Page:VCH London 1.djvu/332

 A HISTORY OF LONDON about once every hundred years, from the 13th to the 19th century.''* The arrangement made by Roger Niger has already been described.^* It was not working well by the middle of the 14th century, for in 1354 and 1355 suffragan bishops granted forty days' indulgence to those parishioners who paid, their full dues to the rector of St. Pancras Soper Lane," and in 1356 the Archbishop of Canterbury issued mandates concerning the payment of obla- tions in the City parishes within his jurisdiction. -° By 1367 the matter had become serious enough for the archbishop and the Bishop of London to intervene by a joint commission of inquiry." A dispute was settled in 1397 by Archbishop Arundel, whose constitution was confirmed in 1406 by a papal bull. It appears that as Roger Niger's constitution had only men- tioned rents up to 40J., some whose houses exceeded that value had refused to offer more than id. The archbishop accordingly decreed that cl. was to be paid for every ioj. rent up to any amount on Sundays and solemn days and double feasts, especially those of apostles whose vigils were fasts.** In addition to these offerings the citizens were supposed in theory to pay ' personal tithes ' on their gains by trading.-' It is doubtful how far this was ever actually done, but the ecclesiastical authorities vigorously upheld the principle in 1425, when the warden of the Grey Friars, William Russell, was treated as a heretic for maintaining in a sermon that personal tithes were not due to the curates of parish churches by God's law, but could be lawfully disposed of in other ' uses of piety." About 1449 a fresh quarrel began. The point now at issue was the number of days on which offerings were to be made, some citizens asserting that Archbishop Arundel's constitution was invalid, and that according to Roger Niger's they were only bound to offer on Sundays and on the feasts of apostles whose vigils were fasts. '^ A certain Robert Wright was sued for his unpaid offerings, and the Court of Common Council decided that he should be defended at the cost of the City if the case were carried to the Roman court.'* Early in 1453 the Bishop of London, speaking 'not without bitterness of heart,' asked for the opinion of the Upper House of Convoca- tion, and the bishops named six of the wisest clergy of the province to take counsel with the mayor and others chosen by the City. But the case was carried to Rome, whither the mayor and aldermen sent ' orators ' to plead the cause of the citizens,'* who were to procure recommendations from the friars or other notabilities.'" These men were, however, detained by the Bishop "' Much information about these disputes is to be found in a treatise by Brian Walton printed in Brewster's Collectanea Eccl. (1752), and in Moore's Case respecting the Maintenance of the Lond. Clergy (1812). " Vide supra, p. 187. " Cant. Archiepis. Reg. Islip, fol. 125. " Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 6j. " Ibid. 231 ; Cal. of Papal Letters, vi, 107. " See the discussion of this question by Lyndewode, Provinciale (ed. 1679), ^'-"' ^^ concludes that pirsonal tithes were due under the London system as much as under that which prevailed in other parts of England. ' Privy tithes' were reckoned as a part of the income of the rector of St. Magnus in 1494, with other casual dues ; Arnold, op. cit. 228. Cf. the mention of them in the 'composition' as to be left to the 'good devotion and conscience' of the parishioners; ibid. 72. ^° Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 439 et seq. See the section on ' Religious Houses.' " Bull of Pope Nicholas in Arnold, Customs of Lond. 58 ; Rec. Corp. Letter Bk. K, fol. 274. The bull mentions nineteen days in dispute ; cf. the 'composition' (Arnold, op. cit. 71) and the list in Letter Bk. O, fol. 145/'. " Rec. Corp. Journ. v, fol. 58, 79^. " Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 562-3. " Rec. Corp. Journ. v, fol. 87 snd passim. " Ibid. fol. 90^. 248
 * ' Par. Rec. Bk. ; the entry is partly printed by Malcolm, Lond. Redivivum, ii, 166-8.