CHAPTER XXII.

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Churchmen of learning and character, who contrasted favourably in the eyes of the nation with the king’s nominees thus superseded.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.