Complaint against vicar (1640)

Post date: Sep 25, 2012 9:42:36 AM

As recorded in A.R. Cook's book "A manor through four centuries "(OUP 1938) about Roydon Hall, in 1640 a complaint was lodged by the parishioners of East Peckham against their parson, the Reverend Francis Worrall, on the grounds that he was not only vicar of East Peckham but also of Wateringbury:

That the said Ffrancis Worrall doth many times serve the Cure himself of both these Parishes and is soe uncertayne at such tymes in officiating his cure that, our Parish being spacious, the Parishioners cannot come to church with any convenience in the morning, and at other tymes (at tyme accustomed in other parishes) loste theire labour, he being dispatcht and gone to his Cure in Wateringbury. He is very negligent in preaching, insomuch that we have not a Sermon at our Parish above once in a fortnight (except it be a funerale Sermon which is very seldome).

East Peckham pressed their case strongly and procured its endorsement by Sir Edward Dering, MP for Kent, who succeeded in evicting Worrall from East Peckham parish in 1644. He remained in Wateringbury until he died in 1652. Worrall had earlier, in 1630, been in dispute with Sir Roger Twysden of Roydon Hall about tithes.

See also Conveyance (1517) which was put forward as part of the evidence in these disputes.

In her study of Sir Roger Twysden's religious beliefs, Sue Petrie (Sue Petrie.2004.The Religion of Sir Roger Twysden (1597-1672): a Case Study in Gentry Piety in Seventeenth-Century England.Archaeologia Cantiana.124:137-162. ) says:

Twysden had no clerical patronage and it was the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury who had presented Francis Worrall to St Michael's. Worrall had matriculated from St John's, Oxford and had been ordained in London in 1609. At the time of the death of Sir William Twysden in January 1628/9 Worrall had been vicar for almost twelve years. He was from the start the cause of a number of vexations to Twysden. In his common-place book Twysden noted down the costs for his father's funeral including the vicar's burial charge of one pound and added that the vicar had demanded the black cloth which lay on the hearse as his customary due but that he, Twysden, had refused since he knew of no such precedent: T made it apeere to him wee had no such custom'. Twysden's disputes with Worrall were never over the liturgy or form of worship in the church. They occurred when Worrall seemed in danger of acting in an unfair manner by attempting to establish a custom that could not be justified by precedent. At one point, Worrall tried to instigate payment in kind for his tithes rather than in the customary money. Twysden, who as a member of the Church of England accepted the legitimacy of tithes and had kept notes of tithing customs in East Peckham and Great Chart from 1628, saw this as an unjust and retrograde move and brought a chancery suit against Worrall in 1639, which he eventually won. As this was not a personal attack, Twysden paid for Worrall's dinner along with that of his own witnesses and the commissioners at the end of the case 'although I never told him so'. He later wrote disapprovingly of those canonists who said that the clergy are the lords of the first fruits (clerici sunt Domini fructuum) quoting his authorities to prove that this was not so in the Apostles' time.Twysden was charitable to Worrall and was willing to give a gift of forty shillings or a quantity of cordwood to help the impoverished vicar, but only if there was nothing put in writing so that no custom would be established. His argument over precedent did not stop with Worrall for in 1653 he challenged the new vicar, William Polhill, who had been appointed by Parliament, over his claim that he had the right t o nominate one of the churchwardens.