners of a mediæval parish is well described in the synodical Constitutions of Bishop Woodlock, of Winchester, at the beginning of the fourteenth century.
“If the Israelites,” he says, “living in the shadow of the law, required specially dedicated places in which to worship the Lord, with how much more reason are Christians, to whom the loving-kindness and the humanity of the Saviour has appeared, bound by all the means at their disposal to obtain consecrated churches, in which day by day the Son of God is offered in Sacrifice.”
Then after saying that churches that have not been consecrated are to be solemnly dedicated as soon as possible, he continues—
“The anniversaries of the dedications of parish churches are to be kept by the parishioners, and those attending chapels in the neighbourhood not themselves dedicated. The day and the year of the consecration, with the name of the consecrating prelates, are to be entered in the calendar and other books belonging to the church.”
The dedication of the church to God was the essential condition of its endowment. According to Bracton, the dower made to the church with church lands at its dedication, was a possession of “pure and free alms,” in distinction “from a lay feud,” seeing that it “is with more propriety called free, since it is dedicated as it were to God.”
“If,” says the Constitution of Cardinal Otho for the English Church—“if under the Old Testament the Temple was dedicated to God for the offering of dead animals, with how much more reason should the churches of the New Law be specially consecrated to Him when on the altars is daily offered for us by the hands of the priest the living and true Victim, that is, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”
The reverence due to churches, and things once dedicated to the service of churches, was universal in the Middle Ages. Cloths, used as chrism cloths at Baptism or Confirmation, were to be devoted to ecclesiastical purposes or destroyed, and those who turned anything thus once offered to God to any secular use were considered gravely blameworthy. The gloss upon a Constitution of St. Edmund of Canterbury to this effect extends this prohibition of desecration to everything connected at any time with a church. Even the woodwork of a building, once dedicated, was to be destroyed, unless it was capable of being used for another ecclesiastical purpose. So too the “cloths used on the altar, the seats, candlesticks, veils, and sacred vestments too old to use,” were to be burnt and the ashes buried.
The parishioners, as already pointed out, were bound by law and custom to provide for the repair of the nave of their parish church, and for the general upkeep of the church services. There was little need to compel them to fulfil this duty, for the churchwardens’ accounts and other documents, especially during the fifteenth century, when we have the fullest information, show us that over the entire length and breadth of England the people were gladly rebuilding and beautifying their parish churches. A few examples of this spirit may be of interest as showing what God’s house was to the entire people in pre-Reformation days. The labours of Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph on the diocesan registers of the Exeter diocese enable the inquirer into parochial manners and customs of the past to find ample material. In the register of Bishop Stafford of Exeter (1394-1419) an account of the rebuilding of the parish church of Broadhempston is given. The parishioners, about A.D. 1400, petitioned the bishop to be allowed to rebuild their church: they represented that it was in a ruinous condition and notoriously clumsily constructed. It was their wish, they said, to build it on a larger scale, and in a different part of the churchyard. To this the bishop assented, on condition of their promising to complete the new church within two years of pulling down the old, and he granted an Indulgence to all who should contribute to “so great and pious a work.” On the 22nd November, 1401, the work of the new church was apparently far enough advanced for use, for a licence was granted for one year to celebrate Divine service “in the church or basilica newly erected and constructed in the cemetery,” and this licence was twice renewed for the years 1402 and 1403.
