Church courts

Religious and moral matters, such as non-attendance at church services, non-payment of church dues, cursing and sexual misconduct, were usually dealt with by church courts, such as the Consistory Court, where a common form of punishment was excommunication. Church Courts "were not entitled to harm the body of any individual or to fine them, although the bills for legal services may have been punishment enough for some" (Anne Tarver, Church Court Records, Phillimore, 1995, p. 1). The most common deterrent was public shaming.

A case from Madley, which happened as late as 1821, involves an act of public penance, which would have been common in the 15th and 16th centuries. A woman named N. Gardiner, who had been accused of slander, had to wear a white sheet and walk up and down the aisles of the church and take back all she had said in a loud voice. (Ella Mary Leather, Folk-Lore of Herefordshire, 1912, p. 159)

The following excerpt from the Consistory Court Acts Books, now kept in the Cathedral Library, describes a case of cursing, for which the culprit was excommunicated:

"Yarpel Johannes Peacombe alias Smyth for cursing Walter of the same, viz: kneeling one his knees in the Churcheyard there, and praicing unto God that a heavie vengeance, and a heavie plague might light on him and all his cattle." (Act Book of the Episcopal Consistory Court of the Bishop of Hereford 1542-1543)

Many cases throughout the county are recorded as involving play acting and dancing, two activities which were forbidden on a Sunday during the time of church services. On 30th June 1617, for example, a Thomas Waucklen, painter, was detected by the churchwardens of Kingsland acting in a play with others"upon the sabbath day at time of evening prayer", an offence for which he was excommunicated (Diocese of Hereford, Acts of Office, Hereford Record Office box 24a, vol. 71).

The charges against Edward Hall, innkeeper in Ledbury, demonstrate the popularity of Morris dancing in this county:

"He, being an actor and morris dancer, and having gone out of the parish to other places with gun and drum both in night to the disturbance of the king's subjects and the profanation of the sabbath day in the morning." (Archdeaconry of Hereford, Acts of Office, Hereford Record Office box 24, vol. 90)

It seems that Morris dancing was popular in Wellington as well: a William Edwardes was excommunicated "for dancing the morris at Wellington on a sabbath day before evening prayer" (Acts of Decanal Court, Marden, 2nd December 1620).

(Note: A useful source for records related to music, drama and dance is: Records of Early English Drama Herefordshire and Worcestershire, edited by David N. Klausner, University of Toronto Press, 1990. There is a copy of this book in the Cathedral Library.)

Sometimes, however, cases of a religious nature came before a secular court as sometimes religious comments could be interpreted as being treasonous to the monarch. Religion was a very important part of life and many people died trying to worship in the way of their choice.

In Great Britain we take our freedom of speech and freedom of religion for granted. Most of us would consider the following case to be a breach of good manners rather than a criminal matter. In 1670, a Roger Boulcott brought information concerning a Thomas Elton "who, in conversation about the liturgy of the Church of England, said he would come to hear sermons, but would as soon hear a fart as the Book of Common Prayer ..." (Hereford City Records, Miscellaneous Papers, 1670, #61, Hereford Record Office). People must have been aware that others were executed for their religious beliefs. It is therefore surprising that some volunteered opinions when it would have been much safer to remain quiet.

In 1660, after the restoration of the monarchy, those who had been treated badly for supporting the monarchy during the Protectorate sought to settle old scores. From several depositions given during this period it seems that feelings had run high and that people had not been reticent in keeping their opinions to themselves:

"John Dicke deposed that, about eight years before, Mary Quarrell had said that the king was the son of a papist whore; Walter Freene, that Edmund Quarrell had said that if the king returned, he should be served as his father was; and Richard Meredith, that Edmund Quarrell recently had denied the possibility of the king's restoration." (Boxed Volume V, 1651-1847, BG 11/17/5, #26, Hereford Record Office)

It seems that the political views of Edmund Quarrell, minister of Staunton-on-Wye, and those of his wife Mary, were closely linked with their religious ones. An earlier deposition against them accuses them of treasonable language, and reviling the Book of Common Prayer. The Quarrells not only held strong opinions, it seems, but expressed these in very colourful language:

"Humphrey Baker deposed that Edmund Quarrell had said that the Book of Common Prayer was the devil's work and he would never read it; and Thomas Vaughan deposed that Mary Quarrell had said that it was not fitting for such a b****** as the king to inherit the land." (Boxed Volume V, 1651-1847, BG 11/17/5, #26, Hereford Record Office) Some might say, Quarrell by name, quarrel by nature!

In 1673 several men were charged with attending a Non-conformist meeting at the house of Thomas Seaborne, an ironmonger. Non-conformists were Protestants who were disillusioned with the Church of England and met in private houses to worship until they were permitted to build chapels. The Act of Toleration, passed in 1689, allowed Non-conformists - but not Catholics - the freedom of worship; Catholics had to wait until 1793 to be given the right to vote and until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 to be allowed to sit in Parliament.

It is difficult for us to imagine the constraints of life in the Tudor period. Freedoms we take for granted did not exist and things which are common practice today, such as extra-marital sex, were considered to be serious infringements then. If we consider, however, that there was no welfare state, no reliable birth control, and that each community had to look after its own, then it is perhaps not so surprising that illegitimate children would be frowned upon. Attitudes have changed and tolerance to differences is now encouraged. In the Tudor period, differences were seen as a threat to the existence of the community.

Herefordshire had its share of both male and female wrongdoers, and by studying some of the local court cases at the Hereford Record Office one can gain insight into many interesting happenings. Unfortunately, in many cases, we only have a record of the charge when the case was brought to court, not the outcome of the case and the punishment meted out. From the records that do survive, it seems that fining was a popular measure and the question arises: do many textbooks highlight brutal punishments, even though they occurred rarely, and pass them off as common practice, or was Hereford a moderate sort of place in terms of sentencing?

[Original author: Toria Forsyth-Moser, 2003]