In pre-Reformation times there was a diversity of practice, some
parishioners claiming the right to elect the clerk, as they provided the
offerings by which he lived. A terrible scene occurred in the fourteenth
century at one church. The parishioners appointed a clerk, and the
rector selected another. The rector was celebrating Mass, assisted by
his clerk, when the people's candidate approached the altar and nearly
murdered his rival, so that blood was shed in the sanctuary.
Custom in many churches sanctioned the right of the parishioners, who
sometimes neglected to exercise it, and the choice of clerk was left to
the vicar. The visitations in the time of Elizabeth show that the people
were expected to appoint to the office, but the episcopal inquiries also
demonstrate that the parson or vicar could exercise a veto, and that no
one could be chosen without his goodwill and consent.
The canon of 1603 was an attempt to change this variety of usage, but
such is the force of custom that many decisions of the spiritual courts
have been against the canon and in favour of accustomed usage when such
could be proved. It was so in the case of _Cundict_ v. _Plomer_ (8 Jac.
I)[86], and in _Jermyn's Case_ (21 Jac. I).
[Footnote 86: _Ecclesiastical Law_, Sir R. Phillimore, p. 1901.]
At the present time such disputes with regard to the appointment of
clerks are unlikely to arise.
Pages:
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304