John Abbiss, M.A., Rector 1819–1883.
On the 24th December 1819, John Abbiss (pl. XCVI, p. 374) was
instituted by William Howley, Bishop of London, to the rectory
'vacant by the resignation of J. R. Roberts, on the presentation of (his
brother-in-law) William Phillips of Cavendish Square, co. Middlesex,
Esquire'. (fn. 1)
He was the son of John Abbiss (Esquire) and Mary Abbiss of
Wandsworth, Surrey. He entered Winchester College in 1807, (fn. 2) of
which he was prefect in VIth Book in 1811 (fn. 3) and captain in 1812. (fn. 4)
He matriculated at Trinity College, Oxford (where J. R. Roberts
was then a fellow), on the 17th October 1810. (fn. 5) He was an exhibitioner there from 1810 to 1813, and a scholar from 1813 to 1820. He
took a second class in Lit. Hum. in 1814, and graduated M.A. in 1817. (fn. 6)
He was ordained deacon, in Salisbury Cathedral, on the 6th August
1815, (fn. 7) and priest on the 19th December 1819 (five days before his
institution). It was probably after he was ordained deacon and
before he was ordained priest that he made the grand tour, and other
travels to which he used to refer.
He was no stranger at St. Bartholomew's at the time of his institution, for, as a deacon, he conducted a funeral here in 1816 and another
in 1818, and many times towards the close of 1819. In the latter
year he also preached during July, August, and October; (fn. 8) he took
a wedding in the July and a christening in December (fn. 9) of the same
year.
He preached his first sermon as rector two days after his induction,
and he continued to preach here Sunday after Sunday for 54 years;
his last sermon being on the 7th December 1873.
He very seldom allowed any one but himself and the lecturer to
occupy the pulpit. It is told (fn. 10) how on one occasion Mr. W. H. Jackson
(the father of the vestry clerk) had obtained a promise from Dr. Lightfoot to preach the annual sermon for the benefit of the parochial
schools in the presence of the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs. Mr. Abbiss
objected with the remark that he 'could not have a man like that',
so the chaplain to Queen Victoria, who later became the well-known
Bishop of Durham, had to be put off. Very occasionally he allowed
a relative to preach, such as Mr. W. Spenser Phillips, of Trinity
College, Oxford, in 1823, and Mr. J. G. Phillips, vicar of Eling, Hants,
in 1829. His nephew, Mr. F. P. Phillips, preached for him in 1847
and on several subsequent occasions. Mr. Abbiss himself preached
the sermon on the occasion of the death of George III.
He was very assiduous in his duties, always taking the funerals of
his parishioners himself until the graveyards were closed in 1853.
At first he had the assistance of Mr. Daniel Williams, who had been
appointed by the vestry to the post of Lecturer in the time of
Mr. O. P. Edwardes in 1804. In 1839 the vestry thanked Mr. Williams
for his 35 years of service, but at the same time had to tell him that,
owing to a resolution of the Parish Trustees the year before, they
could not be responsible for a continuance of his salary, and that
they feared very little aid would come from voluntary contributions.
In 1831 they had voted him for his salary the rent of 20 guineas from
the parish house, 86 Bartholomew Close, the rents of the pews and
the rents from encroachments. (fn. 11) Nevertheless Williams continued
to work on until he died in January 1851. The registers show that
this faithful priest on two occasions brought a family of six persons
each to Holy Baptism. In 1813 the family consisted of four men
and two women from Bedfordshire, of ages from 25 down to 11;
and in 1819 it consisted of three boys and three girls, aged from
4 to 13, from Cloth Fair. The total baptisms in those two years were
eighty and seventy-two respectively.
Williams' daughter, Mary Anne, was appointed organist by the
vestry in 1849 and so continued for thirteen years. She was rather
deaf, and Dean Swift's remark was quoted at the time as apropos
of the result—'The singers went before, the minstrels followed after'. (fn. 12)
In March 1852 the Rev. William Shulte, rector of St. Augustine's
and St. Faith's, was, out of seven candidates, elected by the parishioners as evening lecturer to the church, but as neither the sanction
of the rector nor the licence of the bishop could be obtained to the
appointment, it fell through, (fn. 13) and on the 2nd May (1852) Rector
Abbiss entered in the Preachers' Book that 'by the decision of the
vestry the lecture ceased this day'.
At first Mr. Abbiss had also the assistance of a curate, Mr. David
Evans in 1824, and Mr. Henry Thompson (for a short time) in 1828;
but from then he apparently had no curate other than Mr. Williams
until 1853. In that year Mr. T. H. Bullock took the afternoon
preaching until the church was closed for restoration in 1863. At its
re-opening in 1868 Mr. Squible was appointed curate; in 1872
Mr. Chartres; and in 1874 Mr. W. E. Faulkner.
Mr. Abbiss now being 83 years of age had to give up preaching
and the work was carried on by curates in charge: first by Mr. G. A.
Marshall until 1877; then by Mr. D. Shaboe, Mr. F. Pearce Pocock,
and Mr. J. Morgan in succession until 1880, when Mr. J. Sorrell took
charge until Mr. Abbiss' death in 1883. But during this time
Mr. Abbiss was frequently present at the services, though too infirm
to officiate.
He took an interest in the affairs of the parish and frequently
attended the vestry meetings, which were at that time held once
a month. But he never suffered any encroachment on his prerogatives
as chairman, either at a meeting of the parish or of the vestry, and
always declined thanks to the chair as he held that that position was
his by right. (fn. 14)
Within eight days of his institution, viz. on the 1st January 1820,
he started a note-book (still in the parish safe) (fn. 15) 'for the information
of succeeding rectors with a view to prevent those disputes and
differences which sometimes arise from a want of a clear and distinct
understanding of their just rights'. He commenced the entries in
the book with an indignant protest against the action of the vestry
in the year 1815 (some four years before his induction) regarding the
pews; (fn. 16) he says: 'This assumption of power to grant as it were a life
interest in property to which the parish at least had not yet established their claim and of which they had not even possession is most
unjustifiable.' Illidge, however, smoothed matters over, as we have
seen, and was probably instrumental in improving the relations
between rector and vestry; for in 1826 'the churchwarden reported
(to the vestry) that at the dinner on Ascension Day an elegant silver
snuff-box, with the inscription S.B.G. was presented (by the rector)
in a very handsome manner for the use of the parish at all public
meetings' (fn. 17) and at the Easter vestry of 1830 the rector presented
from his sister Mrs. Phillips, the widow of the patron, a further gift
of a silver gilt alms dish for the church, (fn. 18) which is still in use. Moreover, on the 18th February 1828, the rector wrote the following
letter, which is entered on the vestry minutes of the 5th March 1828: (fn. 19)
'The rector presents his compliments to the vestry, having
received a deputation consisting of Mr. Slade and Mr. Bell, churchwardens, and Mr. Illidge, requesting his opinion as to the most
proper site for the new pulpit and reading desk, which the vestry
have obligingly agreed to erect at his recommendation, he begs
to suggest that the best position in which they can be placed for
the advantage of the congregation is in the two pews belonging
to the rector situate one on each side of the aisle (fn. 20) and opening
into the church, and it is his wish, if agreeable to the vestry, that
they should be placed there. The rector regrets that he was prevented from attending the meeting of the Vestry last Friday evening.
Charterhouse Square,
Feby. 8, 1828.'
It was thereupon 'resolved that the new pulpit and desk be erected
on the site proposed by the rector without prejudice hereafter to the
existing rights of the parish or the rector'.
The pulpit and reading desk above referred to may be judged by the
illustration (pl. XXVIII, p. 22). It was a costly business, for on the
15th February 'a tender for new pulpit, desk, and altering of seats for
£193 18s. was accepted'. (fn. 21) In addition to this, according to a receipted
bill (now in the belfry cupboard) from Seddon, the local upholsterer,
£43 was expended 'in crimson silk and velvet hanging deep with
fringe, the tops stuffed and covered with velvet' for the pulpit and
reading desk; £7 12s. in a feather pillow for the same; £37 12s.
in new lining nine pews with green baize, and seven new cushions
for seats; and £21 10s. for 'two pairs of gothic bronzed branches for
lamps for pulpit and reading desk'.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the real gothic pulpit itself was
destroyed to make way for these two erections, which lasted but
a comparatively few years before they were thrown on the scrap heap.
