CHAPTER V.THE PLAGUE REACHES ENGLAND.

TOC[p071]

The plague first attacked England in the autumn of 1348. It has already been pointed out that Northern France was suffering under the scourge in the summer of that year, and that in August the pestilence had visited Normandy and was found at Calais, then in possession of the English. Probably, also, at this time, Jersey and Guernsey, with which England was in constant communication, were decimated by the disease. So greatly did these islands suffer that the King's taxes, usually raised upon the fishing industries, could not be levied. "By reason," writes the English King to John Mautravers, the Governor, "of the mortality among the people and fishing folk of these islands, which here as elsewhere has been so great, our rent for the fishing, which has been yearly paid us, cannot be now obtained without the impoverishing and excessive oppression of those fishermen still left."[121]

Rumours of the coming scourge reached England in the early summer. On August 17th, 1348, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Ralph of Shrewsbury, sent letters through his diocese ordering "processions and stations every Friday, in each collegiate, regular, and parish church, to beg God to protect the people from the pestilence which had come from the East into the neighbouring kingdom," and granting an indulgence of forty days to all who, being in a state of grace, should give alms, fast or pray, in order, if possible, to avert God's anger.[122]

The "neighbouring kingdom" spoken of by the Bishop[p072]in his letter may be taken almost certainly to refer to France. From Calais it is probable that the pestilence was brought into England in certain ships conveying some who were anxious to escape from it. Most of the contemporary accounts agree in naming the coast of Dorsetshire as the part first infected. Thus Galfrid le Baker, a contemporary, says "it came first to a seaport in Dorsetshire, and then into the country, which it almost deprived of inhabitants, and from thence it passed into Devon and Somerset to Bristol."[123]Two or three of the chronicles, also, more particular than the rest, name Melcombe Regis as the memorable spot where the epidemic first showed itself in England. "In the year of our Lord 1348, about the feast of the Translation of St. Thomas (July 7th)," writes the author of the chronicle known as theEulogium Historiarum, who was a monk of Malmesbury at this time, "the cruel pestilence, terrible to all future ages, came from parts over the sea to the south coast of England, into a port called Melcombe, in Dorsetshire. This (plague) sweeping over the southern districts, destroyed numberless people in Dorset, Devon, and Somerset."[124]So, too, a continuation of Trivet's chronicle, taken down to the death of Edward III. by a canon of Bridlington, who was thus probably a contemporary of the event, says that "the great plague came into England to the southern districts, beginning by some (ships) putting in from the sea into a town called Melcombe."[125]

Melcombe Regis, or Weymouth, was at that time a port of considerable importance. In 1347–8, for example, it furnished Edward III., for his siege of Calais, with 20 ships and 264 mariners; whilst Bristol sent only 22 ships and 608 sailors, and even London but 25 boats and 662 men.[126][p073]This fact is of interest, not merely as showing the importance of Melcombe Regis as a port on the southern coast, but as evidence actually connecting the place at this very period with Calais, and, doubtless, with other coast towns of France. It is not at all improbable that by the return of some of the Melcombe boats from Calais, the epidemic may have been conveyed into the town. No evidence is known to exist as to the mortality in the port itself; but an item of information as to the effect of the disease in the neighbourhood is afforded at a subsequent period. Three years after the plague had passed the King, by his letters patent, forbade any of the inhabitants of the island of Portland to leave their homes there, or, indeed, to sell any of their crops out of the district, "because," he says, "as we have learnt, the island of Portland, in the county of Dorset, has been so depopulated in the time of the late pestilence that the inhabitants remaining are not sufficiently numerous to protect it against our foreign enemies."[127]

The actual date when the pestilence first showed itself in Dorsetshire has been considered somewhat doubtful. The earliest day suggested is that assigned by the monk of Malmesbury in hisEulogium Historiarum, who names July 7th (1348) as the time when it commenced at Melcombe Regis. The latest date is that given by Knighton, the sub-contemporary canon of Leicester, who mentions generally that it began in the autumn of the year 1348. One chronicle gives July 25th, and two others August 1st, whilst another merely names August as the month. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that its arrival in England was apparently unknown to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who was then in his diocese, in the middle of August, it seems more than likely that the terrible scourge did not make itself felt in the West of England until after the middle of that month and not later than its end.[p074]

The early commencement of the disease is borne out by a document in the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. Archbishop Strafford died on St. Bartholomew's Eve, August 23rd, 1348, and before the end of September the Prior of Canterbury, acting with archiepiscopal power during the vacancy, addressed a mandate to the Bishop of London, as the Dean of the College of Bishops, to issue directions to the suffragans of Canterbury to hold public processions in their respective dioceses to pray God's aid against "the mortality" which was already assuming alarming proportions.[128]

The summer and autumn of 1348 were abnormally wet in England, and the chronicles record that from St. John the Baptist's Day (June 24th) to Christmas it rained either by night or by day with hardly an exception. In such a season, naturally unhealthy, the sickness, of its own nature most deadly, found every condition suitable for its rapid development.

