Join us for an exciting in-person afternoon event on Saturday 4th October at the Galleywood Heritage Centre, exploring research about crime and society in Anglo-Saxon, early-modern and eighteenth-century Essex. There will be a series of four fascinating talks with a mid-afternoon break for tea and cake (included in the £15 ticket price), a booksale and raffle.
To book tickets please click this link to visit our Eventbrite booking page!
Shortly after Thomas Drax, the incumbent vicar of Dovercourt cum Harwich, died in January 1619, the bishop of London presented William Innes on 18th March 1619 as perpetual vicar to the parish. Since the dissolution of Colne Priory, the advowson (the right to nominate a cleric to a vacant benefice) for All Saints, Dovercourt, and the chapel of St Nicholas in Harwich rested with the crown. We do not know if James I took a personal interest in the appointment of Innes or if he delegated this task to the bishop. We also do not know where William Innes came from and where he conducted his studies. Although he is listed in the bishop’s register as having a MA (Magister Artium) his name cannot be found in the alumni registers of Oxford or Cambridge.
Innes is mentioned for the first time in Harwich records in a list of churchwarden expenses for the year 1618: William King, who was mayor of Harwich the previous year, claimed 10s for horse hire “when he went up with Mr Innes for the benefice”. [Church Book, Harwich Town Archive 98/1, f. 280v]. It is the final entry for the year and given that the year in England began on Lady Day (25th March) the expenses occurred probably in February or early March 1619.
Only a short while into his incumbency, a court case reveals Innes’ unpopularity with some of his parishioners. The Court of Pleas, the lowest court in Harwich which dealt with minor suits of debt, theft, trespass, slander and other petty offences, heard on the 12th December 1620 from Grace Button, wife of Henry Button, sailor, “that Giles Haywood, cobbler, upon Saturday last did say that it was never merry in England since Scots bare rule or governed and that the wife of the said Haywood did then say that Mr Innes, the preacher, was as proud as the king” [Court of Pleas, HTA 98/2 f.182v; spelling modernised].
A second witness, Grace Evans, wife of John Evans, testified that “the said Haywood’s wife did say that she had met Mr Innes; says she had humbled him and had him in the dirt”.
Finally, ten days later Giles Haywood confirmed that he spoken to the vicar “on Saturday a fortnight ago” and that he said “it would be a merry world if one Scot might become sovereign over an English town, meaning by Mr Innes for that he told him he would present him for not coming to church”.
Although the meaning of these three statements is not entirely clear it seems Grace Button alleged that Giles Haywood had insulted the king by declaring that the times of ‘Merry England’ were over since James I, a Scot, had come to the throne, and that Haywood’s wife then doubled down and called the vicar as haughty and arrogant (‘proud’) as the king. Less detail about what was said is given by the second witness, Grace Evans, but she seems to corroborate that Haywood’s wife humiliated Mr Innes.
Haywood’s deposition gives a different slant to the story when he, probably sarcastically, commented on the occasion of meeting the vicar that it must be a joyful world if a Scot became the ruler of an English town. This was directed at Mr Innes, because the vicar had notified him that he would report him for not attending church. In this reading the insult is not explicitly directed against the king. Instead, it implies that William Innes was Scottish and Haywood’s derogatory remark was an ethnic slur, which, however, was also a dig at the king.
The toponymic surname ‘Innes’ originates from Moray in Scotland. Confirmation of his Scottish origins comes from Burke’s Peerage which lists William as one of seven sons of the Alexander Innes of Cotts and Leuchars who was the bailiff of Spynie. His royalist family background probably explains his presentation to Dovercourt cum Harwich vicarage. It also might explain why he cannot be found in the Cambridge and Oxford registers because he quite likely had a degree from a Scottish university.
Unfortunately, nothing is known about the outcome of the case. However, William Innes and his Harwich parishioners – he seems to have been getting on with his congregation in Dovercourt – were at loggerheads on several occasions during the coming decade. It seems likely that a naval and mercantile town, in close relationship with the Low Countries would have been more Puritan in outlook than the neighbouring rural parish. Innes quarrels with Harwich Puritans culminated in a case before the supreme ecclesiastical Court of High Commission in 1629–1631, in which even the king got involved at one stage. But this is something you will have to wait to read in the Harwich and Dovercourt Red Book.