We must not infer from this that the vestry were unmindful of the
antiquity of the church and its belongings, for in 1823, at the instance
of Mr. Illidge, the 700th anniversary of the founding of the Priory
and Hospital was celebrated by a dinner at Canonbury House, by
the joint parishes of St. Bartholomew the Great and the Less (fn. 22) (that
is the hospital), on Holy Thursday in that year.
Repairs to the fabric of the church again figure largely in the
history of this time, for as early as the year 1820 the surveyor reported
'the northern wall to be in present danger', and it was ordered to be
immediately repaired. (fn. 23)
In 1828 it was found necessary to renew five rafters of the roof,
and to secure with iron trusses the tie beams between the two great
arches of the transept, which had sunk. (fn. 24) This brought the expenditure at that time, including the pulpit, &c. to £611.
But large as this expenditure was, still larger expenditure than
had ever been faced before was in store, for the great fire of 1830,
which found the church uninsured, entailed an expenditure of £1,000;
and the great and first effort of restoration of the church, which
commenced in 1863 and continued until 1868, necessitated a further
expenditure of over £6,500.
It was on the 3rd May 1830 that the fire occurred which has
several times been referred to when describing the parts on the south
side of the church affected by it. (fn. 25) The fire seems to have originated
in the timber storage beneath what was known as Bartholomew
Chapel, at that time occupying the monastic chapter-house. From
there it spread to the old meeting-house occupying the site of the
ancient sacristy, beneath which timber also was stored, and thence
to the south triforium of the church, burning Bolton's gallery, the
Dissenters' charity school in the triforium, the master's rooms at the
east end, the factory rooms over the east aisle, and the south chapel
then used as the vestry. The effects of the fire can be still seen in the
flaked shafts in the triforium, in the red burnt stones on the south wall
of the exterior, especially where the sacristy stood, and the red stones
in the door jambs in the south wall of the south transept and elsewhere.
The next day the vestry appointed a committee, including Illidge,
to take immediate steps for the preservation of the church and
churchyards, Mr. Blyth, senior, being appointed surveyor. (fn. 26) They
were to find a secure place for the vestry and trustee Minute Books,
Churchwardens' Accounts, and all other documents and plans which
had of necessity been removed the day before from the vestry room.
It was resolved to insure the church for £1,500, and to borrow £1,000
for its repair. (fn. 27)
The south wall was in a dangerous condition; so the committee,
on the 25th May, resolved to shore it and to fix a temporary covering
of rafters to the triforium, to board up the clerestory windows, and,
the ruins of the south transept walls having fallen under the fire,
to build a brick wall 10 ft. high round the green church-yard. (fn. 28) The
two groins of the aisle adjoining the south chapel or vestry room
had to be taken down and reinstated. (fn. 29) In the meanwhile the vestry
and other meetings were held in the old boys' school-house, (fn. 30) as the
groin and ceiling over the vestry were badly damaged. (fn. 31) The church
was closed for six months owing to the repairs; two years before it
had also been closed for three months for the same reason, and during
the restoration thirty-three years later it was closed for four years.
An attempt was made by the committee to obtain possession of the
land between the south transept and the south chapel. The Bishop
of London was at first approached, and then Lord Kensington; but
when it was found that if the ground were purchased the purchase
money could not be raised by a church rate the matter fell through. (fn. 32)
Subsequently, in 1834, Lord Kensington offered to sell the land for
£100 as a burial ground, (fn. 33) but this offer unfortunately was not accepted
on the plea that the vendor could not show a sufficient title to the
land. (fn. 34) This decision promptly led to the withdrawal of the offer,
accompanied by a demand to take down the posts and rails with
which the site had been enclosed (fn. 35) since the fire. It is to be regretted
that Lord Kensington's offer was not accepted because, although the
need for an additional churchyard ceased in 1853 by Palmerston's Act
which closed all burial grounds in the metropolis, the land was sorely
needed to prevent houses being built against the church, a misfortune
which soon followed this refusal.
The repair to the south wall of the church was again considered in
1836 but it was resolved that the matter should stand over 'until
some arrangement was made respecting Lord Kensington's claim to
the adjoining land'. (fn. 36) At the same time it was resolved (as has been
already stated) (fn. 37) that the vestry, then in the south chapel, and the
east porch be removed, the ground to be made use of as an additional
burial ground. (fn. 38) Although this resolution was rescinded at the next
meeting, (fn. 39) in the year 1849 the south chapel was demolished, apparently
without any resolution of the vestry, to make a parochial school for
the girls. (fn. 40) It has already been shown how a room encroaching upon
the upper part of the south transept (fn. 41) was made to provide for the
meetings of the vestry which, with the rendering of the west wall in
Roman cement, cost £362. (fn. 42) The south wall, damaged by the fire,
seems to have remained unrepaired until 1846, when it was faced
with brick and Roman cement at a cost of £157. (fn. 43) Then the buildings
known as Pope's Cottages were built against it; Cockerill's Buildings
adjoining being erected at the same time. (fn. 44)
In 1856 there was trouble outside the church, for in April of that
year the picturesque old 'Coach and Horses' public-house was
pulled down, whereby, as has been already mentioned, (fn. 45) much evidence
of the north walk of the cloister was destroyed. As Robins, the
owner, also began to destroy the remains of the south wall of the
nave he had to be stopped by the vestry. (fn. 46) The Commissioners of
Sewers also served a notice on the owners of No. 70 Bartholomew
Close, next to the 'Coach and Horses', and called upon them to take
down the north-west enclosing wall of the structure abutting on the
churchyard. (fn. 47) They also ordered the vestry to pull down the remainder
of the nave wall, and the churchwardens were ordered by the vestry,
as has been already stated, (fn. 48) to offer the stones for sale by tender.
In 1855 a fire destroyed the houses facing Smithfield next to the
Smithfield gateway; in consequence the vestry ordered, in May 1856,
that the gateway should be repaired, and in October Mr. Blyth's
design for new gates for the front churchyard was adopted, the cost
being £54. (fn. 49)
In 1840 it was decided to adopt gas for lighting the church in place
of candles, so the chandeliers had to be sold. (fn. 50)
The Restoration, 1863–1868.
In 1860 repairs to the church were again necessary, but these were
postponed because a wide interest in the church, and a strong feeling
that a restoration was necessary were then abroad. This led to the
first great effort to that end being made in 1863. (fn. 51)
As early as the year 1857 William Slater, an architect who had
been chief assistant to R. C. Carpenter the elder (who died in 1855),
had prepared a design for restoring the church. (fn. 52) It comprised
a complete restoration of an apsidal eastern termination, and the
erection of a stone vault over the present church; but this was never
carried out.
On the 13th April 1859, Mr. Alfred White read a paper on the
priory before the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, (fn. 53)
which then visited the church.
In 1863 Mr. Joseph Boord, with Mr. W. Foster White, (fn. 54) the treasurer
of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, invited Mr. T. Hayter Lewis (the
architect to Boord & Beckwith of Bartholomew Close) to be the
architect of the proposed restoration. Hayter Lewis, knowing what
work William Slater had already done in the matter, thought it
only right to ask Slater to join him in the work. There was no
partnership between Lewis and Slater; Slater was in partnership with
Mr. R. Herbert Carpenter, (fn. 55) to whose father, Mr. R. C. Carpenter, he
had been chief assistant. (fn. 56) The latter in turn had been articled to
Mr. John Blyth, the architect appointed by the vestry on the occasion
of the fire of 1830; and the architect 'on whose advice the ruins
spared by the fire were (unfortunately) wholly removed'. (fn. 57)
In April 1863 Lewis and Slater jointly reported very fully to the
rector and churchwardens (fn. 58) the result of their survey of the church, (fn. 59)
which may be briefly summarized thus:
They were able to report that the fabric of the church was in a very
good and substantial state of repair: that there were several settlements, particularly near the main piers of the transepts, but that
these were of old date, and that the state of the stonework generally
was very satisfactory.