Starting from Melcombe Regis, the wave of contagion spread itself very quickly over Dorset, Devon, and Somerset, with the other counties comprised in the dioceses of Salisbury, Exeter, and Wells. "It passed," writes Robert of Avesbury, the contemporary Registrar of the Court of Canterbury, "most rapidly from place to place, swiftly killing ere mid-day many who in the morning had been well, and without respect of persons (some few rich people excepted), not permitting those destined to die to live more than three, or at most four, days. On the same day twenty, forty, sixty, and very often more corpses were committed to the same grave."[129]In fact, over the West of England during the late autumn of 1348 and the first months of the following year the words of the old play must have had only too true an application—

"One news straight came huddling on anotherOf death, and death, and death."[p075]

"One news straight came huddling on another

Of death, and death, and death."[p075]

In dealing with a case of this kind a first object is to control as far as possible, by means of definite statistics, the general and vague statements of chroniclers and other contemporary writers; whilst in the absence of such statistics lies one of the great difficulties in dealing with the history of the Middle Ages. Owing partly to the troublesome and intricate nature of the subject, as well as to the poverty of the material and the inherent dryness of such matters, modern writers have made little advance to a more correct knowledge of the population of European countries in those ages. Much, however, might be done. As usual, the ecclesiastical documents form the surest basis for any calculation, and the episcopal registers enable us to arrive at actual numbers. Accordingly, in the present inquiry, these registers are of the highest importance, and it is necessary constantly to recur to them, as they furnish the only means of arriving at any adequate knowledge of the proportion of the population swept away by the plague. Possibly the mortality may have been greater among ecclesiastics than among lay persons; but only from the number of the clergy carried off by the epidemic can an estimate be formed as to the number of lay people who died. Accordingly, in the course of this work, the mortality of the clergy is systematically investigated.

To understand the nature and value of the evidence thus afforded as to the extent of the mortality, a few words of explanation are necessary. In each diocese there was kept by the Bishop's Registrar a list of all the institutions made to vacant benefices by the Bishop. As a rule, not only was the name of the place and of the out-going and the incoming incumbent, together with the date expressed, but the reason of the vacancy was stated, whether arising from death, exchange, or resignation. These lists, then, for the fatal period, or the autumn of 1348 and the year 1349, afford some means of gauging the extent of the mortality among the clergy. It must, however, be borne in mind that these registers record only the institutions of the actual[p076]incumbents, and take no account of the larger body of curates and chaplains, to say nothing of the monks, canons, and friars of a diocese. It has been calculated by a recent writer that non-beneficed clergy more than equal in numbers the holders of benefices, and that the total number of institutions of a diocese may fairly be doubled in estimating the deaths of the clergy during this epidemic.[130]These Books of Institutions, moreover, by furnishing the dates of the appointments made to various livings, afford a means of determining, at least approximately, the time when the plague was rife in a district, and even, making allowances for any delay in filling up the benefice, in any given place.

Besides the special register of each diocese a series of official state documents, called thePatent Rolls, contains much evidence of the destructive powers of the disease. On these rolls, amongst every variety of public document, are entered royal grants, licenses, and presentations made by the Sovereign to such vacant ecclesiastical livings as were at the time in the royal gift. These were ordinarily—

(1) Benefices of which the King was by right the patron.

(2) Those to which he presented, as guardian of the sons of tenantsin capiteduring their minority, and

(3) Livings to which bishops and abbots of sees and monasteries, then vacant, ordinarily presented. At this period, 1348–9, moreover, the royal presentations were largely augmented by the patronage attached to the alien religious houses existing in England, the possession of which, "by reason of his war with France," as the official phrase runs, "the King had seized into his own hands."

The evidence of the mortality among the beneficed clergy during the great pestilence, as witnessed by the entries on the patent rolls, may be here briefly summarised. In 1348, in the period from January to May, the King presented to[p077]42 livings, and to 36 during the following four months; so that in the eight months, immediately before the arrival of the plague in England, the average number of presentations monthly was below ten, the previousyearlyaverage being hardly more than a hundred. The roll, upon which are entered the grants and presentations from September to the close of the year, affords conclusive proof that in the last four months of the year 1348 death had been busy among those holding royal preferments. Eighty-one more livings had to be filled up by the Sovereign during that period.

The patents for 1349, in the same way, occupy three parts, or rolls. On the first part are enrolled the presentations from January 25th to the end of May. This large roll is a curiosity, since a very great part of the parchment record is devoted to the entry of Royal presentations to the vacant livings, no fewer than 249 being recorded, as against 42 during the same period of the previous year. The second part registers the livings filled by King Edward from June to the middle of September, 1349, when the number reaches the extraordinary figure of 440, as against 36 in the corresponding period of 1348.

The third period, ending on January 24th, 1350, shows a decline in the number, although it still stands at the considerable total of 205. Altogether, therefore, from January 25th, 1349, to the same date in 1350, the King alone presented to 894 livings, which had become vacant. Comparing the figures thus obtained with the normal period of 1348 it may be said roughly that out of the 1,053 presentations, made by King Edward in the two years, at least 800 must have been due to the mortality caused by the great plague. This will be seen to be sufficiently terrible when it is remembered that, even allowing for the large number of presentations then in the hands of the King, they would form but a very small portion of the total number of institutions to vacant livings at this period.

The whole question of statistics in their details, as also[p078]any special indications of the effects which followed upon the ravages of the plague, will be dealt with in subsequent chapters in order to interfere as little as possible with the consecutive story of the visitation itself. Among the presentations made by the King, in the autumn of this year, frequent mention is made of vacancies in the diocese of Sarum, in which the county of Dorset is situated. From October 8th, 1348, to January 10th, 1349—that is, in the space of three months—the Crown presented to no fewer than 30 livings in the diocese. Most of these were in the county of Dorset, and Abbotsbury Abbey, apparently the first monastery attacked, and Bincombe rectory, to which Edward III. presented on October 8th, 1348, were both close to Melcombe Regis, where the plague commenced its ravages.

Judged merely by the few royal presentations it is curious to observe how closely the epidemic in this country clung to the rivers and water-courses. The neighbourhood of Blandford, for instance, must have suffered severely enough during the November and December of 1348, the two Winterbournes and Spettisbury, together with Blandford—all four close on the river Stour—losing their incumbents. To Spettisbury, indeed, the King presented thrice in a very short space of time. Even before John le Spencer, of Grimsby, to whom the living was granted on December 7th, could have been installed in his cure—in fact, probably even before the grant was made—he was dead, for on December 10th, only three days later, another letter patent is issued, upon the death of Spencer, to Adam de Carleton. Adam in his turn did not hold the benefice long, and on January 4th, 1349, Robert de Hoveden was appointed in his place. Nor are these the only instances, even among the few presentations recorded on the patent rolls, of Dorset incumbents following one another in rapid succession during the last months of 1348.

Looking at the number of institutions in each month of this period, and making due allowance for the fact that the[p079]vacancy had probably occurred some little time before it was filled up, it is evident that the epidemic was prevalent in the county of Dorset from October, 1348, to February, 1349, and the mortality was highest in December and January.[131]The existence of the epidemic begins to be manifest in the institutions for October, 1348. Previously only twelve institutions are recorded during that year. West Chickerell, a place close to Weymouth, received a new incumbent on October 14th, whilst to Bincombe, close by, which was then vacant, as is proved by the King's presentation on the 8th of the month, no new incumbent was inducted till November 4th. Warmwell and Combe Kaynes, a little to the eastward, received new parish priests on October the 9th and 19th, and Dorchester, the capital, was attacked apparently about the same time.

Following the indications afforded by the Bishop's registers the ravages of the pestilence are apparent on the coast early in November, when many vacancies begin to be noted in the coast towns. Bridport, East Lulworth, Tynham, Langton, and Wareham had all been visited by this time, whilst before the end of the month the epidemic had crossed the county and appeared at Shaftesbury. On December 3rd two vicarages in the south, quite close together, Abbotsbury and Portesham, received new incumbents.

At Shaftesbury appointments were made to St. Laurence's on the 29th of November, to St. Martin's on the 10th of December, to St. John's on the 6th of January, 1349, and to[p080]St. Laurence's again on the 12th of May. At Wareham, the small alien priory became vacant before November 4th, for on that day the King appointed a successor to Michael de Molis, lately dead,[132]and appointments were made to St. Martin's, Wareham, on the 8th of December, to St. Peter's on the 22nd of December, to St. John's on the 29th of May, and to St. Michael's on the 17th of June. Three changes were registered as having taken place at Winterbourne St. Nicholas, between December 27th and May 3rd. As far as can be judged by the dates of these institutions it would appear as if a fresh outbreak of peculiar violence occurred towards the end of April.

