id="id00097">Among the earliest vestry minutes of the parish of St. Christopher-le-Stocks, London, is one which, after ordering that an assessment be made for the clerk's wages and for pews, decreed that any rebellious persons should be summoned before themselves, the vestry, to be reformed. But if the rebel would not appear, or, on appearance, remain stubborn to reason, then the churchwardens should sue him before the ordinary at the parish costs "vntill suche tyme as he be reduced vnto a good order, and hath paid bothe the costys of the sute and the chargs that he owith vnto the church…."[125] Fifty years later we find this vestry ordaining the same procedure to be followed against parish debtors, and referring to its former order.[126]

It seems, in fact, to have been the well-understood thing that just as parish rates to defray the costs of those matters of parish administration, falling within the province of the ecclesiastical courts, were to be assessed by the authority, and under the direction, of those courts, so, too, the recovery of these rates was to be had before the same tribunals. It is not denied that recourse may occasionally have been made in these matters to the courts of common law, but it is believed that the proper remedy was at ecclesiastical law.[127] Furthermore, we believe that the means at the disposal of the ecclesiastical courts for putting their judgments into effect were quite sufficient and in practice effective.

What these means were will be taken up and discussed a little further on. Returning to the matter of suing parish debtors in courts Christian, it is interesting to find that in the language of the period a suit "at law" did not always mean at common law. An order of the vestry of Stepney, London, in February, 1605-6, after determining the manner in which £50 should be raised to pay off parish debts due to the bell founder, adds that persons refusing to pay their shares, or neglecting to do so, should not find themselves aggrieved "if the same be recouered against them by Lawe." And the meaning of this term is fully explained by these subsequent words in the same order, that the churchwardens shall "at the chardg of the p[ar]ish appointe and entertayne one doctor and a proctor to sue and recouer the same by lawe of any p[er]son [etc.]."[128] Now doctors and proctors practiced before ecclesiastical tribunals only.[129]

That presentment to the ordinary was the common and usual way, not only of recovering church rates, but any thing of value that belonged to the parish and was unjustly detained, the act-books and other documents of the time plentifully show. Thus in Archbishop Parker's Visitation Articles for the diocese of Canterbury in the year 1569, he requires all churchwardens to report to their ordinaries "whether there be any money or stoke, appertaininge to any paryshe churche, in anye manne's handes, that refuse or differeth to paye the same [etc.]."[130] The wardens of Melton Mowbray record under the year 1602 an item for charges at the court at Leicester against a parishioner "for not payinge his levi for the churche."[131] Those of Ashburton, Devon, itemize in 1568-1569 two shillings "for a zytation to those that wold nott pay to the power."[132] As the wardens of East Tilbury were going about among the parishioners demanding money of each one according to the rating inscribed on an assessment roll which they carried with them, one Garrett, a constable, discontented that he himself should be rated as high as four shillings, seized the roll and refused to produce it. This, of course, put an end to further collections. For this he was presented by the vicar before the consistory court at Stratford Bow Chapel. Here he alleged that the rating "was very unequally made." But the judge warned Garrett to appear in court the following Tuesday to answer for his contempt. Further he was to pay his four shillings to the wardens and bring to the judge the wardens' certificate that he had done so. On the day appointed Garrett was present in court with the vicar and wardens. The decree of the court is headed: "Negotiu[m] reparac[i]o[n]is eccl[esi]e de East Tilburie," and is so characteristic of the thoroughgoing and searching manner in which ordinaries supervised the administration of parish affairs that we cannot forbear to quote a large part of it in full. "Touchinge the same Wm Garrett," the registrar inscribes in the act-book, "the churchwardens do here testifie that he hathe payd his iiij s. w[hi]ch he was rated at…& they saye they have receyved it. Towching the churchwardens & the repayre [of] the church," the scribe continues, "the Judge doth order that the minister, Mr Howdsworth, [and seven others named, including wardens, sidemen and constables]…p[ro]cure workmen of all trad[es], & then sett downe under their hand in writing what chardg it will be to repayer the church sufficiently in all thing[s] wharein it is decayd, as namely, tyling, paving, masonns worke, carpenters worke & glasing…and when they have under the workmens hand founde what will repayer the churche in every p[ar]ticuler, then shall they all nyne assemple themselves in the church [on a day named]…and make a rate to that proportion w[hi]ch shall remayne above the rate already allowed of…and they shall certify in Stratford bowe Chappell bothe of the vew making by the workmen, of the gathering of the rate already made, of their making a new rate…and of the gathering thereof; and likewise how farr they have p[ro]ceeded in the repayer of the church the ixth of Aprill next: and for the punish[men]t of him, the said Wm Garrett, for his contemptuous taking away of the rate, as is complayned of, it is respited untill this p[resent] order be p[er]formed; & he is now monished to appeare in the Consistorie the first court day [etc]…."[133] So, too, when Richard Fynsett of Clayton, Sussex, was "detected" to the official for not paying his rate for church repairs, November, 1595, he appeared and claimed that not only was his rating excessive, but that the assessment had not been according to custom, to wit, made by the majority of the parishioners. He was summoned by the judge to prove his allegation at the next court day, and to pay his court and other fees. He was probably unable to prove his point, for under the 9th December following the record simply states "Comparuit et solvit feoda debita."[134]

The wardens of Swalecliffe, Kent, complain to the archdeacon of Canterbury in 1565 that their church is near utter decay, but the parish is so poor that they cannot repair it unless an assessment be made on the lands within the parish, for the making of which assessment they ask for an authorization.[135] Two years later they appear and say in court that their church still lacks windows, "and the parish is not able to mend the same, without it may please you that the rest of the cess that was made may be levied, which we cannot get unless we have your aid."[136]

In the same way the wardens of St. Alban's "implored the aid of the judge," because they wished divers persons who refused to pay their rates "co[m]pelled therunto by aucthoritye of this court," otherwise the unpaid workmen on their ruinous church would leave, and the half-finished structure sustain damage by winter weather.[137] The act-books teem with such presentments as the following: one Holaway refuses to give to the poor-box, "and is found able by the parish."[138] Thomas Arter will give but a half-penny to the poor. Arter appears and "saithe that he is not of the wealthe that men takithe him to be." The judge commands him to pay a half-penny every week, and dismisses him.[139] "John Wilson haithe not paide his clerke wages by the report of the clerke."[140] "Here follow the names of such, as being able, refuse notwithstanding to pay to the poor man's box [eight names follow]";[141] or "The presentment made by the churchwardens and sidemen…of all such as are behind for a cess made for the Church and refuse to pay [five