They pointed out that the general level of the floor of the church
had been raised 2 ft. 6 in. above the original level. That there were
undoubted proofs of there having been an apse originally, which had
been cut off in the fifteenth century; but as the present straight
wall formed no part of the original church and as no remains of the
Perpendicular work were of such importance as those of the Norman,
and as the present wall was in a very defective condition, there was
no archaeological objection to rebuilding the apse. That this, however, could not be done unless the room which had been built close
to the present east wall and over the site of the apse could be acquired.
That the outer wall of the north triforium had been rebuilt, probably in the seventeenth century; that it was now used as a schoolroom, and that the southern triforium had been destroyed (by the
fire of 1830).
That the clerestory windows west of the transepts retained their
tracery (of the thirteenth century), but that those to the east of them,
which had been rebuilt in the Perpendicular style, had lost it; the
jambs, labels, &c. of these windows were almost perfect.
They reported that the south transept was destroyed beyond the
line of the outer wall of the aisle; and the north transept beyond
the line of the aisle arches. That the site of the south transept was
occupied as a graveyard, but the transept could not be rebuilt without interfering with the light and air of the houses erected some
thirty years (really only seventeen years) before, on the site of the
St. Bartholomew chapel (originally the Chapter-house). That the lower
part of the enclosing walls was pulled down to the ground after the
fire, and that over the portion of the transept that remained was the
(then) vestry room.
That the mouldings to the great arch of the south transept were
perfect, also the arch over the quire aisle; but that there were only
a few of the mouldings of the great arch of the north transept visible.
The capitals of the Norman columns supporting this arch had been
replaced by Perpendicular ones, and so had the Norman corbels under
the great western arch spanning the nave. That the reason generally
given for these great transept arches being pointed, whilst those of
the quire and nave were round, was the desire that the tops of all
the arches should range in height, but it was remarkable that the
pointed arches were much stilted and that the tops of the arches
did not range.
That there was nothing in the present building to show for certain
that there was ever a tower over the crux, though mention was made
of it in some writings (and documentary evidence left no doubt). (fn. 60)
That the part of the original church built west of the north transept
(the north aisle of the nave) was occupied by No. 9 Cloth Fair. That
the site of the transept itself was occupied by a smith's shop belonging
to a Mr. Horley, a baker in the parish, and that the danger of the
church being destroyed by fire by these encroachments was very
great.
That no indications seemed to exist of the ancient roof, and that
there were no remains apparent of vaulting shafts or of roof corbels.
That the west wall and the tower were modern erections of the
seventeenth century. (fn. 61)
That very little remained of the nave other than the doorway into
Smithfield: that the south wall existed for nearly its whole length
up to the year 1856, when it was pulled down, and that no remains
appeared above the ground level, which was then six feet above the
ancient church level.
They reported that the site of the chapter-house (sacristy intended)
was built over by Pope's Cottages; and that that of the east cloister
was occupied by various buildings: that very fine remains of this
cloister existed up to 1833, when they were allowed to fall owing to
neglect and decay.
They also reported that the refectory and crypt (really the dorter
and its undercroft) could be seen in passing through Middlesex
Passage; and that there were very considerable remains of the
prior's house (which the Lady Chapel was then considered to be).
The architects recommended that towards the restoration of the
church the following steps should be taken:
1. To restore the ancient proportions by lowering the floor to its
original level.
2. To complete the apse with the triforium, clerestory and roof.
3. To drain, warm and reseat the church, whereby many extra
seats would be obtained.
4. To reconstruct the present entrances so as to put the steps outside
the church and thus form a sunken area outside the building
which would enable it to be drained and the floor ventilated,
thereby removing the cold and dampness.
5. To remove the earth which had been filled in against the wall
of the north aisle.
6. To make good any defects there might be in the foundations
of the great piers of the crossing.
7. To preserve every portion of ornamental work found, in the
triforium or other convenient place.
8. To move slightly westward and lower the Mildmay tomb, which
was cutting very awkwardly into one of the main piers and
arches on the south side of the (presbytery of the) church.
9. To clean the other monuments, nearly all of which had been
painted black, and to remove to the walls of the aisles those
whose insertion had injured the old work.
10. To insert tracery in the clerestory windows.
11. To remodel but retain the western gallery with the organ so as
to screen the unsightly west wall.
12. To remove the vestry to the north aisle and thus open out the
south transept arch.
The architects estimated that the whole of the above work, exclusive
of the Mildmay tomb, could be done for under £4,000.
They also recommended—
13. To remove the earth from the two churchyards to the original
church level, the coffins being reinterred at a lower level.
and next to the above—
14. To re-roof the church.
and as funds might allow—
15. To restore the triforia, and
16. To open out the north transept.
On the 27th May following (1863) a general meeting of the parishioners and others was held in the vestry to consider the proposed
restoration. Mr. Abbiss being voted to the chair, it was resolved,
on the motion of Mr. Joseph Boord, to make the attempt, and a committee was appointed (fn. 62) from within and from without the parish to
carry out the work. (fn. 63) Mr. William Salt, F.S.A., a great Staffordshire
antiquary of the firm of Stevenson, Salt & Sons, Bankers, in Lombard
Street, was appointed treasurer; Mr. Wm. Cubitt, the president of
St. Bartholomew's Hospital (and late Lord Mayor) was appointed
chairman, Mr. Foster White vice-chairman, and Mr. Thomas Kitt,
vestry clerk, honorary secretary. A subscription list was opened
to which Mr. Abbiss and Mr. Joseph Boord each gave 200 guineas;
Mr. Foster White (who subsequently obtained a similar sum from
the Governors of the Hospital), 100 guineas; Miss Burdett Coutts,
£100; the Rev. F. Parr Phillips, the patron, 50 guineas; Mr. A. C.
Rippon, 61 Bartholomew Close, 50 guineas; Mr. Wm. Salt, 25 guineas;
seven others 20 guineas, and so on. At a subsequent meeting
Mr. A. J. B. Beresford Hope joined the committee.
On the 13th July (1863) the Rev. Thomas Hugo, the historian and
an active F.S.A., gave an address on the history of the monastic
establishment; Mr. J. H. Parker, the well-known writer on architecture and keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, followed with a lecture
on the architecture of the building. (fn. 64) His lecture was published in the
Gentleman's Magazine, (fn. 65) and Mr. Parker presented 1,500 copies of
a reprint for sale for the benefit of the restoration fund.
In the meanwhile Mr. Benjamin Winstone, the freeholder of the
fringe factory premises occupied by Stanborough & Graves, was
approached with the view of some arrangement being come to in
respect of that part of the factory which would be required for the
restoration of the apse; (fn. 66) but Mr. Winstone wanted to sell the whole
premises, the price being £4,000. (fn. 67) As the committee could not
entertain this, counsel's opinion was taken as to the legality of the
encroachment over the east aisle. Dr. Twiss's opinion was that he
could not advise any legal proceedings to be taken to disembarrass
the church of its encroachments. The opinion of Mr. Serjeant C. E.
Petersdorff was equally unfavourable. When further negotiations
were opened with Winstone it was found that he had (on the 25th
January 1864) granted a further lease of the premises to Mr. James
Stanborough, at a rent of £150 a year. (fn. 68)
This, and the fact that only £1,600 had then been received or
promised, (fn. 69) necessitated the adoption of a modified scheme which
consisted of—
1. Lowering the floor level;
2. Draining and warming the church;
3. Moving back the partition in the south transept to show the
arch mouldings;
4. The same in the north transept, if possible (which it was not);
5. The removal of the earth from the church walls outside the
church; and
6. The removal of the whitewash from the stonework inside, which
was to be generally repaired;
7. The monuments rearranged;
the estimate being £1,800. (fn. 70)
The architects further submitted three alternatives in respect to
the treatment of the east end of the church: (fn. 71)
1. Either to leave it as it then was;
2. Or to complete it on the square plan; or
3. To remove the lower part of the east wall; to carry the upper
part on an arch or girder, and to complete the apse so far as
the floor of the triforium, leaving the room above overhanging.
The objection to the square end in their opinion was that the
effect could never be equal to that of the completed apse; that there
was no evidence as to whether the east end was finished with one,
two or three windows, (fn. 72) nor of the kind of tracery used, nor of the
nature of the Perpendicular work below the windows, so that restoration would be merely their notion of what it was likely to have been;
whereas there was clear proof as to what was actually intended by
the original builders.
The third method, the restoration of the ground arcade of the apse,
was eventually adopted.
Now, after eleven months, the committee were prepared to go
forward, and on the 7th April 1864 the churchwardens were requested
to apply for a faculty—
1. To remove bones and coffins;
2. To remove monuments;
3. To lower the pavement; and
4. To rearrange the pews.
The architects were requested to prepare drawings and to obtain
tenders for the first part of the work. (fn. 73) Dove Bros.' tender of £695,
being the lowest out of five, was accepted. The faculty was at first
refused, but eventually granted on August 24th, St. Bartholomew's
Day, 1864. (fn. 74)
In the meanwhile, on the 18th June, an influential meeting of some of
the most eminent London architects of the day, acting as a consulting
committee of the Incorporated Church Building Society, was held
in the church. (fn. 75) Among those present were Sir Gilbert Scott, R. A.,
the well-known church restorer, and G. E. Street, architect of the
Law Courts (both afterwards buried in the Abbey); Benjamin
Ferrey, the restorer of the Lady Chapel of Wells; J. L. Pearson,
the builder of Truro Cathedral; Joseph Clarke, Hayter Lewis,
William Slater, and others. A lengthy inspection of the fabric was
made and the conclusion was unanimously adopted to approve the
plans with very slight modifications. They urged the opening and
reconstruction of the Norman apse as a point of prime importance
and quite practicable. They suggested chairs instead of pews for
seating, and that the Mildmay monument should be moved to (its
present position in) the south aisle. They considered the removal
of the vestry necessary, as without it the whole of the fine piers
of the transept would be lost and one of the best portions of the
church concealed. They ended by presenting the fees (5 guineas),
due to them by their Society for the survey, as a contribution to the
restoration fund, (fn. 76) the Society itself voting £75 thereto.
By the 14th November 1864, Lewis and Slater were able to report
that Dove Bros. had nearly completed their first contract. (fn. 77) The
work had been tedious owing to the immense mass of bones that had
been found. The quantity was so great as to occupy every vacant
space that could be dug for them in the south churchyard. As their
removal to a cemetery would have cost £400, a hole was sunk in the
great churchyard to a depth of 15 ft. into fine dry gravel in which
the bones were interred.
They were able to report also that the excavations showed that
the church rested upon a bed of good clean gravel though the foundations of two piers had given way, which necessitated underpinning; (fn. 78)
the cause being the formation of deep graves close to them. They
had found that the holes excavated for the reception of the bones in
'Purgatory' (fn. 79) had been sunk some feet below the foundations of the
Norman piers, and also below those of the heavy east wall, so that this
part of the church had been in a critical state for some time.
The excavations had also shown the exact level and description
of the old paving; and that there had been a row of chapels on the
north side of the north aisle. (fn. 80)
The architects now recommended that a second contract be entered
into: (fn. 81)
1. To remove the tablets, and make good the stone work;
2. To remove the Mildmay tomb;
3. To cover the whole church and areas with about 9 in. of
concrete;
4. To excavate and drain the south side where it was abutted on to
by Pope's Cottages;
5. To insert a girder in the east wall as high as the fringe factory
would allow, take out the lower part of the wall, complete
the piers and arches of the apse of the ground arcade; and
lastly:
6. To put back the partition in the south transept.
Dove Bros. were again the lowest and their tender for £607 was
accepted. (fn. 82) This was in January 1865: in May the work was reported
to be going on satisfactorily, (fn. 83) but in July the parishioners began to complain because the church had been closed for a year, that is since the
31st July 1864. (fn. 84) In August, however, another contract was entered
into with Dove Bros. for £445 (fn. 85) for various additional works.
On the 30th January 1866 many members of the Corporation and
of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society visited the
church by invitation, and Mr. Hayter Lewis communicated a paper
thereon to the latter Society. (fn. 86) It is published in their transactions (fn. 87)
and gives useful information of discoveries whilst the works were in
progress. It states that in clearing the ground to the old level of
the paving, remains were found which showed that the filling in had
taken place at a later date. (fn. 88) The higher level of the door beside
the founder's tomb showed merely that the sanctuary had been
raised, the altar no doubt being approached by several steps. The
old level he found to be much varied as shown by various jumps in
the line of the plinth which possibly indicated the range of the old
stall work. He found that some of the foundations had been put
in on a layer of peat, although there was a bed of gravel only a foot
or so below. That the wall of the north aisle was much out of the
upright; but by moving it bodily (fn. 89) no damage was done to the stones.
Mr. Lewis also stated (what Withers also refers to in his diary)
that when pulling down the east wall and another wall under the
tower they found 'some valuable specimens of capitals and other
enrichments of the Norman church; and from fillings of more recent
times they obtained specimens of screen work of later date with much
of the old colouring and gilding upon them'. The wall under the
tower he rightly surmises 'was erected to form the back of the stall
work there', as was the stone screen under the south arch of the
crossing, the lower part of which was also discovered. By the
'fillings of more recent times' he must refer to the filling of the arch
beside the Mildmay tomb, to which Withers also refers. No reference
is made to the discovery of a portion of the base of the quire screen
or pulpitum described in the Ecclesiologist. (fn. 90)
On May 26th (1866) (fn. 91) the architects were authorized to enter on
still another contract for £730, towards which the Corporation contributed 200 guineas, and at the same time Sir William Tite, Mr. Abbiss,
and Mr. Joseph Boord agreed to find £300 each. Another contract
was also arranged with a Mr. Roper for warming the church at a cost
of £200.
The committee had from the first been unfortunate in losing members by death, before the first year (1863) had expired their chairman,
Mr. Cubitt, died, but they fortunately secured the services of Mr.
(afterwards Sir) William Tite, (fn. 92) the builder of the Royal Exchange.
In the year 1865 Mr. William Salt, their treasurer, also died; (fn. 93) he
was succeeded by his brother Mr. Thomas Salt. (fn. 94) At the time we have
now reached, the close of 1866, they lost their honorary secretary,
Mr. Thomas Kitt, the vestry clerk, who was succeeded by Mr. W. H.
Jackson, but from that time the minutes were entered by Mr. Abbiss
himself.
The next meeting was in December 1866, when the architects were
able to report that Dove Bros. had executed the chief part of the
work, and Roper had nearly completed his warming contract.
But after this there was mismanagement somewhere because it
was not until March 1868 that the church, after having remained
closed for four years, was ready to be reopened. That ceremony took
place on the 29th March, when a sermon was preached by the Bishop
of London in aid of the Restoration Fund.
At the meeting held eight days before the reopening the rector
was able to announce that Mr. Henry Vaughan, of Cumberland
Terrace, Regent's Park, and Mr. Joseph Boord, had each promised £300
towards the restoration of the north transept, and that Mr. Bonnewell
of Long Lane had offered £500 for a new west window for the
church; but on the 27th May following the committee were called
to receive the resignation of Mr. Joseph Boord, the immediate cause
being a disagreement with the rector upon the trivial matter of the
choice of gas standards. They were two strong men. Mr. Boord
had been the principal promoter of the work, and he and the rector
the largest contributors. The resignation was accepted with great
regret, but the work ceased; for nothing more is recorded of the
three liberal offers that had been made.
Mr. John Hilditch Evans, a parishioner of long standing, was
appointed sub-treasurer in the room of Mr. Boord; (fn. 95) but there was only
one more meeting, in April 1869, when the accounts were submitted
by Mr. Evans, and extreme disappointment was expressed at the
failure of the warming apparatus (a fruitful source of divergent views
as regards other buildings than churches). It is evident from a letter
addressed by the rector to Mr. J. H. Evans in 1873, (fn. 96) that there was
acute difference between the former and his architect and Mr. Boord
concerning both the lighting and the heating of the church. Eventually the rector introduced a Gurney stove for heating, and iron
standards for lighting: the latter of which are now used in the cloister.
The work accomplished at this first great effort of restoration was
of much importance, and formed the basis of the still greater effort
which followed after Mr. Abbiss' death. (fn. 97)
The Abolition of the Church Rate.