The Bridport Corporation records show that four bailiffs held office in 1349, in place of the usual two, on account of the pestilence.[133]In common with most places in the land, Poole, which was then of sufficient importance to be called upon to furnish four ships and 94 men for the siege of Calais, suffered greatly from the pestilence, and received a considerable check to its prosperity. "At Poole," writes Hutchins, "a spot on the projecting slip of land, known as theBaiter, is still pointed out as the burial-place of its victims."[134]And the same writer adds that the country did not entirely recover for the next 150 years; since, in the reign of Henry VIII., "Poole and other towns in Dorsetshire" were included in that numerous list of places whose desolated buildings were ordered to be restored.

Before the close of the year 1348 the pestilence had spread itself far and wide in the western counties of England. The diocese of Bath and Wells, and that of Exeter, the former conterminous with the county of Somerset, and the latter comprising those of Devon and Cornwall, were infected in the late autumn of that year, and all over the west, as the old chronicle relates, the sickness "most pitifully destroyed people innumerable."[p081]

Indeed, so terrible had been the effect of the scourge among the clergy of Somerset that, as early as January 17th, 1349, the Bishop of Bath and Wells felt himself constrained to address a letter of advice to his flock. The document is of such interest, both as evidence of the straits to which at that early date the diocese had been reduced by the excessive mortality, and for the advice that it contains, that it is here quoted at considerable length, since it proves the depth of degradation to which the whole religious life was reduced by the terror inspired by the disease. Every bond was loosed, and every ordinary ecclesiastical regulation and provision set aside, because none could now be enforced, or, indeed, observed. "The contagious nature of the present pestilence, which is ever spreading itself far and wide," writes the Bishop, "has left many parish churches and other cures, and consequently the people of our diocese, destitute of curates[135]and priests. And inasmuch as priests cannot be found who are willing out of zeal, devotion, or for a stipend to undertake the care of the foresaid places, and to visit the sick and administer to them the Sacraments of the Church (perchance for dread of the infection and contagion), many, as we understand, are dying without the Sacrament of Penance. These, too, are ignorant of what ought to be done in such necessity, and believe that no confession of their sins, even in a case of such need, is useful or meritorious, unless made to a priest having the keys of the Church. Therefore, desiring, as we are bound to do, the salvation of souls, and ever watching to bring back the wandering from the crooked paths of error, we, on the obedience you have sworn to us, urgently enjoin upon you and command you—rectors, vicars, and parish priests—in all your churches, and you deans, in such places of your deaneries as are destitute of the consolation of priests, that you at once and publicly instruct and induce, yourselves or by some other, all who are sick of the present[p082]malady, or who shall happen to be taken ill, thatin articulo mortis, if they are not able to obtain any priest, they should make confession of their sins (according to the teaching of the apostle) even to a layman, and, if a man is not at hand, then to a woman. We exhort you, by the present letters, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, to do this, and to proclaim publicly in the aforesaid places that such confession made to a layman in the presumed case can be most salutary and profitable to them for the remission of their sins, according to the teaching and the sacred canons of the Church. And for fear any, imagining that these lay confessors may make known confessions so made to them, shall hesitate thus to confess in case of necessity, we make known to all in general, and to those in particular who have already heard these confessions, or who may in future hear them, that they are bound by the precepts of the Church to conceal and keep them secret; and that, by a decree of the sacred canons, they are forbidden to betray such confession by word, sign, and by any other means whatever, unless those confessing so desire. And (further) should they do otherwise, let such betrayers know that they sin most gravely, and incur the indignation of Almighty God and of the whole Church." And further to stir up the zeal of both clergy and laity to this work the Bishop grants ample indulgences to such as follow the advice here given them.

"And since late repentance," he says "(when, for example, sickness compels and the fear of punishment terrifies) often deceives many, we grant to all our subjects, who in the time of the pestilence shall come to confession to priests having the keys of the Church and power to bind and to loose, before they are taken sick, and who do not delay till the day of necessity, forty days of indulgence. To every priest also who shall induce people to do this, and hear the confessions of those thus brought to confess whilst in health, we grant the same by the mercy of God Almighty, and trusting to the merits and prayers of[p083]his glorious Mother, of the Blessed Peter, Paul, and Andrew the Apostles, our patrons, and of all the Saints."

"You shall further declare," he adds, "to all thus confessing to lay people in case of necessity, that if they recover they are bound to confess the same sins again to their own parish priest. The Sacrament of the Eucharist, when no priest can be obtained, may be administered by a deacon. If, however, there be no priest to administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, faith must, as in other matters, suffice for the Sacrament."[136]

These large derogations from the usual ecclesiastical practice, though consonant alike with Christian charity and the teaching of the Church, are resorted to only in cases of the direst need, and the circular letter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells witnesses to the extreme gravity of the situation throughout the diocese, as early as the month of January, 1349. Already, as is certain from the Bishop's words, the dearth of clergy had made itself felt, and people were dying in the county of Somerset without the possibility of obtaining spiritual aid in their last hours, and no priests could be found to take the places of those who had already fallen victims to the disease. The list of institutions given in the register of Bishop Ralph of Shrewsbury shows that the mortality in that county was considerable as early as the November of the previous year, 1348.

Taking the institutions of the diocese as a guide to the time when the plague was most violent, and bearing in mind that the death would have occurred some little time before the institution, and that according to the Bishop's letter some delay had been inevitable in the filling up of benefices, the months when the pestilence was at its height in the county of Somerset would appear to be December, 1348, and January and February, 1349, although the number of institutions each month remains high until June. The[p084]mortality was apparently highest about Christmastide, 1348.[137]

The Bishop of Bath and Wells remained at his manor of Wiveliscombe till the worst was past in May of 1349. Thither came the long procession of priests to receive their letters of institution to vacant benefices. Day after day for nearly six months the work went on with hardly any cessation. Singly, or in twos and threes, often four and five, once, at least, ten together, the clergy came to be instituted to cures which the disease had left without a priest.

How the epidemic entered into the county, and the course it pursued, it would be now impossible, even if it were profitable, to discover. In December it would seem to have gained a foothold in most parts of the county. It was at Evercreech about November 19th, and about a fortnight later at Castlecary and Almsford, in the same neighbourhood. The fact that Bridgwater, Clevedon, Weston-super-mare, Portishead, and Bristol were amongst the earliest places in the county to be attacked would almost make it appear that the contagion was carried to these coast towns by a boat passing up the Bristol Channel. This supposition, moreover, is somewhat confirmed, as will be seen subsequently, by the fact that the towns of North Devon were attacked by the disease almost simultaneously with those on the south coast, and very much about the same time as those of North Somerset.

Bath suffered under the scourge in the early part of January, 1349. On the 9th and 10th of that month several[p085]institutions to livings, either in the city or the neighbourhood, being recorded. In the same month it had spread to the abbey of Keynsham, on the road between Bath and Bristol, and its path can almost be traced along the line of communication between Bath and Wells. Thus the villages of Freshford, Twerton, Hardington, Holcombe, Cloford, Kilmersdon, Babington, Compton, and Doulting, as well as several benefices in Wells itself, all fell vacant at this time.

It may be said with considerable certainty that fully half the number of beneficed clergy fell victims to the disease in this diocese. Many livings were rendered vacant two and three times during its course; whilst a not inconsiderable number had four changes of incumbents within these few months. Bathampton, for example, had four parsons appointed in this period. At Hardington, not far from Frome, from January, 1349, to the middle of March, there were certainly three and perhaps four changes due to the disease; and at Yeovil, from the 15th December, 1348, to the 4th February, 1349, three priests held the living, one after the other.

Little or no information is forthcoming as to the religious houses of the county at this time. Both Athelney and Muchelney lost their abbots, and probably also many of their members. The fact that the great abbey of Glastonbury, which previously contained within its walls a community of some 80 monks, is found inA.D.1377 to have 44, seems to indicate that it must have suffered very severe losses through the epidemic.

At Bath, in 1344, only five years before the outbreak of the disease, the community at the Priory consisted of thirty professed monks under Prior John de Ford.[138]A list on the roll of the Somerset clergy, on whom a clerical subsidy was levied at the close of Edward the Third's reign, in 1377, shows that the number had been reduced to sixteen,[139][p086]and at this number it apparently remained to the time of the final dissolution of the house in the sixteenth century.[140]

It is not difficult to understand that the plague must have raged with great virulence in the larger cities, where in those days the most elementary notions of sanitation were almost unknown. In the west, Bristol, of course, suffered severely. "There," says the sub-contemporary writer, Knighton, "died, suddenly overwhelmed by death, almost the whole strength of the town, for few were sick more than three days, or two days, or even half a day." Nor need this be a subject of wonder when, according to the description of a modern writer, speaking of the city at this very period, the streets were very narrow; in the busier parts the ground was honeycombed with cellars for storing wine, salt, and other merchandise, whilst refuse streamed down the centre ditch. So small was the distance between the houses that no vehicle was allowed to be used in the streets, and all goods were carried on pack-horses or porters, a custom which even in the 17th century excited the wonder of Samuel Pepys.[141]

