Page:VCH London 1.djvu/281

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY period a burning one with the lay authorities. In 1298 the aldermen had ordered that no thief or other malefactor should from thenceforth be watched so long as he remained in sanctuary.*" The escape of a malefactor from St. Paul's in 1292, and another from St. Gregory's, had called the king's attention to the matter, and, though twenty-nine years later the mayor and aldermen were granted a pardon for not preventing these escapes, it was only on condition that henceforth misdemeanants in sanctuary should be guarded,**" Besides these crimes of violence, there was a want of reverence which showed itself in more trivial matters. In 1308 the rector of St. Bartholomew the Little was reproved for allowing timber to be stored in his churchyard,**' and in 1 3 1 1 a general prohibition was issued against wrestling (lucte) in churches and churchyards.**' The character of the London clergy at this period was not all that might be desired. It appears by a City ordinance of 1297 that the night watch- men used to raid the houses of priests and hale them off to the ' Tun,' a prison for persons suspected of felony, on charges of adultery or fornication. The indignant clergy complained of this as a violation of the privileges of the Church, which provided that no layman might take priests or clerks and imprison them without a special royal mandate, except for breaking the king's peace, and accordingly such arrests were forbidden for the future on pain of a fine of j^2o.*" This prohibition had to be renewed in 13 13,*" as the illegal arrests continued to be made. Such offences of the clergy were properly dealt with by the archdeacon's court, but the administration appears to have been very corrupt, for about this time the rectors themselves brought definite charges of immorality against the archdeacon's ' apparitors ' and peti- tioned for their removal, since it was the common talk of the town that the clergy sheltered them that they might continue to indulge their own vices. *^* Many of the clergy were in charge of cures at this time while still in low orders. The Canterbury registers show that between 1282 and 1302 two men who were already rectors were ordained sub-deacon, and two others were ordained sub-deacon to the title of London rectories. One rector was ordained deacon and three were ordained priest.*" This abuse was, of course, prevalent all over the country at this period ; the attention of the pope and bishops had been called to it, and attempts were made to find a remedy. In 1298 and 13 12 there are cases of incumbents resigning London benefices because they were not in priest's orders.*" There are other indications that many of them were of inferior character and capacity. Archbishop Peckham was no doubt biased in favour of the friars, and it is in connexion with the great controversy between these and the secular clergy that he expresses his opinion of the latter. Some parish priests had complained of Franciscans hearing confessions and giving absolution without their licence, and Peckham wrote to the Dean of St. Paul's, '" Riley, Mem. 36. '" Mm. GUdholke Land. (Rolls Ser.), ii (i), 3+6. '" Cant. Epis. Reg. Winchelsey, fol. 291^. "' Lond. Epis. Reg. Baldock and Gravesend, fol. 30. "" Mun. Gildhalke Lond. Liber Cust. (Rolls Ser.), ii (i), 213. "' Lond. Epis. Reg. Baldock and Gravesend, fol. 32; cf. Riley, Mem. 1 40. »" Camb. Univ. Lib. GG. 4, 32. •" Reg. Epist. J. Peckham (Rolls Ser.), iii, 1030, 1041, 1044, 1045, 1054, 105; ; Cant. Epis. Reg. Winchelsey, fol. 1 1 zb. "* Cal. of Papal Letters, i, 578 ; ii, 103 ; cf. Lond. Epis. Reg. Baldock and Gravesend, fol. 38. 199