The editor of the Receipts and Expenses in Building Bodmin Church, published by the Camden Society, says that “there is scarcely a parish in Cornwall that does not bear testimony to the energy displayed in church restoration” in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. He might have added that like activity is manifested at this time in almost every quarter of England; but certainly Bodmin furnishes us with an interesting example of the religious energy displayed by the inhabitants of a mediæval parish. For the year 1469-70 the wardens account for £196 7s. 4½d. collected and £194 3s. 6½d. spent—large sums considering the then value of money, and specially great when it is remembered that besides this there were the gifts of material, such as windows, trees, etc., and that the labour of the workmen was given without other reward than what came from their love of the work. From the preface of the editor of these accounts we glean some interesting particulars, all the more interesting as we have no reason to think that Bodmin was any exception. The accounts “exhibit a remarkable unanimity in the good work. Every one seems to have given according to his means and up to his means. Many who gave money gave labour also; many who could not give money laboured as best they might, and others gave what they could.” We have gifts of lambs, of a cow, and of a goose. One woman, in addition to her subscription, sold her crock for 20d.; and all found its way into the common treasury. No age or sex seems to have kept aloof. We find an “hold woman” contributing 3s. 4½d., while the maidens in Fore Street and Bore Street gave subscriptions in addition to the sums received from the Guild of Virgins in the same streets. The vicar gave his year’s salary, and the “parish people” who lived out of the town “contributed 19s.” After an examination of the accounts, the editor attributes the working up of the zeal of the people to the guilds, and he adds that “religious life permeated society in the Middle Ages, particularly in the fifteenth century, through the minor confraternities.” Of these societies it will be necessary to write at some length later, and here it will be sufficient to say that almost every inhabitant of Bodmin appears to have belonged to one or more of these societies. From the long list of voluntary subscriptions, it appears that all were eager to have a part in the work of building up their church—a church which should be a credit to Bodmin. All sorts and conditions of men and women are entered as contributors on the roll of parishioners, more than 460 in number. Servants appear as well as masters and mistresses, sons and daughters as well as their fathers and mothers.
The same sort of story is told in every set of parish accounts that we possess—a story of popular devotion to the material fabric of the parish church. To take another and later example: At St. Mary’s, Cambridge, 1515, it was necessary to build a porch and a vestry, and the people determined to make a voluntary collection for the work each Sunday during the last six months of the year. At these, from 6s. to 8s.—from £4 to £5 of our money—was gathered each time, and the building was carried out under the supervision of the churchwardens.
The evidence of mediæval wills is the same as to this very general interest in church building. For example, Robert Dacres of Beverley, a weaver, who died in 1498, left £16 for the making of the north aisle of the church—the parish church in which he had worshipped—provided the wardens began the work within a year. If they did not do so, then the money was to be spent on ornamenting the church. So, too, the will of Robert Pynbey, a chantrey priest of Hornby, shows that, conjointly with another priest, he had established a chantry, having previously built the south aisle of Hornby parish church. So, too, in 1490, the sub-dean of York leaves many legacies to assist in the repairs of the various churches with which he had been connected. In the same way some of the chantry certificates of the reign of Edward VI. reveal the fact that lands had been left to the churchwardens to sell for the purpose of rebuilding certain parish churches, and that they had been disposed of to that end.
It must, of course, be remembered that buildings and repairs of this kind were not lightly undertaken by the wardens without the full knowledge and consent of the parishioners generally. For example, in 1512-13 it was proposed to do some extensive works at St. Mary-at-Hill in London, and the entry in the churchwardens’ book is as follows:—
“It is determined that they shall go in hand with the building of the church at March next. Memorandum: that John Allthorpe and Stephen Sondyrson have promised to take charge and keep reckoning to pay all such workmen as shall make the battlements of our church of brick or stone or lead, as shall be thought best and determined by Mr. Alderman and the parishioners, and Mr. Parson is to assist them with his good diligence and wisdom to the best that he can, for the same: and Thomas Monders is chosen by the said parish to wait upon the said Stephen and Allthorpe in their absence and at their commandment for the furtherance of the same work.”
The obligation of all to contribute to the common work of God’s house was well understood, and it was taught in many books of instructions popular in those days. For example, in Dives and Pauper the former is made to declare that “many say, God is in no lond so well served in holy Church, nor so much worshipped in holy Church, as He is in this lond of England. For so many fair churches, ne so good aray in churches, ne so fair service, as many say is in none other lond as it is in this lond.” Pauper does not deny this, but thinks that it is perhaps done from a spirit of pomp, “to have a name and worship thereby in the country, or for envy that one town hath against another.” Dives, with this lead, suggests that it might be better if the money thus spent “in high churches, in rich vestments, in curious windows, and in great bells,” were given to the poor. But Pauper urges that this is just what Judas thought, and declares that it is the common business of all, rich and poor alike, to look to the beautifying of God’s house.
By law, then, according to the statute of Archbishop Peckham in 1280, which remained in force till the Reformation, the parish, broadly speaking, was bound to find all that pertained to the services—such as vestments, chalice, missal, processional cross, paschal candle, etc.—and to keep the fabric and ornaments of the church proper in repair. In 1305 Archbishop Winchelsey somewhat enlarged the scope of the parish duties.
THURIBLE, FOUND NEAR PERSHORE
“For the future,” he says, “we will and ordain that the parishioners be bound to provide all the following: Legend, Antiphonal, Grayle, Psalter, Tropary, Ordinale, Missal, Manual, Chalice, the best Vestment with Chasuble, Dalmatic and Tunicle, and a Cope for the choir with all their belongings (that is, amice, girdle, maniple and stole, etc.): the frontal for the High altar, with three cloths; three surplices; a rochet; the processional cross; a cross to carry to the sick; a thurible; a lantern; a bell to ring when the Body of Christ is carried to the sick; a pyx of ivory or silver for the Body of Christ; the Lenten veil; the Rogation Day banner; the bells with their cords; a bier to carry the dead upon; the Holy Water vat; the osculatorium for the Pax; the paschal candlestick; a font with its lock and key; the images in the church; the image of the patron Saint in the chancel; the enclosure wall of the cemetery; all repairs of the nave of the church, interior and exterior; repairs also in regard to the images of the crucifix and of the saints and to the glazed windows; all repairs of books and vestments, when such restorations shall be necessary.” All other repairs, Archbishop Winchelsey adds, “of the chancel and of other things not the object of special custom or agreement, pertain to the Rectors or Vicars, and have to be done at their expense.”
PAX
It did not, however, require any very great rigour on the part of ecclesiastical authorities to enforce this law. The various churchwarden accounts and the church inventories prove beyond dispute that the people of England were only too anxious to maintain and beautify their parish churches, and that frequently between neighbouring churches there was a holy rivalry in this labour of love. To take some examples of this. The inventory of the parish church of Cranbrook, in Kent, made in 1509, gives the details of all gifts and donations, in order that the names of the donors and the particulars of their benefactions might be remembered. The value of the presents varies very considerably, but nothing apparently was too small to be noted. Thus we have a monstrance of silver gilt, which the wardens value at £20, “of Sir Robert Egelyonby’s gift.” In regard to this donor the inventory says, “This Sir Robert was John Roberts’ priest thirty years, and he never had other service or benefice.” And it adds, “The said John Roberts was father to Walter Roberts, Esquire.” Again, one John Hindley “gave three copes of purple velvet, whereof one was of velvet upon velvet, with images broidered;” and, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, adds the inventory, “he was grandfather of Gervase Hindley of Cushorn, and of Thomas (Hindley) of Cranbrook Street.” And again, to take another example of these entries, it is recorded that the “two long candlesticks before our Lady’s altar fronted with lions, and a towel on the rood of our Lady’s chancel,” were the gift of “old moder Hopper.”
In the same way, the churchwardens’ accounts of Leverton, a parish situated in the county of Lincoln about 6 miles from Boston, evidence the same voluntary effort on the part of the people to adorn their church. In 1492 William Murr left money for work at the Great Crucifix and to several of the altars. In 1495 a great effort was made to procure another bell, and we find the expenses for preparing the bell-chamber, for the carriage of the great bell, and for the hanging of it by one William Wright, of Benington. All the parish apparently contributed, and the parson promised 10s. 8d. towards the expenses; but when he came to settle, it was found that some one had paid for him. This was the above-named William Wright; and as the clergyman’s name was John Wright, perhaps the kindly thought which prompted the payment came from some bond of relationship. Three years later it was determined to build the steeple, and the parishioners were eager for the work. The owner of a neighbouring quarry gave leave to take whatever stone was required. “A tree was bought at Tombe Wood,” and a carpenter was engaged for the scaffolding and timber work. The tree was sawn into boards; lime was purchased to make the mortar, and tubs to mix it in. Later, another tree was bought and cut up for scaffolding purposes. All was entirely the work of the parish, and the ordering of everything was done by the wardens the people had chosen, whilst each one took a lively and personal interest in the common work.
In 1503 another bell was made, and a deputation of the parish went to Boston to see it “shot.” The local blacksmith, Richard Messur, made all the necessary “bolts and locks,” and attended professionally to see it hung, although the chief responsibility rested upon John Red, “bellgedor of Boston,” who had the “schotyng” of the bell, and received £3 6s. 8d. for his work. At the same time the parish paid for a Sanctus bell, which was made by the local plumber, and the young men of the parish formed themselves into a school to be taught how “to toll the bells.” In the same year a new font was made for the church at Freeston, about three miles away, and a committee of the parish made two journeys, one to look at the progress of the work and another to pass and approve it.
BRACKET WITH SUSPENDED DOVE AND COVER
For some few years the expenses were normal; but in 1512 the desire to possess more bells again came upon the parish. In the same year the people purchased “a pair of censer chains, when the parson was in London,” and they renewed the device “for hanging up the Sacrament” over the altar. In 1516 the bells evidently did not ring well, and a man was brought over from Boston to set them right. In the same year there are entered expenses for hanging a lamp and for making “a lectern in the choir.” The following year the north side of the church was found to stand in need of repair, and there are expenses for propping the wall up during the work. This year, also, the parish purchased a new vestment and a chalice; and in 1519, after the repairs, the bishop came to reconsecrate the church, and the people paid his fee of 40s. for doing so. In 1525 an item of expense is of interest: “To Isabel Frendyke for marking all the lynen clothis: St. Thomas’ with a mark of black sylke +, and O. Lady’s with a M.”
SACRAMENTAL DOVE
In 1526 there was a movement to beautify the rood-screen. An “alybaster man,” otherwise called “Robert Brook the carver,” was procured, and money was gathered in the town for his support, and some who gave no money gave cheese. William Franckis, one of the parishioners, died this year, and left a legacy of 46s. 8d. to buy “images of alybaster to be set in ye rood-loft.” There were apparently in all seventeen images, and “in earneste thereof” the carver was paid a shilling on account; but when he got to work he found that he could only do sixteen of the figures for the 46s. 8d., at 3s. 4d. each. Apparently, however, William Franckis had provided for contingencies; he had probably looked at the vacant niches during the many Sundays he had knelt in front of the rood, had determined that they must be all filled, and so had charged his wife Janet to see to it. At any rate, the widow found the other 3s. 4d., “that every stage might be filled.”
And so the parish life at Leverton went on without much change. The ordinary expenses were met out of the ordinary receipts, and when anything extraordinary was required the people were apparently ever ready to come forward to provide it. In 1528 there is a note to say that “John Bell, quondam Rector,” on his deathbed gave to the wardens the sum of £6 13s. 4d. to be used upon the church. In 1531 a curious memorandum is worth recording. It is to this effect: on October 22, Richard Shepperd, the parson, called a meeting of the parish, to take into consideration the accounts of the late wardens. The meeting showed their entire confidence in the priest and their cordial unanimity with him by asking him to appoint the wardens for the following year, which he did. Also it was shown to the meeting that by the last will of Walter Bowsche, of Leverton, three acres of land had been left to the parish for the purpose of being sold, in order that with the proceeds a new cope might be bought. The will was apparently destroyed by the wardens, and the money obtained from the sale had been spent upon the church work in which at the time they were chiefly interested, namely, the making of bells. The parishioners determined that they were in conscience bound to rectify this plain breach of trust, and to make up the money for the new cope. Lastly, in 1540, the parson, John Wright, presented the parish with a suite of red-purple vestments, and in recording this gift the wardens note in their account-book, “for the which you shall all specially pray for the souls of William Wright and Elizabeth his wife,” the father and mother of the donor, “and other relations, as well them as be alive as them that be departed to the mercy of God, for whose lives and souls” these vestments are given “for the honour of God, His most Blessed Mother, our Lady St. Mary, and all His saints in heaven, and the blessed matron St. Helen, his patron, to be used at such principal feasts and times as it shall please the curates so long as they shall last.”
In this way the names of benefactors and the memory of their good deeds were ever kept alive in the minds of those who benefited by their gifts. The parish treasury was not looked on as so much stock, the accumulation of years, of haphazard donations without definite history or purpose; but every article, vestment, banner, hanging, chalice, etc., called up some affectionate memory both of the living and the dead. On high day and feast day, when all that was best and richest in the parochial treasury was brought forth to deck the walls and statues and altars, the display of parish ornaments recalled to the minds of the people assembled within its walls to worship God the memory of good deeds done by generations of neighbours for the decoration of their sanctuary.