"Here in Bristol," says the local historian Seyer, quoting an old calendar of the town, "in 1348 the plague raged to such a degree that the living were scarce able to bury the dead. The Gloucestershire men would not suffer the Bristol men to have access to them. At last it reached Gloucester, Oxford, and London; scarce the tenth person was left alive, male or female. At this period the grass grew several inches high in High Street and Broad Street; it raged at first chiefly in the centre of the city. This pestilence came from abroad, and the people near the sea-coast in Dorsetshire and Devonshire were first affected."[142]By the wholesale destruction of the population of this western port the same authority accounts for the reduction of the King's taxation of the city from £245 to £158.[p087]

Lastly, in Bristol, as indeed without doubt in most places, the cemeteries did not long suffice for the multitude of the dead. Of this there is an example upon the Patent Rolls. The parson of Holy Cross de la Temple soon found the necessity of enlarging his graveyard. For this purpose he obtained half-an-acre adjoining the old cemetery, and so great and pressing was the need of this fresh accommodation that it was done without the required royal license, for which subsequently a pardon had to be sued from the King.[143]

The diocese of Exeter, comprising the two counties of Devon and Cornwall, was stricken by the disease apparently about the same time as the county of Somerset.[144]For eight years before 1348 the average number of livings annually rendered vacant in the diocese was thirty-six,[145]whilst in the single month of January 1349, the Bishop instituted to some thirty livings, which shows that death had already been busy among the clergy.

The number of institutions in each month of the year points to the conclusion that the disease lingered somewhat longer in these counties than elsewhere. It is not till the close of September that any great decrease in the number of vacancies is seen, and although probably beginning in December, the height of the plague was not reached till March, April, and May.[146][p088]

Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph thus describes the state of the Exeter episcopal registers at this period:—"There is very little direct information about the Black Death in Bishop Grandisson's register; but there is a great deal of indirect information. TheRegistrum Commune, which is wonderfully full before and after the fatal year, records scarcely anything during the year itself. The ordinary work of the diocese seems to have been all suspended, with a single exception. The register of institutions—a separate volume—is a record of incessant and most distressing work. Its very outward aspect for this period tells a tale of woe. The entries are made hurriedly and roughly, in striking contrast with the neatness and regularity of the rest of the Register. They are no longer grouped, as before, in years, but in months, and the changes in each month exceed the changes of a whole ordinary year, when there was no pestilence. The scribe leaves off the customary 'vacantper mortem,' as if he dreaded to write the fatal word. The clergy must have fallen by wholesale; evidently they were faithful, and, for their flocks' sake, faced the foe without flinching. And, as each of them fell, another was ready at his Bishop's call fearlessly to fill the vacant place. Some incumbencies lasted but a few weeks. And, when all was over, the survivors were, comparatively, so few that there was no small difficulty in filling many a subsequent vacant benefice; this result of the sickness is to be traced for some time after the mortality had ceased.

"The Bishop never left his diocese, and the continuous presence of so strong, so earnest, and devoted a prelate must have been an unspeakable consolation and help to his grievously afflicted flock."

An examination of the institutions of the diocese, in relation to the time when the plague visited the various parts of it, appears to show that it commenced almost simultaneously in both north and south. In North Devon it is found at both Northam and Alverdiscott on the 7th of[p089]November, at Fremington in the same district on the 8th, and at Barnstaple on December the 23rd. It is found in November at villages on the Exe, and had possibly also reached Exeter before the close of the month. In the South, the fact of the close proximity of the part first infected to Dorsetshire explains the course of the epidemic; but the early outbreak in the coast villages at the mouth of the estuary leading to Barnstaple points to the conclusion that the infection was brought by a ship passing up the Bristol Channel, which subsequently infected other towns further up on the Somerset shore of the passage.

It is of interest also to note how greatly the coast towns generally appear to have suffered, as the contagion was very probably carried from one place to another by the fishing boats. Up some of the estuaries it would seem as if the passage of the disease could be traced by the dates of the institutions. Thus, to take one example, in March, 1349, there is an institution to a living at the mouth of the Fowey in Cornwall; a week later there is another at St. Winnow's Vicarage higher up, and on March 22nd the sickness had reached Bodmin, at no great distance from the river, and a place with which, in all probability, the passage up the estuary of the Fowey would be an ordinary and usual means of communication.

