By Victoria Evans, Searchroom Archivist, in collaboration with Jennifer Mason, Senior Archivist (Collections Manager), and Linda and Catherine, WSRO cataloguing volunteers
Within our Episcopal Records, the miscellaneous court papers (MCPs) are a set of documents that have remained largely unknown to us, as they have been in too poor a condition to enable them to be accessed. While other records of this period reflect the activities of the wealthy – or the misdeeds of the seriously criminal – those of the church courts depict something much closer to everyday life for most people, helping us to see life through the eyes of ordinary individuals four centuries later. As well as being name rich, and thus an important source for genealogists and local historians, they are also an invaluable resource for economic and social history.
Since 2024, we have received two rounds of generous funding from the National Manuscripts Conservation Trust to recruit recent conservation graduates to conserve these papers. The project was called ‘Ordinary Voices Revealed: conserving the working papers of the Consistory Court of the Archdeaconry of Chichester’ and enabled 279 of the 344 folders comprising the collection to be made accessible.
The discoveries which the first phase of the Ordinary Voices Revealed project has uncovered confirm the importance of these court records to our understanding of the lives and experiences of ordinary West Sussex residents and their value for a range of different research topics. The court records reflect social norms, including around gender and the treatment of women. There are several defamation cases which demonstrate the importance of women’s reputations and the huge impact defamation could have on them and their status. The court papers also cover the treatment of women within marriages and the near impossibility of escaping an abusive marriage. The failings of local clergy, poor maintenance of church property, and non-conformity are also covered in detail. Perhaps more unexpectedly, there is a wealth of information about the right to sit in a certain pew, a function of the rigid social structure prevalent over the period that these records cover.
Here are some stories our cataloguing volunteers have uncovered so far:
The story of Joseph Proud
By Linda
Joseph Proud was vicar of Steyning from 1683 to 1702. Deposition records (Ep/1/11/20) show that from the outset, he showed a lack of respect for authority, marrying couples without banns or licence, failing to conduct burials, and generally neglecting the office to which he had been appointed, to the extent that his parishioners attended worship in another parish as Proud was absent. Because of his lifestyle, they were also reluctant to receive Holy Communion from him. There were a number of examples of violence and drunkenness, with Proud being so drunk that he fell down, dirtying his gown and losing his wig, and having to stay at the inn to sleep it off.
Proud threatened a number of parishioners, from gentry, surgeons and clerics to tradesmen and female servants. As he had clearly alienated and threatened many of his parishioners, it was then a surprise to find a letter amongst the MCPs, addressed to Bishop John Lake, who took office in 1685, signed or marked by nearly 80 parishioners, almost entirely men, representing well over half the parish at this time (Ep/1/15/1/154/56). This document was originally incorrectly dated as 1677, well before Proud arrived in Steyning. This letter tells a completely different story, referring to Proud’s sober and modest behaviour, and seemingly impeccable conduct.
Ep/I/15/154/56 – Defamation petition
So, why was the letter written? It may have been the result of fear, possibly of the patron, but more probably of future actions by Proud himself, who had the power to present, or take to court, any of his parishioners for misdemeanours, with the potential to affect their lives further, as any subsequent excommunication would for example prevent marriage or any civic appointments. It is ironic then that Proud was himself temporarily suspended from office (Ep/1/10/51/f 27v). The letter protected the parishioners but the evidence against Proud finally held sway.
Control of social relations and acceptable behaviour
By Catherine
The Consistory Court in Chichester dealt with matters of compliance, both with how the church was run and funded and reinforcing what was acceptable behaviour within parishes. Court cases demonstrate well the lack of power and status held by most women at the time. Few women owned property or goods, their status was acquired via fathers or husbands, and one of the most important things they held was their reputation.
Several documents show how illegitimacy was shameful. The Funtington churchwardens’ presentments in 1754 (Ep 1/15/1/230/12) named a widow who had broken church laws by giving birth to an illegitimate daughter. The 1766 presentments from the Angmering churchwardens named four women who had illegitimate babies. (Ep 1/15/1/247/13-14). They were sentenced to do penance in the churchyard after divine service, declaring their sinful behaviour.
A case in 1725 concerned the defaming of a servant girl by her master (Ep/1/15/1/203/2). Several witnesses described how Elizabeth Gosbee, the servant of John Lucas of Lyminster, neglected her duties and would not leave her bed. She was heavily pregnant at the time and refused to return to her father, saying she would rather murder the baby than go home. She then changed her plea to bewitchment. Lucas consulted an Angmering doctor, who blamed the girl. Lucas sacked her and sent her back home, telling her father that she was a “whore”. There is no mention of the baby’s father.
In 1807 Elizabeth Boswell, wife of a North Mundham farmer, was found guilty of the defamation of Mary Tudor of Newport in the Isle of Wight (Ep 1/15/1/252/29). There are no witness statements attached, so we do not know what she had said. Her punishment was to do penance by standing in the churchyard after Sunday divine service, apologising loudly, and reciting the words given by the judge. It would have been humiliating to face all the villagers in this way, but in their eyes she had defamed the good name and affected the reputation of another woman.
In the next part we will be sharing a blog post about the conservation processes, so keep your eyes peeled for that!
Stay up-to-date with us on social media:
