Part 3 (1/2)
Lastly the mother parish church, in large parishes requiring chapels of ease, would exact (when it could) contributions from those congregations who frequented for ordinary divine wors.h.i.+p these chapels of ease within the parish. And these exactions would be made irrespective of the fact that these congregations were bound to repair their own chapels and possessed their own churchwardens.[312]
When the means or expedients we have hitherto set forth were found insufficient, or impracticable, or too tardy for an emergency, the parish was compelled to resort to _Rates_ or _a.s.sessments_.
a.s.sessments were levied in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of purposes. In an emergency, or if the sum to be raised was not large, a levy might be made by the princ.i.p.al men of the parish upon themselves only.[313] A ”rate” might, however, be made to collect a very small sum, as well as a very large one.[314] All kinds of units or rules of a.s.sessment were resorted to from parish to parish, and (apparently) sometimes no fixed unit at all was taken, men's ability to pay being roughly gauged, or a man being permitted to rate himself,[315] or give his ”benevolence.”
In the wardens' accounts are frequently seen long lists of names, each being taxed at a sum varying from 1/2d. to three or four s.h.i.+llings.
Such lists may represent an attempt to tax each man at 1/2d. or 1d. in the pound, or, likely as not, it may merely mean a crude sizing up of the ability of each to contribute.
Furthermore, a ”rate” might consist in a fixed sum, the same for all, and levied by polls or by households,[316] say 1d. or 2d. each. Or, again, it might be levied by pews at varying sums.[317] a.s.sessments to pay the parish clerk or s.e.xton might sometimes be made in kind, and issue from households, from cottages, or from ploughlands: so much corn at Easter, so much bread, so many eggs.[318]
When it came to the more accurate basing of rates upon lands, or goods at a valuation, the inhabitants of the various communities observed no uniform ratio of taxation from parish to parish, nor even in the same parish, and disputes were always recurring.[319]
It must be borne in mind that parish financiering was largely of the hand-to-mouth variety. Indeed, it was difficult it should be otherwise, for the exigencies of the civil or the ecclesiastical authorities were constantly s.h.i.+fting, now a petty lump sum being required (and to be spent as soon as raised), now a great one to be disbursed in the same manner.
In conclusion, a few observations on the parish as a financial unit in connection with county government may be made. There seems to have been no general treasury at the disposal of the hundred or of the county, but merely certain treasurers charged with the disburs.e.m.e.nt of this or that special collection for this or that special purpose. A collection is made by order of the justices, for instance, in certain hundreds, or throughout the s.h.i.+re, for the support of the prisoners in the county gaol, and a treasurer for the fund is appointed. Or it may be that this treasurer is a more or less permanent official. And so with collections for hospitals, for houses of correction, for great bridges, etc. If the constables levied more than was sufficient for a parish, or if the contemplated disburs.e.m.e.nt turned out to be less than originally estimated, the surplus, if the justices had no immediate use for it, might be returned to that parish to go back into the pockets of the rate payers.[320] Furthermore, it seems scarcely accurate in Elizabethan times to speak of any _county rate_,[321] for there was no recognized basis of a.s.sessment common to all parishes, unless it were at any given time the then prevailing subsidy rate, and a rating according to the subsidy books by the justices would fail to reach many whom a parish rating might attain. As a matter of fact the justices, when they had a large sum to levy on the county at large, almost always apportioned it in lump sums among the hundreds, or among the parishes of their respective divisions, according to ”the bygnes or smallnes of their parishes.”[322] It comes, then, to all practical intents and purposes to this: that each parish is left to produce according to its own local methods, or rating, the wherewithal for carrying on county government.
While in local government itself the paris.h.i.+oners have practically no voice, the large measure of freedom they enjoy for the devising of ways and means to meet the demands made upon them (though they have no option whatever in granting or withholding supplies) gives to the parish a vigorous ent.i.ty and a certain autonomous life of its own, which otherwise it never could have possessed over against the all-regulating and inquisitorial Tudor machinery of Church and State.
As the reign advanced the parish developed a selfish, jealous and exclusive gild life of its own, especially under the operation of the poor laws.
Non-paris.h.i.+oners, or ”foreigners,” were viewed with the strongest suspicion. Generally they were discriminated against if they happened to have dealings with the parish. Wedding or funeral fees were doubled in their cases.[323] If the paris.h.i.+oners could have had their will no alien poor could have gained a settlement amongst them--no, not even after twenty years' residence. In 1598 the West Riding, Yorks.h.i.+re, justices were compelled to interfere in favor of divers poor persons in various parishes, where officers were seeking to expel them as vagrants born elsewhere, though they had been domiciled in their adopted communities for twenty years and upwards.[324]
Already that ”organized hypocrisy,” so characteristic of parish life in later reigns, shows itself in the many presentments of, and pet.i.tions against, persons supposedly immoral--especially single women. Not zeal for morality prompts these indictments, but fear that the community may have to support illegitimate children.[325] Quite typical of the times is the language held by the inhabitants of Castle Combe in appealing to the Wilts.h.i.+re justices against a townwoman in 1606. They are apprehensive, they say, lest ”by this licentious life of hers not only G.o.d's wrath may be powered downe uppon us ... but also hir evill example may so greatly corrupt others than great and extraordinary charge ... may be imposed uppon us.”[326]
Few laws on the statute book were so frequently enforced as the 31 Eliz. c. 7, which required four acres to be laid to every cottage to be constructed, for there was a powerful local backing behind the law.