As to the result of the sickness in the religious houses of the diocese some few details are known. At St. Nicholas', Exeter, the Prior died in March, 1349; his successor, John de Wye, was admitted on the 26th of that month, but died almost immediately. The next Prior was not installed until June 7th, and the house was found to be in a deplorable state.[147]So also at Pilton Priory two superiors died within a few weeks one of the other. At the alien priory of Minster, Cornwall, William de Huma, the Prior, was carried off by the sickness on 26th of April, 1349, and the house was so impoverished by the death of tenants[p090]and labourers that it could not support both its members, and the chaplain they were bound to find to do the parish work, as neither the prior nor his brethren spoke English, "or rather Cornish."[148]

At the Cistercian abbey of Newenham the register records that "in the time of this mortality or pestilence there died in this house twenty monks and three lay-brothers, whose names are entered in other books. And Walter, the abbot, and two monks were left alive there after the sickness."[149]

At the Augustinian abbey of Hartland, Roger de Raleghe, the abbot, died, and the proclamation of the election of his successor is dated 18th March, 1349. At Benedictine Tavistock also the abbot died, and his successor, Richard de Esse, was taken ill after his confirmation, and, "detained by so grave a sickness," could not go to the King, who, on October 17th, commissioned Bishop Grandisson to receive his fealty.[150]

At Bodmin, according to a note taken by William of Worcester from a register in the Church of the Friars Minor there, it was estimated that 1,500 persons died of this sickness.[151]Amongst these was the Vicar, whose successor was appointed on April 8th, 1349. The Augustinian priory in the town was almost depopulated. The prior, John de Kilkhampton, and all his brethren but two were carried off by the sickness. The two survivors, on March 17th, wrote to the Bishop saying that they "were left like orphans," and begging that he would provide a superior[p091]for their house at once. The next day, March the 18th, 1349, an inquisition was held under a writ of the Prince of Wales. The jury found that the priory was free, and that the last prior had died "on Friday, next after the feast of St. Peter in Cathedra then last past" (February 27th).[152]

On March 19th Bishop Grandisson wrote to the prior of Launceston setting forth the facts, and appointing a member of that house to the office. Three days later the mandate for his induction was issued, in the hopes that "by his careful watchfulness the said priory may recover from the calamity."[153]

The plight to which the Augustinians of Bodmin were reduced by the disease is, after all, typical of that of many religious houses throughout the country. Meantime, however, the epidemic had not confined its ravages to the western counties, but continued to spread the same desolation in every direction, as the wave of pestilence rolled onward over the length and breadth of the land.

FOOTNOTES:[121]Originalia Roll, 24 Ed. III., m. 2.[122]B. Mus., Harl. MS. 6965, f. 132.[123]Chronicon Galfridi le Baker, ed. E. M. Thompson, p. 98.[124]Eulogium Historiarum(ed. Rolls series), iii, p. 213. It seems not at all improbable that this account was written whilst the plague was still confined to the west of England.[125]Harl. MS. 688, f. 361.[126]Hutchins,History of Dorset(3rd ed.), ii, p. 422.[127]Rot. Pat., 26 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 5.[128]Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eighth Report, App., p. 338.[129]De Gestis Edwardi III.(ed. Rolls series), p. 406.[130]As will be seen subsequently, this estimate of Dr. Jessopp is certainly too low, and it is probably more correct to suppose that the non-beneficed clergy, including under that head the religious, were four times as numerous as those holding benefices.[131]The following table will show the actual number of institutions in Dorsetshire for some months:—1348.1349.Oct.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.March.April.515171614104[132]Originalia Roll, 22 Ed. III., m. 4.[133]Hist. MSS. Comm., Sixth Report, p. 475.[134]History of Dorset, i, p. 5.[135]Curateshere and elsewhere is used for Rectors or Vicars, who had the actual cure of souls.[136]Wilkins,Concilia, ii, pp. 735–6.[137]The following is a table of the institutions in Somersetshire for some months:—1348.1349.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.March.932474336April.May.June.40217[138]Bath Chartulary (Lincoln's Inn MS.), p. 119. This is now being edited for theSomerset Record Society, and the list is given at p. 73 of Mr. Hunt's edition.[139]R. O. Clerical Subsidy (Somerset), 4/2.[140]See list given inDeputy Keeper's Report, vii, p. 280.[141]W. Hunt,Historic Towns,Bristol, p. 77.[142]S. Seyer,Memoirs of Bristol(Bristol, 1823) ii, p. 143.[143]Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 4.[144]For information about the institutions of this diocese and other matters concerning Devon and Cornwall, I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph.[145]Curiously enough the number of institutions in 1891 was 36.[146]The following table will give the number of institutions in Devon and Cornwall in each month:—1348.1349.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.Mar.April.May.1063034605347June.July.Aug.Sept.45371623[147]The Prior of St. James', Exeter, also died: "postea tempore pestilencie subito mortuus est." (Reg. Grand., i, fol. 27b).[148]Rot. Pat., 29 Ed. III., pars 2, m. 19.[149]B. Mus., Arund. MS. 17, fol. 55b. Oliver (Monasticon Dioecesis Exoniensis, p. 359) adds: "And no fewer than 88 persons living within the Abbey gates." In Noakes'History of the Monastery and Cathedral of Worcester, p. 94, it is said that the virulence of the plague of 1349 may be judged "from the fact that in the Abbey of Newenham, in the West of England, out of a hundred and eleven inmates, only the Abbot and two monks survived." No authority is cited by these writers.[150]Reg. Grandisson, i, 26b.[151]Itinerarum, ed. J. Nasmith, p. 112.[152]Sir J. Maclean,Deanery of Trigg Minor, i, p. 128.[153]Reg. Grandisson, i, 26b.

