ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



otherwise neglected according to modern ideas seems evident from the fact 

 that Robert Marshall," the vicar, had been non-resident for the past ten years. 

 The abbey of Westminster, impropriator of Ashv^rell, in spite of the return of 

 1 518-19, cannot have undertaken any considerable repairs to that church, 

 for the parishioners now complained that the chancel was in such a state 

 that the rain dripped down upon the high altar. The rector of Therfield 

 was non-resident and a wall was in ruins. The chantry chapel at Albury 

 was badly in need of repair, but the duty probably devolved on the patron, 

 and at Totteridgc, where the parishioners were responsible, the church- 

 wardens were ordered to repair the ruinous chapel against Michaelmas 

 following. 



Presentments such as these seem to have had good results, for only one of 

 the churches needing repair in 1530 was so returned in 1543." The exception 

 was Aldenham. The rectory had passed into the hands of a ' farmer,' Robert 

 Duncombe, who apparently did nothing for the church, for the chancel was in 

 great ruin and need of repair, and the churchyard was badly inclosed so that 

 the beasts got in, nor would he repair ' les mowndes ' there. The neglect of 

 Ardeley Church by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's was perhaps due to the 

 uncertainty of the times ; moreover, the chancellor had sequestrated the issues 

 and the vicar was non-resident. The churchwardens described the chancel 

 as in the greatest ruin. Perhaps it was politics, too, that were responsible 

 for the neglect of the chapel of Flamstead. The chantry priest at this date 

 was Stephen Garrett, but he had let it at farm, and neither lived there nor 

 celebrated mass within its walls. It is, perhaps, allowable to anticipate at 

 this point and to compare these returns with that made at Cardinal Pole's 

 metropolitical visitation of the Lincoln diocese in 1556.*° The chancels of 

 the churches of Rushden, Great Wymondley, Kensworth and Gaddesden 

 were all ruinous, and the priests in each case were sequestrated. The chapel 

 at Bayford was also in great need of repair." It is, indeed, only by side- 

 lights such as these that any estimate can be made of the effect of the religious 

 changes of the reign on the people at large. Even these were exceptional 

 cases of want of parochial care, and in the absence of complaints from the 

 much larger proportion of churches it may be assumed that they were 

 satisfactorily served. 



The suppression of the religious houses led in Hertfordshire to no out- 

 break of rebellion such as that in Yorkshire or Lincolnshire. Between 1536 

 and 1539 the religious left their old homes without riot, and it seems probable 

 that many of the Hertfordshire religious houses had been quietly dissolved 

 before this date.*' In July 1537 St. Albans and Hertford were considered 

 suitable resting-places for Henry VIII and his train on their way to Hunsdon," 

 and no mention of discontent in the county has been found. The Crown had 

 taken the place of the Papal See as supreme authority in matters ecclesiastical, 

 and in February 1538—9 Henry issued his proclamation concerning the 

 rites and ceremonies to be used in the Church of England.''* That the 

 changes of this time were looked upon as the excuse for relaxation of 



^' cf. Salter, op. cit. 171. This return shows that there were a curate and two stipendiaries serving in 

 the church. *^ Visit. ofArchd. of Huntingdon, 1543 (Line. Epis. Reg.). 



*" Strype, Eccl. Mem. ii (2), 404. ^^ Ibid. ^^ See above. 



«3 L. and P. Hen. Fill, xii (2), 275. ^ Loud. Epis. