“Notwithstanding the rents, duties, and services, and the fine paid on entering, the inferior tenants of the Prior had a beneficial interest in their holdings, which gave rise to a recognized system of tenant-right, which we may see growing into a customary right; the only limitation of the tenant’s right being inability, from poverty or other cause, to pay rent or perform the accustomed services.”
When the monastery of Durham was suppressed and its place of the Cathedral Prior and Monks taken by a Dean and Chapter, it was found, by the middle of Elizabeth’s reign, that the change was gravely detrimental to the interests of the tenants, and the new body soon made it plain that they had no intention of respecting prescriptive rights. This appears clearly in a document printed in the same volume, about which the editor says—
“A review of the Halmote Rolls leaves no room for doubt that the tenants, other than those of the demesne lands, during the period covered by the text, had a recognized tenant-right in their holdings, which was ripening into a customary freehold estate; and we might have expected to find, in the vills or townships in which the Dean and Chapter possessed manorial rights, the natural outcome of this tenant-right in the existence of copyhold or customary freehold estates at the present time, as we find in the manors of the see of Durham. It is a well-known fact, however, that there are none. The reason is, that soon after the foundation of the Cathedral body, the Dean and Chapter refused to recognize a customary estate in their tenants.”
The presence of “minstrels” at parish dinners and feasts has already been noticed. It is probable that these musicians were more frequently employed to enliven “the deadly dulness of village life” than might now be supposed. At Tatton, from which many of these illustrations have been taken, the payments for “minstrels” in the sixteenth century come very regularly into the parish accounts; and it seems hardly very far-fetched to suggest that these musicians probably went from one parish feast-day to another, as at the present day the brass band goes from one village club-day celebration to another.
A word may be usefully said about the effect of religion on the family life generally. Regularity of attendance at all religious celebrations in the church was universal, or practically so. This was the case, not on account of any ecclesiastical compulsion—although, in case of need, it could be, and no doubt was exerted—but, as far as it is possible to judge, the church services were attended and religious duties fulfilled, as part of the Christian life which all desired to follow, and in deference to a healthy public opinion which, in these matters, did not admit of backsliding.
The father’s and the mother’s duty of bringing up their children to know God’s law and to keep it, was fully understood.
“Every man and woman,” says the author of Dives and Pauper, “after his degree, is bound to do his business to know God’s law that he is bound to keep. And fathers, mothers, godfathers and godmothers be bound to teach their children God’s law or else do them to be taught.
“St. Austin saith that each man in his own household should do the office of bishop in teaching and correcting of common things, and therefore saith the law that the office of teaching and chastising belongeth not only to the bishop but to every governor after his manner and his degree: to the poor man governing his poor household; to the rich man governing his folk; to the husband governing his wife; to the father and mother governing their children.”
Filial affection was strongly inculcated in the common teachings. In a will of one John Sothil of Dewsbury, in 1500, is expressed the last wish of one who had evidently been brought up to reverence his own parents. “Also I pray, Thomas my son, in my name and for the love of God, that he never strive with his moder, as he will have my blessing, for he shall find her curtous to del with.”