There coincided with the completion of this great restoration the
passing, on the 31st July 1868, of Gladstone's Compulsory Church
Rate Abolition Act. A voluntary church rate was instituted in its
place, which in the first year only realized £48; but in the next year
(1869) a special appeal raised it to £134. In 1871, however, in order
to pay off the outstanding debts of the churchwardens, it was found
necessary to draw upon the proceeds of the sale of the old Watch
House, which at that time amounted to £340.
There had been considerable opposition to the payment of the rate
for some time before its abolition. In the year 1832 a parishioner
had been cited before the Ecclesiastical Court for non-payment of
the rate; (fn. 98) and in 1839 the vestry had been requested to support
the efforts of the churchwardens to collect it. (fn. 99)
The effect of this Act was far-reaching. Among other things it
materially affected the influence of the vestry. 'Who pays the piper
calls the tune.' The parishioners used to pay the rate and therefore,
through their vestry, they justly claimed the regulation of its expenditure; but they could not do so when the rate was only voluntary.
Another matter which also affected the vestry was the repeal, in
the year 1851, of the Acts of Parliament under the authority of which
the parish had managed its own affairs, such as cleaning, lighting, &c. (fn. 100)
After that event they could neither influence the amount of the rates
the parish was called upon to pay, nor the expenditure thereof: all
they had to do was to levy such a rate as would cover the contribution
order. The final blow came in the year 1907 when, by the Union of
Parishes Act, the whole of the city for the purposes of the poor law
was considered to be one parish, the separate parochial overseers
and assistant overseers being merged into the Court of Common
Council. This, therefore, will be a convenient place to give a brief
history of the vestry.
The Vestry.
A 'vestry' is a place adjoining the church where the vestments
of the clergy are kept. The assemblies of the whole of the parishioners
for the dispatch of the business of a parish were generally held in the
church vestry, and so the assemblies themselves came to be called
'vestries'. All parishioners had a right to attend a vestry, but in
many parishes the practice arose of choosing a certain number of
persons yearly to manage the concerns of the parish for the rest and
these were called select vestries. Sometimes, as here, the select
vestries were not elected annually but were self-elected.
We have no record that the lay folk dwelling within the priory wall
held any meetings or vestry before the suppression, but we know
that in the time of Queen Mary, the year 1555, there was a vestry
here open to all parishioners; and this continued until the year 1607,
when, as already seen, (fn. 101) the parishioners complained to the Archdeacon of London, who approved of a select number of vestrymen
acting for the rest, which arrangement continues to the present
time.
The early vestry books of the parish are unfortunately lost, but we
have a valuable and reliable record among the Cartae Miscellaneae (fn. 102)
in the Lambeth Library signed by Dr. Westfield and the churchwarden in the year 1635. By this record the dates of 1555 and 1607
are definitely established.
This record consists of the answers of the minister and churchwardens given to certain questions sent to them by order of the
Bishop of London, and other lords and judges of the High Court of
Star Chamber. (fn. 103)
1. To the question whether the business of the parish was ordered
by a vestry of selected persons or by a general meeting of all the
parishioners, they replied that it was ordered by a vestry of selected
persons and not by a general meeting.
2. To the question whether they had the vestry by grant from the
Bishop and his chancellor, or by use and prescription, they replied
that they found, by their ancient vestry books, that for the previous
eighty years the affairs of the parish had been ordered by the vestry,
and until the 15th March 1606–7 by a vestry general; at which time
the parish, being much increased by many buildings, the parishioners
finding many inconveniences by a disagreeing multitude, made
complaint to the then archdeacon of London for reformation, whose
official, Mr. Icor Creake, approved of a select number of vestrymen
under his handwriting in their vestry book, which order had been
continued until that time.
3. In answer to the question as to what power they claimed to their
vestry, they replied that by virtue of their vestry they elected officers
for their parish, made rates for the repair and beautifying of the
church and for paying the clerk and sexton's wages, and for the
relief of the poor, the examining of officers' accounts, and the settling
of other things for the good and quiet of the parish.
4. In reply to the question as to what fees and duties they received
for all ecclesiastical rights, and what table of fees they had, they
replied that they had an ancient table of all such fees which some of
the ancient inhabitants affirmed had long 'sithence' been confirmed
by the then Bishop's chancellor which they continued without
alteration, and particulars of which they gave.
Nothing is said in the answers as to the number of vestrymen
agreed upon, but the vestry usually consisted of about thirty: in
the year 1759 there were forty-five members present at a meeting. (fn. 104)
Parishioners were eligible for a seat on the vestry when they had
served the various offices according to ancient custom; or when,
having been nominated to an office, they had paid the fine instead
of serving (the amounts of these fines has been already dealt with). (fn. 105)
The vestry had the power to refuse anybody not suitable for the
position, for in the year 1663 it was resolved that two men, owing to
some misdemeanour were 'not capable of being vestrymen'. (fn. 106) When
a vestryman removed from the parish his name was struck off the
list; (fn. 107) but this led to inconvenience in the year 1783 when, as has
been said, (fn. 108) so many 'parishioners' houses were burnt out that there
were not sufficient men left to transact the business. The same
difficulty occurred in 1830 after the two destructive fires of
that year.
It would appear, however, that the vestry had the power to co-opt
members, for as early as the year 1677 two men 'were chosen vestrymen', (fn. 109) and in 1728 it was ordered 'that some vestrymen be chosen
in to fill up some vacancies', when two men were chosen accordingly. (fn. 110)
In 1742 eleven men were added to the vestry at one time. (fn. 111)
In the year 1716 there was an agitation against select vestries, but
a Bill in Parliament that year for their reform was thrown out. In
1720 a protest was made by a section of the parishioners, headed by
Joshua Lock and John Darby, challenging the legality of the select
vestry in this parish. (fn. 112) To test it they gave notice in church on Easter
Sunday for the parishioners to meet on the Thursday following to
choose churchwardens and other parochial officers. They duly met
in the body of the church whilst the select vestry met in the vestry
room. The former invited the latter to join them, but the invitation
being declined they thereupon chose as churchwardens Archibald
Pentre and John Russell, whilst the select vestry chose the same
Pentre and Thomas Clement. A caveat was then issued against the
swearing-in of Pentre and Clement elected by the select vestry, but they
were, by a judge, duly sworn churchwardens. Richard Hyett (the
late churchwarden) and the vestry, however, being desirous that the
contest might be determined, brought a libel or action against Lock
and Darby alleging that from time immemorial the right of choosing
churchwardens and managing the affairs of the parish had been with
the vestry exclusive of the other parishioners. Lock obtained a prohibition against further proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court and
proceeded to trial in the Common Pleas. Hyett for the vestry set
forth the plea that the custom was 'that the rector and churchwardens for the time being and such parishioners who had served
the office of churchwarden of the church and such parishioners who
had fined and paid for the same office and who afterwards by the
voice of the greater number of the parishioners, being members of the
vestry and parochially assembled should happen to be chosen members
of the vestry and not otherwise, had used to be members of the vestry
and exclusively of other parishioners to meet in the vestry room of the
church and to deliberate about parochial affairs '. The jury found
that Hyett had fully proved the case about ancient usage and the
select vestry but, as it appeared by an ancient vestry book that two
persons who were vestry-men in the year 1662 were afterwards
chosen churchwardens, the verdict of the jury was that they found
the select vestry to be from time immemorial, but the defendants
(Hyett and the vestry) not having fully made good their pleadings
that the vestry-men elect were such only as had fined for the office of
churchwarden, and it appearing in two or three instances that persons
were chosen vestry-men who had not fined for the office of churchwarden, they therefore found for the plaintiffs (Lock and Darby),
Thereupon on Sunday, December 17th, Lock and Darby gave notice
of a meeting to elect constables and scavengers, but the select vestry
being the first to assemble to the number of twenty-four chose these
officers and on Plow Monday, according to ancient custom, presented
them at the Guildhall. The swearing-in was opposed by Lock and
Darby and twenty others, who insinuated that the verdict was against
a select vestry: which it was not. The select vestry being ready to
join issue and voluntarily to try the same, all the parties were called
in and heard. Whereupon it was ordered by the Lord Mayor and
Court of Aldermen that the constables and scavengers who were
presented by the churchwardens in the usual manner be sworn in the
outer court for the due execution of their respective places. And so
it ended, but the dispute cost the parish £100.
The origin of the dispute was the order of the vestry of the 2nd
March 1720, that the church and steeple be beautified and repaired,
and that of the 13th July which ordered a rate to defray the cost, and
in default of payment proceedings to be taken. (fn. 113) The Bishopsgate
inhabitants contested the legality of their select vestry at the same
time.
The select vestry at St. Bartholomew's never abused its powers.
Mr. Sidney Webb in his book on local self-government quoted this
parish as an example of honest administration, (fn. 114) and as welcoming
into its ranks any respectable inhabitant who was willing to serve
or fine; and he thinks that the vestry was justified when, in response
to Sir John Hobhouse's letter in 1829, it 'resolved unanimously
that the vestry, conscious of its own integrity in the discharge of
the various duties devolving upon it, honestly and anxiously invite
Parliamentary inquiry and will, to the utmost of its power, render
every information to the committee of the House of Commons now
sitting respecting the select vestry of this parish'. (fn. 115)
In the following year, on the 6th April 1830, while the churchwardens with the overseers were holding a meeting in the vestry room
to make a poor rate, a list containing the names of some of the inhabitants respecting their assessment was sent in, and then some of
them 'forcibly rushed into the vestry and conducted themselves in
a very improper and tumultuous and offensive way whereby they were
obliged to adjourn '. (fn. 116) The matter was brought before the Consistory
Court, when the judge pronounced the charge of riot as proved, but
not that of brawling, because only one witness could swear thereto.
The parishioner proceeded against was Samuel Bagster, who was
fined £20 by way of expenses. It is of some interest that the copies
in the parish safe (fn. 117) of the sentence of the judge in the case against
Bagster, and also in that against Wise (another parishioner), were
made from shorthand notes by Charles Dickens, the author, and that
these copies were examined, corrected, and signed by him. He
describes himself as 'Shorthand writer, 5 Bell Yard, Doctors Commons'.
An autograph letter in the British Museum from Dickens, dated
January 20th, from 13 Furnival's Inn, and attributed to the year
1835, (fn. 118) is written in a similar hand, and the 'D' and 'k' in the
signature are made in a similar way and not as in the later signatures.
In the same year (1830) a mandamus was served on the churchwardens to convene a meeting of the inhabitants to appoint a select
vestry for the government of the poor, to which the vestry objected
on the ground that there was 'already a select vestry in the parish
established and acted upon by virtue of ancient usage', and Mr. Gale,
the parish solicitor, was instructed to ascertain, under the advice
of counsel, if another select vestry could be lawfully appointed. (fn. 119) As
nothing more is recorded, no doubt the mandamus was withdrawn.
The last opposition to the select vestry was in 1853 and came from
within. A meeting of the vestry was called and a resolution moved
'That the system of self-election under which the parish has been so
long governed is contrary to the spirit of the English constitution
and abhorrent to this age of progress: that the ratepayers have no
voice in their taxation in themselves or representatives: that in
order to remedy this evil the vestry of this parish be in future an open
one and all ratepayers in future be vestrymen'. (fn. 120) Only two members,
however, voted in favour and three against.
In the year 1755, as has been already stated, (fn. 121) the powers of the
vestry, as a local governing authority, had been enlarged and
strengthened by a private Act of Parliament entitled 'An Act for
the better enlightening and cleansing the open Places, Squares,
Streets, Lanes, Alleys, Passages and Courts within the Parish of
Saint Bartholomew the Great, London; and regulating the Nightly
Watch and Beadles within the said Parish '. By it the rector, churchwardens, overseers and vestrymen were appointed trustees for putting
into execution all the powers given by the Act. The rates were to
be made yearly and were not to exceed 1s. 8d. in the £.
In 1768 an amending Act had to be obtained ' for empowering the
Trustees . . . to pave the Streets and other places within the parish,
and to remove annoyances and Obstructions '. Among other things
too numerous to mention here, the trustees were directed to have the
names of the streets written at the corners, and they were empowered
to have the houses numbered.
In 1851 these private Acts were repealed, as the passing of the
City of London Sewers Act of 1848 authorized the Corporation to
take over all the duties for which they were enacted. By vote of
the vestry, on the 10th March 1852, the books and documents of
the trustees under these Acts were handed back to the select vestry. (fn. 122)
There are still, however, parish trustees who continue to act in regard
to such trusts as still rest in them, as is shown by their meetings held
in 1872, 1884, 1885, 1886, and in 1908. (fn. 123) The vestry also continues as
a select vestry; but it seldom meets at other times than at Easter,
when, owing to its civil duties having been taken away, its meetings
are very poorly attended.
Privileges of the Parish.
Up to the middle of the nineteenth century the parish possessed
special privileges and immunities distinct from those enjoyed by most
of the other parishes of the city; and inasmuch as these gradually
died out during the rectorship of Rector Abbiss they may be appropriately described here.
The origin of these peculiar privileges and the exclusive attitude
of the parish is no doubt traceable to its monastic days. A similar
instance is the parish of Holy Trinity, Minories, which was the Abbey
or House of the Nuns Minoresses near Aldgate. There the monastery
was granted absolute freedom from all ecclesiastical authority by a
papal bull in the year 1295; and from all civil jurisdiction by Letters
Patent from the King in the year 1400. (fn. 124) These grants were the
foundations of the remarkable privileges that survived there into the
last century.
At St. Bartholomew's Henry I granted by his Charter to the prior
and convent freedom from all earthly servitude and from earthly
power and subjection except episcopal custom (fn. 125) and other privileges.
The same privileges were given by Henry II in his Charter of circ. 1173, (fn. 126)
and these were confirmed by the Charter of Henry VII (fn. 127) in the year
1489. Now the grant made to Rich in the year 1544 by Henry VIII
gave all the rights in the water supply from Islington and all the rights
and privileges in the Fair to Rich, to enjoy as freely and as fully as
they had been enjoyed by Prior Bolton, but it did not extend to other
privileges and exemptions granted to the prior and convent, some of
which may have been shared by those dwelling in the parish which
was within the monastic walls. It may be that Rich held, or pretended
to hold, the opinion that the parishioners were still entitled to enjoy
the other privileges granted to the monastery, apart from those
connected with the water and the Fair, because it was of this particular
charter of Henry VII, which confirmed the monastic privileges, as
other confirming charters had not done, that in 1583 Baron Rich, the
grandson of Sir Richard, obtained from Queen Elizabeth an exemplification. And when, in 1663, his grandson Robert (the second
Earl of Holland) had transcripts made into a book 'to show the
boundaries and privileges of the place and his own title thereto' this
exemplification was included. (fn. 128) The privileges claimed and enjoyed
by the parish in the year 1825 were fully recited in a petition to the
mayor and aldermen, and entered on the vestry minutes in March
of that year. (fn. 129)
It is therein set out:
First. 'That the parish was not in any way subject to the
jurisdiction of the city trustees until the reign of James I, who, by
his charter of the 20th September 1609, did ordain and grant that
the said city of London and the Circuits, Bounds, Limits, Franchises
and Jurisdictions of the same should extend and stretch forth in
and through all and singular the several Circuits, Bounds, Limits,
Franchises and Jurisdictions (inter alia) of the late dissolved Priory
of St. Bartholomew London, near Smithfield, so as from thenceforth
for all and singular the Circuits and Franchises aforesaid of the said
Priory or House of St. Bartholomew for all times to come should be
and remain within the Circuits, Precincts, Liberties and Franchises
of the same City of London.' And
Secondly. 'That although the parish had been since that time
within the precinct of the city, and although it was between the wards
of Farringdon without and Aldersgate without, it was not itself within
any ward of London (fn. 130) and that it was not subject to the customs of the
city and that the parishioners were not liable to serve ward offices.'
Evidence of the truth of this contention still exists in the fact that
St. Bartholomew the Great, as other parishes of monastic origin
(The Temple, Whitefriars, and St. Bartholomew's the Less), has not
the right of a Precinct to nominate fit and properly qualified persons
to go to the wardmote for final election as representatives to the
Court of Common Council in the City of London. (fn. 131) In the year 1866
this extension was not considered as a privilege, so some thirty
inhabitants of the parish requested the churchwardens to call a meeting of the parishioners to consider the question of a Precinct return
for St. Bartholomew the Great. (fn. 132) At the precinct meeting a precinct
clerk was elected and two parishioners were nominated as Common
Councilmen for the precinct. The nomination was sent to the alderman
of the ward, Sir James Duke, and the matter came up at the wardmote; but it was ruled by the alderman that 'there was no power of
conferring the right of Precinct on St. Bartholomew's the Great, it
being a matter of ancient custom'. (fn. 133)
Although this parish, therefore, has not the right of primary
nomination, the inhabitants are on the list of ward voters, so that
when there is a contested election and the sixteen members have to be
chosen, the inhabitants of the parish have a vote for each of sixteen
candidates. The only officers of the ward are the clerk and the
beadle, both of whom are paid officials.
Thirdly. 'That not being subject to the customs of the city, the
inhabitants were entitled to carry on trade in the parish without
being free of the city.' This was an exemption also enjoyed by
St. Martin-le-Grand of which the city was naturally jealous; it gave
rise to much trouble, as has been already shown. (fn. 134) But as the control
formerly exercised by the City Companies over their trades was with
remarkably few exceptions abandoned in practice before 1837 (in
fact the right of search had been given up before the end of the
eighteenth century) (fn. 135) the exclusiveness of this privilege has disappeared
by the extension of the right. In spite of this, however, in the year
1850, the Bakers' Company threatened proceedings against an inhabitant of the parish to make him take up his freedom: being
'contrary to ancient custom long enjoyed' the vestry resolved 'that
by the charter granted by King Henry I to Pryor Bolton (sic) confirmed
by charter of King Henry VIII to Sir Richard Rich, the inhabitants
of this parish are exempt from corporate service and fines as nonfreemen which exemption is further confirmed by the fact that the
inhabitants of this parish have been in quiet possession of these
immunities time out of mind.' (fn. 136)
Fourthly. 'That they were not liable to serve upon any juries or
inquests, other than Coroners' Inquests on deaths happening within
the parish.'
This freedom from Jury service was frequently challenged; thus,
when in 1726 several inhabitants were summoned to appear at the
Old Bailey to serve as jurymen contrary to the ancient custom of
the parish it was 'resolved that the persons summoned do not attend
to the said summons, and that if any prosecution shall arise' the
vestry would indemnify them. (fn. 137) In 1788 twenty-four of the inhabitants
were summoned by the coroner to serve on a jury at the hospital;
the vestry thereupon resolved that the warrant should not be obeyed
because from custom immemorial the inhabitants were only liable to
serve in their own parish. (fn. 138) Again, in 1851, the churchwardens laid
before the vestry a requisition from the secondaries of London calling
upon them to furnish a list of persons qualified to serve upon juries,
when the vestry, on behalf of the inhabitants, again claimed exemption, this time 'by ancient charter and prescriptive right'. (fn. 139)
In 1861 a vestry was called 'to consider an attempt made to
compel the inhabitant ratepayers to serve upon juries' when 'it was
resolved to call a public meeting of the inhabitants who had been
exempt from Jury service from time immemorial'. (fn. 140)
From this time the matter is not again mentioned in the Vestry
Books, but it seems that fines were inflicted on this occasion. Whereupon, in 1862, Serjeant Petersdorff's opinion was taken, (fn. 141) which was
adverse to the views of the vestry. He held that 'a claim of exemption
from the fulfilment of a common law and statutory duty could not
be successfully based upon a charter or prescription, not clearly and
in words distinctly conferring the immunity': that 'there were very
few words in Henry VIII's charter that could be considered by any
liberality of construction to confer upon the contemporaneous inhabitants or succeeding generations the immunity sought to be
established'. He considered that the charters were 'limited to the
prior and the canons regularly officiating and their successors' and
did 'not extend to the whole of the then and subsequent inhabitants'.
That the charter 'gives to the inhabitants the benefit of local court,
but none of the charters contain any negative provisions excluding
them from common law or statutory duties'. If it was decided to
continue the resistance, he advised to petition the Treasury to remit
the fine or to suspend its enforcement until the matter could be brought
before the Queen's Bench. The latter course was apparently taken
on behalf of Mr. James Houghton, but it failed. The matter was
finally settled by the passing of the Juries Act in the year 1870, (fn. 142)
Sect. 9 of which enacts that 'The persons described in the schedule
hereto shall be severally exempt' from serving as jurors . . . 'but
save as aforesaid no man otherwise qualified to serve . . . shall be
exempt from serving thereon, any enactment, prescription, charter,
grant or writ to the contrary notwithstanding'.
Fifthly. It was claimed that the vestrymen were entitled to choose
their own constables and watchmen, and to make all rates for paving,
cleaning, lighting and watching the parish; the history of which claim
has already been given. (fn. 143)
It would certainly seem that, before the suppression, those living
within the monastic walls were exempt from city levies, except by
way of voluntary contributions, since in the year 1512 aldermen were
appointed to confer with the prior and the master of the hospital for
a contribution from their tenants. (fn. 144)
Robert the third Baron Rich apparently attempted to push his
privileges too far, both with the Corporation and with the Privy
Council, for about the year 1593 the Court of Aldermen decided to
'apply for a Quo Warranto touching the pretended liberties of White
Friars and Great St. Bartholomew's'. (fn. 145) And, in 1597, the inhabitants
of the parish, having taken exception to joining with the city in the
levy issued by Queen Elizabeth of 500 soldiers for active service
(probably under Lord Essex, to assist the French king against the
Spanish invaders), the Privy Council wrote to Lord Rich, to whom,
as they say, the 'liberty' belonged, 'that in these public services for
the Queen and state the "liberty" did not give such exemption and
called upon him to take such steps that the parishioners would bear
their due proportion of the levy'. (fn. 146) Two years later, in 1599, the
Court of Aldermen ordered the Recorder to 'consider the wrongs and
abuses offered to the City by Lord Rich and the inhabitants of Great
St. Bartholomew's and what course should be taken by law for
reformation hereof'. (fn. 147) But apparently the Corporation got no satisfaction, as in 1606 a committee was appointed 'to confer towards
purchasing the dissolved priory'; (fn. 148) but that too failed, and in 1705
the parish is referred to (in Counsel's opinion) as 'the Royalty of
which the Earl of Warwick and Holland is Lord'.
In the eighteenth and early in the nineteenth centuries the Corporation showed their resentment against the privileges of the parish
by withholding from the parish their portion of the benefactions of
the poor; (fn. 149) but all feelings of that kind have now passed away.
The vestry were jealous not only of the rights of the parishioners
within the parish, but also of those without. Thus, in 1822, St. Bartholomew's Hospital closed the right of way which had existed up to
that time from Little Britain through the hospital ground to Giltspur
Street, against which action the vestry drew up a memorial and
remonstrance. (fn. 150) To this the Treasurer of the Hospital replied that
neither the parishioners nor the public were excluded because decent
and respectable persons, on knocking at the gates, were permitted to
pass through: that the governors had thought fit to close the gates as
a matter of internal regulation: that in the case of public tumult
they had heretofore closed the gates by day, and their right to do so
had never been disputed: and that the parishioners had no occasion
to look at the inscription 'No thoroughfare' placed on one of the
gates. But the vestry very properly replied that by such an inscription they considered the thoroughfare obstructed and forbidden,
and that they had seen a respectable female who had knocked at one
of the gates the day before forbidden to pass through, and the gate
shut in her face. The governors, however, disregarded the remonstrance, so the vestry presented a petition to the Court of Aldermen,
whereupon an order was given to the city solicitor to indict the
governors at the next session; upon this the hospital agreed to make
a wicket in the iron gates and to allow the wickets to be open during
the customary hours of the day.