When John Fletcher, ”a meere stranger lately come into this Parish with his wife and children,” took certain parcels of land in Severn Stoke in 1593, and was suspected of the intention to build a cottage without laying to it the requisite number of acres, the paris.h.i.+oners immediately complained to the Worcester justices, for they wanted to provide against the contingent liability of having to support the inmates.[327] Four acres was then the quant.i.ty considered necessary to maintain a man and his family. It was an indictable offence to sublet, for then there would be two families where only one was before. Nor could lodgers be taken, for such increase of the inmates of the house would surcharge the land.[328]
In short, that feeling of distrust and discrimination against the outside world, which, in the 18th century, led a Lancas.h.i.+re vestry to dub all outsiders ”foreigners,”[329] is already fully developed by the end of the 16th century. But we must also recognize that this feeling engendered in the parish itself solidarity of interests, close fellows.h.i.+p and local spirit.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Richard Hooker, _Ecclesiastical Polity_, Bk. viii, 448-9 (ed.
1666).
[2] c.o.ke, 4 _Inst_., 320 (ed. 1797).
[3] See 14 Eliz. c. 5, sec. 16, and 39 Eliz. c. 3.
[4] 37 Hen. VIII, c. 17, re-enacted I Eliz. c. I. ”The real effect of the statute was this--that lay lawyers were subst.i.tuted for the clerical canonists of pre-Reformation times.” Lewis T. Dibden, _An Historical Inquiry into the Status of the Ecclesiastical Courts_ (1882), 59. By canon cxxvii of the Canons of 1604 in order to be a chancellor, a commissary, or an official in the courts Christian, a man must be ”_ad minimum magister artium, aut in jure bacalareus, ac in praxi et causis forensibus laudabiliter exercitatus_.” E. Cardwell, _Synodalia_ (etc.), i, 236. Cf. Blomefield, _Hist. of Norfolk_, iii, 655-6 (Parker's report, 1563. Officials of the archdeacons not required to be in orders). E. Cardwell, _Doc.u.mentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England_, i, 426 (Complaint in a doc.u.ment of circa 1584 [or later] that excommunication is executed by laymen. In the answer by the bishops it is stated [_ibid_., 428] _inter alia_, ”that in later times, divines have wholly employed themselves to divinity and not to the proceedings and study of the law”). To the same effect, but for a later period, see White Kennett, _Parochial Antiquities_ (Oxon. ed. 1695), 642.
[5] Harrison, writing in 1577, says that archdeacons keep, beside two visitations or synods yearly, ”their ordinarie courts which are holden within so manie or more of their several deaneries by themselues or their officials once in a moneth at the least.” Harrison, _Description of England_, Bk. ii, _New Shakespeare Soc_. for 1877 (ed. Dr.
Furnivall), p. 17. Between 27th Nov., 1639, and 28th Nov., 1640, there were thirty sittings in the court of the Archdeacon of London. Hale, _Crim. Prec_., introd. p. liii. Any casual inspection of the visitation act-books reveals the fact that the judge sits either in court or in chambers between visitations, for offenders are constantly ordered to appear again in a few days or in a few weeks. Compulsory presentments were, however, limited by law and custom to two courts a year. See canons 116 and 117 of the Canons of 1604. Also Gibson, _Codex_, ii, 1001.
[6] See p. 18 and p. 20 _infra_. For the duty to read the injunctions or the articles based on them see p. 32 _infra_.
[7] See 5 Eliz. c. 3. _Stats. of the Realm_, iv, Pt. i, 411. Also Visitation of Warrington Deanery in 1592 by the Bishop of Chester in _Lancas.h.i.+re and Ches.h.i.+re Historic Soc. Trans_., n. s., x (1895), 186 _et pa.s.sim_. Hereinafter cited as _Warrington Deanery Visit_. Cf. also Grindal's Injunc. for the Province of York (1571), art. 17, _Remains of Grindal, Parker Soc_., 132 ff.
[8] See Visitations of the Archdeacon of Canterbury, _Archaeologia Cantiana_, xxvi (1904), 24 (1602). Mr. Arthur Hussey has published copious extracts from the act-books of these visitations extending over a considerable period in vols. xxv-xxvii of the _Arch. Cant_.
Hereinafter cited as _Canterbury Visit_., xxv (etc.). For perambulations see p. 27 _infra_.
[9] Cordy Jeaffreson, _Middles.e.x County Records_, i, 100-1 (Indictment reciting that John Johnson had had due notice in his parish church, yet had not sent his wain, etc., 1576). Cf. provisions of the statutes 5 Eliz. c. 13, and 18 Eliz. c. 10, _Stats. of Realm_, iv, Pt. i, 441-3, and 620-1 respectively.
[10] Brownlow v. Lambert, C.B., 41 Eliz., I _Croke Eliz. Rep., Leache's ed_. (1790), Pt. ii, 716.