“The immense treasures in the churches,” writes Dr. Jessopp, “were the joy and boast of every man and woman and child in England, who, day by day and week by week, assembled to worship in the old houses of God which they and their fathers had built, and whose every vestment and chalice, and candlestick and banner, organ and bells, and pictures and images, and altar and shrine, they look upon as their own, and part of their birthright.”
It might reasonably be supposed that this was true only of the greater churches; but this is not so. What strikes one so much in these parish accounts of bygone days is the richness of even small, out-of-the-way village churches. Where we would naturally be inclined to look for poverty and meanness, there is evidence to the contrary. To take an example or two. Morebath is a small, uplandish, remote parish of little importance on the borders of Exmoor; the population, for the most part, have spent their energies in daily labour to secure the bare necessaries of life, and riches, at any rate, could never have been abundant. Morebath may consequently be taken as a fair sample of an obscure and poor village. For this hamlet we possess full accounts from the year 1530, and we find that at this time, and in this very poor, out-of-the-way place, there were no less than eight separate accounts kept of money intended for the support of different altars of devotions. For example, we have the “Stores” of the Chapels of our Lady and St. George, etc., and the Gilds of the young men and maidens of the parish. All these were kept and managed by the lay-elected officials of the societies—confraternities, I suppose, we should call them—and to their credit are entered numerous gifts of money and specific gifts of value of kind, such as cows, and swarms of bees, etc. Most of them had their little capital funds invested in cattle and sheep, the rent of which proved a considerable part of their revenues. In a word, these accounts furnish abundant and unmistakeable evidence of the active and intelligent interest in the duty of supporting and adorning their church on the part of these simple country folk at large. What is true of this is true of every other similar account to a greater or less degree, and all these accounts show unmistakeably that the entire management of these parish funds was in the hands of the people.
Voluntary rates to clear off obligations contracted for the benefit of the community—such as the purchase of bells, the repair of the fabric, and even for the making of roads and bridges—were raised by the wardens. Collections for Peter’s pence, for the support of the parish clerk, and for every variety of church and local purpose, are recorded, and the spirit of self-help manifested, on every page of these accounts. To return to Morebath. In 1528 a complete set of black vestments was purchased at a cost—considerable in those days—of £6 5s., and to help in the common work the vicar gave up certain tithes in wool that he had been in the habit of receiving. These vestments, by the way, were only finished and paid for in 1547, just before the changes under Edward VI. rendered them useless. In 1538 the parish made a voluntary rate to purchase a new cope, and the general collections for this purpose produced some £3 6s. 8d. In 1534 the silver chalice was stolen, and at once, we are told, “ye yong men and maydens of ye parysshe dru themselves together, and at ther gyfts and provysyon they bought in another chalice without any charge of the parish.” Sums of money, big and small; specific gifts in kind; the stuff or ornaments needed for vestments, were apparently always forthcoming when needed. Thus at one time a new cope is suggested, and Anne Tymwell, of Hayne, gave the churchwardens her “gown and her ring”; Joan Tymwell, a cloak and a girdle; and Richard Norman, “seven sheep and 3 shillings and 4 pence in money,” towards the cost.
These examples could be multiplied to any extent, but the above will be sufficient to show the popular working of mediæval parishioners in support of their church. The same story of local government, popular interest, and ready self-help, as well as an unmistakeable spirit of affection for the parish church as theirs—their very own—is manifested by the people in every account we possess. Every adult of both sexes had a voice in the system, and the parson was little more in this regard than chairman of the village meetings, and, as I have more than once seen him described, “chief parishioner.” In the management of the fabric, the service, and all things necessary for the due performance of these, the people were not merely called upon to pay, but it is clear the diocesan authorities evidently left to the parish a wise discretion. No doubt the higher ecclesiastical officials could interfere in theory, but in practice interference was obviously and wisely rare. It will be necessary in a subsequent chapter to describe the various methods employed to replenish the parochial exchequer. There was apparently seldom much difficulty in finding the necessary money, and it will be of interest to see how it was expended by some further examples.