Parish Priests and Their People in the Middle Ages in England

by Edward Lewes Cutts

The Vicar of Newark returns his income from “tiethe chekens, doves, gowse, piggs, apples, peares, worth a yere xl^s iij; offering daies, viz. All Saynts’ Daie, Xr̄ēmas Daie, and the Sondaie nexte after the feaste of Mary Magdaleyn, iiij^li vi^s; personall tithes at Eastor, xxj^li; offerings at m’iages, purificac̄ōn̄s of women, buryalls, wi^t other casualties, iij^li iv^s.; total, £30 10s. Whereof to the archebushopp of Yorke for synage, xvij^s vi^d; to the archedeacon of Nottingham for procurac̄ons, xvij^s vi^d; for waxe spent in the sv̄īc̄ē time in the churche, xvj^s ix^d; for wyne the ole yere and at Eastor spent in the churche, xvij^s vi^d; for oyle spent in the lampe in the queyre day and night, ix^s; for breade and franckingsence, ij^s viij^d; for bell-strings, iiij^d, and for the stipend of thone of the parryshe preistes, v^li. Total, £21 5s. 1d.”[438]

Some special sources of income which occur here and there are worth notice:—

The Vicar of Leominster has the herbage of the cemeteries of the church and chapels; the tithes of the bakers and taverners within the borough. Mass pennies and candle oblations, and oblations for the blessed bread on the Lord’s days.[439]

The case of Lenton, Notts, has also features of special interest. It was appropriated to the Prior of Lenton:—[440]

Richard Matthew, vicar there. Is worth for his house there, and with an acre of land, by the year, 6s. 8d.; for Easter tithes, 54s.; for offerings on the three days, 12s.; for offerings at marriages, churchings, and burials, one year with another, 5s.; for oblations on Sundays, 1¼d., amounting to 7s. 4d. a year; for a corrody of bread and ale at the Priory of Lenton, every week 1s. 6d., amounting to 78s. a year; and every day for food from the cook of the said prior to the value of 1d., amounting to 30s. 5d. a year; for tithe of wool and lambs, one year with another, 12s.; for pigs, geese, and fowls, 10s.; for tithe of flax and hemp, 3s.; for tithe of fruits, one year with another, 12s.; for grass and hay for one horse, found by the said prior, 3s. 4d. a year; in the whole £10 11s. 1¼d. Thence is paid annually to the said prior and his successors for a certain pension, 28s. 8d. And there remains £9 2s. 6¼d.

We began with a return from a curate in sole charge of the parish of an absentee rector. Here is the case of a non-resident rector who lets his benefice to farm:—

Tunstall, Kent. The certificate of Sir Symon Jenyns, parson there, made by Symon Spacherst, his farmer:—

First, the same Symon Spacherst payeth to the said parson yearly £8. Item paid to the priest for his wages, £6 13s. 4d., making £14 13s. 4d. Whereof deducted for proxies[441] yearly 5s., leaving clear annual value, £14 8s. 4d.

We take up now the question which was postponed from the preceding chapter, of the value of money at various periods during the Middle Ages compared with its value in our times, and especially at the period of the “Taxatio,” A.D. 1292, and at the period of the “Valor,” A.D. 1534. The comparative value of a given income at the two periods depends upon two things: first, upon the purchasing power of a pound at the end of the thirteenth century, and again at the middle of the sixteenth century compared with the present day; and, second, upon the style of living at the several periods.

First, as to the comparative purchasing power, it is not an easy question to determine. The late Mr. Thorold Rogers has given an immense mass of data[442] for its determination, but he has not conferred upon students the advantage of a table of comparative values for certain dates. In default of this, we fall back upon other conclusions drawn from similar collections of materials. Hallam, in his “History of Europe,” arrives at the conclusion that “we can hardly take a less multiple than about thirty for animal food, and eighteen or twenty for corn, in order to bring the prices of the thirteenth century to a level with those of the present day. Combining the two, and setting the comparative dearness of cloth against the cheapness of fuel and many other articles, we may perhaps consider any given sum under Henry III. and Edward I. as equivalent in general command over commodities to about twenty-four or twenty-five times its normal value at present;” and again, “In the time of Edward I., an income of £10 or £20 a year was reckoned a competent estate for a gentleman; at least the lord of a single manor would seldom have enjoyed more.” The same writer says, “Sixteen will be a proper multiple, when we would bring the general standard value of money in the reign of Henry VI. to our present standard.” Dean Milman, speaking of payments in 1344, says, without giving reason or quoting authority, “Multiply by fifteen to bring to present value.”[443] Froude says, “A penny in terms of the labourer’s necessities must have been equal in the reign of Henry VIII. to the present shilling;” and adopts “the relative estimate of twelve to one,” as generally representing the comparative value of money at that period. The Rev. Dr. Cunningham, formerly professor of Economic Science, K.C.L., kindly replying to a question on the subject, says, “For 1535, I should say that a penny was worth at least a shilling in the present day. I could not give a guess of any value as to the change between 1291 and 1535. At the former date I fancy the values were estimates, and that the actual receipts were chiefly in kind.” We have ventured to take, as approximate multiples, twelve times for the date of the “Taxatio” (A.D. 1291), and twenty-four times for the “Valor” (A.D. 1535).