The subject of the poor largely occupied the attention of the vestry
and the parish trustees at this time. From the year 1601, when
overseers of the poor were appointed by Queen Elizabeth's Act, down
to the year 1907, the churchwardens and overseers had to make
provision for the poor of the parish. That the work was arduous is
shown by the churchwardens' accounts. A person becoming a charge
on the rates was chargeable to the parish in which his birth took place;
the churchwardens therefore had to exercise great vigilance that
children of non-parishioners were not born in the parish. Churchwarden Laming's account of the year 1697, printed in the Appendix,
though coarse, gives a graphic idea of the derogatory work which at
that time fell to the lot of a churchwarden. (fn. 151)
From a list of the names of 'the poor pensioners' in the parish in
1681 (fn. 152) we learn that there were at that time 4 men, 2 women, 8 widows,
and 8 children receiving as a rule 1s. a week, though 1 widow and
5 children had 9s. a week between them, another widow had 2s., and
one of the men only 6d. a week. For a woman in Bethlehem Hospital
3s. a week was paid. In 1667 there had been 13 widows, 1 man, and
6 nurse children costing the parish £40 9s. A return made in 1698
showed a list of 23 pensioned poor costing the parish £74 0s. 9d.
Orphan children chargeable to the parish, when of sufficient age,
were sent to some tradesman or mechanic who gave to the churchwardens a bond, (fn. 153) varying from £20 to £40, for the maintenance and
education of the child, and for teaching him some art or trade for
which a boy was not to be bound after he had reached the age
of 24 years; a valuable consideration being given by the churchwardens. Pauper children were also apprenticed at the charge of
the parish. (fn. 154)
The adult poor, in receipt of poor relief, had, by Act of Parliament,
to wear a badge, and this, as the vestry books show, was much
resented. (fn. 155)
The first record of a workhouse is in the year 1707. It is in connexion with a lawsuit between this parish and the workhouse in
Bishopsgate, called the Corporation Workhouse. (fn. 156) The case was lost,
and the parish had apparently to contribute to the Corporation
Workhouse, and the case cost the parish over £90. (fn. 157) In the year 1737
a committee was appointed to find a place for a workhouse for the
parish. This was found in Pelican Court, which led out of Little
Britain between St. Bartholomew's and Christ's Hospitals, to the
latter of which the house belonged. (fn. 158) But in 1741 it was 'ordered that
the poor be taken from the workhouse and put to such persons as the
churchwardens and overseers shall think proper'. (fn. 159) In the year 1766
we find the vestry entering into an agreement with a Mr. John Powell
'for wholly maintaining and cloathing the poor of the parish for one
year' for the sum of £430; (fn. 160) but the parish had still to pay the quota
assessed for the support of the London workhouse, £23 9s. 4d. (fn. 161) In
1796 the vestry entered into a contract with a Mrs. Sarah Showell of
Bear Lane for the keep of the poor at 4s. 3d. a head a week for grown
persons and 3s. 9d. a week for children; (fn. 162) but later the children seem
to have been sent to another contractor at Enfield. (fn. 163) In 1799 and in
1801, (fn. 164) when the prices of all provisions went up, the contractors were
allowed to advance their charges. (fn. 165) At the same time, in 1801, some
adult poor were taken from Mrs. Showell's workhouse and sent to
Mr. McKenzie's in Islington; (fn. 166) and in 1812 the churchwardens were
empowered to place poor with J. Tipple & Son, Hoxton. (fn. 167) In
1824 it was decided to send children of 9 years of age and over to
Sewell & Cheap's Flax Mills at Hounslow instead of to the mill at
Watford, as had been the custom. (fn. 168) In the year 1827 the vestry
accepted the offer of Carr, Dodgson & Co. to take the female children
of 7 years and upwards into their employ, the parish to give the
children a good working suit of clothes and to pay 2s. 6d. a week for
two years. (fn. 169)
In 1822 the compulsory finding of work for the poor began to be
a very serious matter, and the London workhouse asked for a grant
of £2,443 for the purpose; whereupon the churchwardens, with those
of several city parishes, met at Bow Church, and resolved to request
the assistance of the Court of Common Council to put down the
London workhouse as no longer necessary. (fn. 170)
In 1832 the great Reform Bill was passed, and in 1834 the new
Poor Law established the workhouse system with Union of Parishes,
which placed the paupers under central management and control, and
therefore ended the responsibility of the churchwardens. An amending
Act was passed in 1868, and the next year the clerk read to the
vestry the Poor Law order for the dissolution of the West London
Union, and the consolidation of the parishes comprised in it, with
those of the City of London and East London Unions, into one
Union to be called the City of London Union. (fn. 171) Offices for this new
Union were then established at 61 Bartholomew Close, where they
are still.
In 1846 the Public Baths and Washhouses Act was passed, but its
adoption by the City being left optional, it was not taken up. In the
following year the vestry of St. Bartholomew's appointed a committee
to confer with St. Sepulchre's regarding the establishment of such an
institution for the joint parishes, (fn. 172) but nothing was done. In 1890 an
effort was made to induce the Corporation to adopt the Act because
of the deplorable condition of the poor in this and some of the adjoining
parishes, as they had nowhere to wash either themselves or their
clothes. The vestry passed a resolution in favour of the scheme, (fn. 173)
which was brought forward by petition to the Court of Common
Council. The churchwardens appeared before the Court, but the
petition was rejected. Another effort was made in May 1893, (fn. 174) when
a committee was appointed to approach the central governing body
of the City of London Parochial Charities Fund, seeing that the
charities of the City had all been taken over under the City of London
Parochial Charities Act of 1883; but this last effort met with no
better success.
In 1881 a benevolent institution was established in the parish under
the title of 'The Fraternity of Rahere Almoners' by the churchwardens, Mr. Thomas Sangster, Mr. John Hollinghurst, and by
Mr. James Stevens of Clapham, and others, for the purpose of affording
assistance and relief to deserving and necessitous persons residing in
or otherwise connected with the parish and its immediate neighbourhood, in memory of the founder of the priory. In 1882 Mr. Stevens
compiled a brief account of the priory and of this institution, which
was sold privately for the benefit of the object in view.
Mr. Abbiss made many presents to the church apart from his large
donations to the Restoration Fund. We learn from a memorandum
in his handwriting (fn. 175) that, between the years 1869 and 1873, when the
lighting of the church was not considered satisfactory by him, he
gave the six gas standards which are still preserved in the church.
He also gave some altar lights, a new churchwardens' pew, an old oak
chair, and a carved oak bench, which latter for some reason he considered to date from about the year 1400, but it is, apparently, not
earlier than the nineteenth century. The chair and the bench now
stand in the civic pew.
The aged rector began to fail in 1873. On the 9th November of
that year he took a baptism for the last time, on the 23rd he took his
last marriage, and on the 7th December he preached his last sermon,
as already stated; he was, however, up to the year 1880, frequently
present at the services of the church. In 1877, being then aged 84,
he attended a vestry meeting, when it was resolved 'that the parish
be perambulated and the boundaries thereof beaten according to
ancient custom on Ascension Day, and that five pounds be charged
to the poor rate for that purpose'. (fn. 176) On the day he himself took his
place in the procession, wearing a black gown, and walking with the
churchwardens and vestry clerk in front. With the exception of the
'beating' in 1879 in connexion with the Manchester Hotel, which is
partly in this parish and partly in Aldersgate, the bounds have not
been beaten since. (fn. 177)
On the 20th October 1882 the vestry appointed a church works
committee, consisting of eight members, as the roof wanted repair, and
complaint was made of the coldness of the church: thereupon
Mr. Abbiss promised £100 to perfect the heating apparatus. (fn. 178)
On the 24th November he was present at the vestry for the last
time, and on the 8th July following (1883) he died at his house,
No. 39 Myddelton Square, being within five days of his 91st birthday.
The funeral service was held at St. Bartholomew's on the 14th, and
the interment took place at Stoke d'Abernon (where the Rev. F. P.
Phillips was the rector and the squire), in the graveyard on the
south side of the church, where the following inscription is on the
tombstone:
The Rev. John Abbiss
64 years rector of the ancient
Priory Church of St. Bartholomew Smithfield
Died 8th July, 1883
Aged 93 years. (fn. 179)
The late Mr. W. H. Jackson, the vestry clerk, who was acquainted
with him from the middle of the 'forties, has communicated further
reminiscences, which will be found in the Appendix. (fn. 180)