We were grateful to three of our trustees, Lord Petre, Dr Amanda Flather and Sir Graham Hart for giving talks, alongside our long-term friend the architectural historian Dr James Bettley. In this blog chairman Ken Crowe provides an overview of each of their talks.
It was clear that throughout this three-hundred-year period, Catholics of great skill and abilities were able to rise to high office. William Petre, one of the king’s commissioners for the Dissolution of the monasteries, continued to hold high office into Elizabeth’s reign. John explained that, despite the high price paid by some, it was really only after the excommunication of Elizabeth by Pope Pius V that Catholics in general began to suffer from a series of draconian laws. But even then, when Catholic priests were regarded as enemies of the state, others could rise to the top. John cited the example of William Petre’s son, John, who was commander of the Essex Militia at Elizabeth’s Armada speech at Tilbury.
The practise of Catholicism was banned, and anybody not attending (Protestant) church was to be summonsed, such as the Ingatestone widow and her daughter who were fined £120 in 1621. The second Lord Petre’s sons were arrested in 1627 for attempting to go abroad to attend a Catholic school. Catholics were also excluded from the professions or dealing in property. By an Act of 1700 Catholics were not allowed to go more than 5 miles from their usual place of abode, or to own a horse worth more than £5!
How did Catholic families in Essex fare? The 4th Lord Petre, living during the Commonwealth, was immediately suspected of being a Royalist, and by 1659 his liabilities exceeded his income by 20 times! Some others kept a very low profile and went ‘underground’, the most obvious example being the so-called priests’ hiding places. The Waldegrave family remained staunchly Catholic until 1721 when James Waldegrave took the Oath of Supremacy and found himself created Earl Waldegrave. But generally, with far fewer Catholic families in Essex (in 1634 only 20 of the 280 arms-bearing families) anti-Catholic legislation was only half-heartedly enforced. During the 18th century anti-Catholic rules were being relaxed; some Catholics entered the professions and, despite the flare-up of anti-Catholic riots in James II’s reign such as the Gordon riots, Catholicism was not seen any more as a threat to the state. Eventually, senior lay Catholics under the chairmanship of the 9th Lord Petre promoted a resettlement of the law, leading to the Act of Toleration and, eventually in 1829, the Emancipation Act.
Using evidence from church court records, together with diaries and wills, her paper focused on women’s involvement in local conflicts over religion in the decades before the Civil War. The 1630s was characterised by deep divisions within the church and state; the marriage of Charles I to a Catholic queen was seen as a threat to the Protestant nation, only exacerbated by the introduction by Archbishop William Laud of liturgical practices that placed a renewed emphasis on ceremony and sacrament. These changes were seen by zealous Protestants as a challenge to the customary order of worship to a dangerous degree, and Amanda examined how often women were involved in campaigns against Laudian policy.
Women, particularly married women, played a significant role in church services and parish life, including baptisms, as midwives, churching, funerals, church cleaning and washing of vestments, and they wielded considerable informal influence over the politics of the parish especially relating to moral issues. Women protested against Laudian changes to the liturgy, in particular over the conduct and form of ceremonies with which they were most closely associated such as baptism, burial and churching, which zealous Protestants regarded as ‘dangerously superstitious.’ Examples of resistance included refusal to wear the veil or to go to the altar rail to be churched. Tabitha Sharp of Sandon refused to be churched at all.
Clergymen were criticised by female parishioners for poor preaching and some women participated in campaigns by Parliament to root out ‘scandalous’ ministers. [See Graham’s talk, below]. Moral order was the aspect of parish politics in which female influence was dominant. The evidence suggests that married women of ‘middling’ status in particular were engaged in direct action to rescue their churches from what they saw as the clutches of popery. It is in the responses to Laudianism that allow us to trace female voices and opinions that are so rarely heard.
In 1644 the Civil War was still in the balance. Parliament controlled London, Essex and neighbouring counties, while the King’s forces controlled much of the North and West of England. Religion lay at the root of many of Parliament’s grievances against Charles I. In the 1630s he had supported Archbishop Laud’s hostility to Puritans and policies on ceremony in worship: Parliament was now reversing those policies and reforming the Church.
In January 1644 Parliament ordered the Earl of Manchester, the General of its forces in the Eastern Counties, to carry out a purge of the clergy within his area, which included Essex. The aim was to remove ‘scandalous’ ministers from the Church and replace them by ‘godly preaching ministers’. Manchester appointed committees in each county to hear complaints about the clergy, who could be ejected if judged unfit, and have their income from the parish confiscated.This opportunity for discontented parishioners to complain resulted in 39 ministers being referred to the Essex committees for scandalous ministers.
How did the parishioners interpret their remit to identify ‘scandalous’ ministers? The charges they brought fall into four groups. Seven of the ministers were pluralists who were accused of being absent from and neglecting their parish. A second group, more numerous, were accused of immorality. 19 ministers faced charges relating to drinking. Three or four of them appear to have had a serious drink problem: Simon Lynch, Rector of Runwell, even turned up at his hearing with the committee under the influence. Five ministers were accused of sexual offences, usually by women who claimed to be victims. Other behaviour unacceptable to some parishioners included mild swearing (‘by my faith and troth’) and playing cards.
A third group of charges accused ministers of having, in the 1630s, complied with instructions from the Bishop about religious matters, such as requiring parishioners to kneel at the rail before the altar to receive communion, or to bow at the name of Jesus. Such practices reeked, to puritans, of superstition, idolatry and popery.
A fourth set of charges related to acts which amounted to openly supporting the King in his conflict with Parliament. Parliament was particularly concerned about clergy who spoke against it, for example to persuade people to refuse to take the various oaths supporting its policies which Parliament tried to impose on them.
In summary a few of our Essex ‘scandalous’ ministers were, if the charges are accepted as truthful, unworthy to serve as parish ministers. But the great majority were not men of bad character. Instead, they seem to have been respectable ministers who were accused of failing to support Parliament in its conflict with the King, and of being on the wrong side in the puritans’ long struggle against the leadership of the Church of England.
The Reformation was a turning point in the history of the country’s buildings just as it was for religious worship. The Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII, the suppression of chantries and guilds in 1548 under Edward VI and changes in liturgy resulted in the total or partial demolition of many existing buildings (Stratford Abbey, Barking Abbey, for example) and the adaptation of those that remained to new uses (Leez Priory, Walden Abbey. St. Osyth) and forms of worship, with the adaptation of parts of monastic churches to parochial use (such as Waltham Abbey, Little Dunmow, Blackmore, Tilty). Other structures were built or (partially) re-built out of monastic materials, such as Bourne Mill (Colchester) and Rochford Hall.
Many smaller buildings effectively became redundant, including parish guildhalls, although some, such as Finchingfield’s, continue to operate as community buildings. New institutions were founded to replace facilities previously associated with monasteries and chantries, notably almshouses (such as at Ingatestone, Felsted and St Mark’s College at Audley End) and schools, such as Felsted, Brentwood and King Edward VI’s grammar school at Chelmsford. In the 19th century many schools were refounded, but built in the Elizabethan or Tudor Gothic style. An example is the Royal Grammar School at Colchester (1852–3). Many almshouses were also rebuilt in the 19th century in a neo-16th style.
The Reformation had resulted in the alteration of church interiors almost beyond recognition, with removal of rood screens, statues, stained glass and wall paintings, some of which have been restored in more recent times. And without the Reformation there would have been no Nonconformist chapels. On the other hand, some of the newly rich in the later 16th century were building their great houses influenced by the latest fashions from the Continent, indicating that foreign influence continued in spite of the religious separation from Roman Catholic Europe.
But it is also true to say that so great was the enduring influence of the Reformation on our architectural heritage that many buildings continued to be designed in the style of the mid–16th century for the following 400 years.
With so many histories of Southend having been produced over the years, and many still in print, the aim of the VCH Southend volunteer team to produce a ‘new’ history of Southend. Using primary sources, we present an account of the town and resort’s history that had not been told before. In part this was helped by the varied backgrounds and interests of the contributors (Jenny Butler, Ed Simpson, Judith Williams, Ian Yearsley and Ken Crowe), and in part by the VCH format. We felt, however, given the constraints of space, and in order to do justice to the account we wished to present, it would not be appropriate to follow that format throughout.