[121]Originalia Roll, 24 Ed. III., m. 2.

[122]B. Mus., Harl. MS. 6965, f. 132.

[123]Chronicon Galfridi le Baker, ed. E. M. Thompson, p. 98.

[124]Eulogium Historiarum(ed. Rolls series), iii, p. 213. It seems not at all improbable that this account was written whilst the plague was still confined to the west of England.

[125]Harl. MS. 688, f. 361.

[126]Hutchins,History of Dorset(3rd ed.), ii, p. 422.

[127]Rot. Pat., 26 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 5.

[128]Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eighth Report, App., p. 338.

[129]De Gestis Edwardi III.(ed. Rolls series), p. 406.

[130]As will be seen subsequently, this estimate of Dr. Jessopp is certainly too low, and it is probably more correct to suppose that the non-beneficed clergy, including under that head the religious, were four times as numerous as those holding benefices.

[131]The following table will show the actual number of institutions in Dorsetshire for some months:—1348.1349.Oct.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.March.April.515171614104[132]Originalia Roll, 22 Ed. III., m. 4.[133]Hist. MSS. Comm., Sixth Report, p. 475.[134]History of Dorset, i, p. 5.[135]Curateshere and elsewhere is used for Rectors or Vicars, who had the actual cure of souls.[136]Wilkins,Concilia, ii, pp. 735–6.[137]The following is a table of the institutions in Somersetshire for some months:—1348.1349.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.March.932474336April.May.June.40217

[131]The following table will show the actual number of institutions in Dorsetshire for some months:—

1348.1349.Oct.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.March.April.515171614104

[132]Originalia Roll, 22 Ed. III., m. 4.

[133]Hist. MSS. Comm., Sixth Report, p. 475.

[134]History of Dorset, i, p. 5.

[135]Curateshere and elsewhere is used for Rectors or Vicars, who had the actual cure of souls.

[136]Wilkins,Concilia, ii, pp. 735–6.

[137]The following is a table of the institutions in Somersetshire for some months:—1348.1349.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.March.932474336April.May.June.40217

[137]The following is a table of the institutions in Somersetshire for some months:—

1348.1349.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.March.932474336April.May.June.40217

[138]Bath Chartulary (Lincoln's Inn MS.), p. 119. This is now being edited for theSomerset Record Society, and the list is given at p. 73 of Mr. Hunt's edition.

[139]R. O. Clerical Subsidy (Somerset), 4/2.

[140]See list given inDeputy Keeper's Report, vii, p. 280.

[141]W. Hunt,Historic Towns,Bristol, p. 77.

[142]S. Seyer,Memoirs of Bristol(Bristol, 1823) ii, p. 143.

[143]Rot. Pat., 23 Ed. III., pars 3, m. 4.

[144]For information about the institutions of this diocese and other matters concerning Devon and Cornwall, I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph.

[145]Curiously enough the number of institutions in 1891 was 36.

[146]The following table will give the number of institutions in Devon and Cornwall in each month:—1348.1349.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.Mar.April.May.1063034605347June.July.Aug.Sept.45371623

[146]The following table will give the number of institutions in Devon and Cornwall in each month:—

1348.1349.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.Mar.April.May.1063034605347June.July.Aug.Sept.45371623

[147]The Prior of St. James', Exeter, also died: "postea tempore pestilencie subito mortuus est." (Reg. Grand., i, fol. 27b).

[148]Rot. Pat., 29 Ed. III., pars 2, m. 19.

[149]B. Mus., Arund. MS. 17, fol. 55b. Oliver (Monasticon Dioecesis Exoniensis, p. 359) adds: "And no fewer than 88 persons living within the Abbey gates." In Noakes'History of the Monastery and Cathedral of Worcester, p. 94, it is said that the virulence of the plague of 1349 may be judged "from the fact that in the Abbey of Newenham, in the West of England, out of a hundred and eleven inmates, only the Abbot and two monks survived." No authority is cited by these writers.

[150]Reg. Grandisson, i, 26b.

[151]Itinerarum, ed. J. Nasmith, p. 112.

[152]Sir J. Maclean,Deanery of Trigg Minor, i, p. 128.

[153]Reg. Grandisson, i, 26b.

Back to Index Next