A HISTORY OF LONDON of the Parliament. Plurality and employment in such secular occupations led to much non-residence/ the result of which, said Colet, was that ' all things now-a-days are done by vicaries and parish priests, yea and those foolish also and unmeet and oftentimes wicked, that seek none other thing in the people than foul lucre, whereof cometh occasion of evil heresies and ill Christendom in the people ' ; ' vile and abject persons ' were left to ' exercise high and holy things,' while their superiors were occupied in worldly affairs.* There is no doubt that these statements were true in the case of the London assistant clergy. In 1481 money was bequeathed to found a community of the seven chantry priests in the church of St. James Garlickhithe, because they associated with laymen and wandered about instead of dwelling among clerks as was fitting.^ Five years later a complaint was laid before Convoca- tion that learned preachers at Paul's Cross, among them two of the Grey Friars and some of the City rectors, had declaimed against ecclesiastical persons in the presence of laymen, ' who are always prejudiced {infesti) against the clergy.' It was found on inquiry that London priests had been accustomed to have their meals {communas) in eating-houses [pandoxatoria) and even in taverns, where they would sit nearly all day. The bishops exhorted them to have their meals together in parties of twelve or thirteen, and to cut their long hair and cease to wear clothes like those of laymen {togis . . . per totum apertis).^ The matter led to new statutes for the reformation of the dress, &c. of the clergy,^ but no lasting improvement ensued, for at the visitation of St. Magnus already noticed ^ it was presented ' that divers of the priests and clerks in time of divine service be at taverns and ale-houses, at fishing and other trifles';* and one of the reforms desired by the 'commons of the City ' about 1500, was that henceforth no citizen should receive ' any priest in commons or to board by the day, week, month, or year,' other than a ' priest retained with a citizen in familiar household.' This recommendation was made ' to the intent that the order of priesthood be had in due reverence . . . and that none occasions of incontinence grow by the familiarity of secular people.' "* Definite evidence of clerical immorality at this period is to be found in the records of the bishop's Commissary Court," and violent behaviour and other misconduct on the part of priests was not unusual.'* The extent to which the priesthood had lost the respect of the lower classes is illustrated by the case of a parishioner of St. Botolph's Aldgate, who abused the curate, telling him to ' leave his preaching,' and received the Sacrament in his hand, saying that he could do so lawfully 'as well as the curate.' '* Hall states that the ' Newcourt, Refertorium, passim ; Diet. Nat. Btog. ; Hale, A Series ofFrecedents, 72 ; Harl. MS. 133 (in fifteen out of seventy-six parishes an unbeneficed 'curatus' was employed by the rector or vicar, who must therefore have been absent for at least a part of the year, and six out of ninety-five assistant clergy held bene- fices ; cf. Arnold, Customs of Lond. 278); L. and P. Hen. Fill, i, 611, 1356; frequent mention of the 'parish priest' in parochial records of this period.
- Sermon before convocation in 1512, printed by Lupton, Li/e of Colet, 297, 300.
' Cal. Pat. 1476-85, p. 252. * Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 618-19. ' Ibid. 619-20. ' Supra, p. 234. ' Arnold, Customs of Lond. 278. '" Arnold, op. cit. 89. " Hale, A Series of Precedents, 22, 28, 39, 42, 75, 76, 80, 83 ; cf Stow, Survey (ed. Kingsford), i, 190. " Hale,op. cit. 61 (cf. 37), 66, 78 ; L. and P. Hen. nil, i, 1783,2034; ii, 3842 ; iii, 278 (l 4) (cf Hall's statement that ' certain young priests ' were concerned in the riot on ' Evil May Day'), 492 (20), 619, 3586 (6). For unsatisfactory relations between clergy and their ecclesiastical superiors see Hale, op. cit. 13, 34, 42, 82, 85. Perhaps the demand for competent priests exceeded the supply, for in 151 1 one was sued because he left St. Swithin's without finding another to celebrate ; ibid. 89. " In 1509 ; Hale, op. cit. 82 ; cf. 68. 246