The scene is set in the Introduction, with background on local government, landscape, transport and communications and population; there is a specific section on the estates of the Scratton family who, as lords of the manor and major landowners, were key to the development of town and resort from the late Georgian to the end of the Victorian periods. An account of the historic parishes that make up the town, and the story of landownership from the mid–16th century onwards provide essential background to the development of the town and resort in the Victorian period and into the early years of the twentieth century.
The story of the development of the town’s housing estates – starting with Cliff Town – feature the part played by the major landowners, developers and speculators, who were responsible for the building of much of Southend, Westcliff, Leigh and Southchurch, and whose names are familiar to many –Scratton, Dowsett, Ramuz, Ingram, Burges. The role of transport – train links to London and, locally, trams, not only played a key role in the development and expansion of the town, but also enabled East End ‘trippers’ and others from the metropolis to spend a day or more at their nearest seaside resort. Many of these would make the town their home, and some would be among the town’s first commuters. Others, from various parts of the country, and even from Europe, would establish businesses in the town.
Associated with the physical expansion of the town and resort was the establishment and growth of the financial and other business, professional and retail sectors together with the various trades and industries which supported them. Accommodating and catering for visitors (hotels and lodging houses) provided at first largely seasonal income for many residents while the expansion of the numbers building societies and banks, together with associated professions, such as land and estate agents, are all linked to the growing town and the needs of both residents and visitors. The only major industry in the area – brickmaking – was integral to the expansion of the town, and attracted the associated trades and crafts, such as bricklayers, carpenters, glaziers and plumbers, many working on a seasonal basis.
The response of the local authority and private enterprise to the needs of the growing seasonal and permanent population of the town and resort in the later Victorian period is a fascinating aspect, explored in some depth in this volume. The local authority purchased and redeveloped the pier, improved the main seafront road, laid out the cliffs and developed the esplanades and invested in a major tram system. Private enterprise was responsible for the provision of seaside amusements and the establishment of the wealth of clubs and societies that flourished here throughout the later Victorian and into the Edwardian eras. The ambition of the local authority to attract a ‘better class of excursionist’ and confine the tripper to the east side of the seafront determined the character of the resort (and the town) that is still evident to an extent today.
Cost per copy £16 including United Kingdom P&P from VCH Essex, c/o Essex Record, Wharf Road, Chelmsford, CM2 6YT
Cheques should be made payable to Victoria County History of Essex Trust.
Overseas purchasers please contact us for additional postage costs.
By way of introduction, a little background about the Victoria County History project.
The VCH of England project was founded in the closing years of the 19th century, and originally dedicated to Queen Victoria. The aim was to research and write a history of every community within each of the counties of England. From its very inception and publication of the first volumes, the VCH ‘red books’ have gained a well-deserved international reputation for their scholarship and have become standard reference works for local historians.
Based at the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London, the central VCH office co-ordinates the work of historians working in the various counties throughout the country, and is responsible for planning the series and ensuring the highest of academic standards.
The VCH Essex Trust is the body that raises the necessary funds and commissions professional historians (our editors) to undertake the research and writing of these histories. The red book series, together with the more recent VCH ‘short’ paperback volumes, are based on original historical records, held by such institutions as The National Archives, the British Library and county record offices.
Volume I of the Essex VCH series was published in 1903, and includes a major essay on Essex Domesday, together with a complete translation. Volume II (1907) includes the standard work on the religious history of the county, including monasteries. The work then lapsed until the 1950s, a general volume on Roman Essex appearing in 1963. This was followed by volumes covering much of south-west Essex, Harlow and neighbouring parishes, the town of Colchester (Vol. IX), and the seaside resorts of Clacton, Walton and Frinton (Vol. XI). The latest published volume (XII) in this series covers St. Osyth to the Naze (Part 1, St Osyth, Clacton and Great and Little Holland; Part 2, The Soken, Kirby-le Soken, Thorpe-le-Soken and Walton-le-Soken). Volume XIII will cover the fascinating history of Harwich, from medieval times to the 20th century. In recent years the VCH launched a new series of paperback ‘Shorts’, covering individual towns or parishes. For Essex the ‘Shorts so far published are: Newport, by Anthony Tuck and others (2015) and Harwich, Dovercourt and Parkeston in the 19th century, by Andrew Senter (2019). Soon to be published is Southend, Victorian Town and Resort, by Ken Crowe and others.
Victoria County History of Essex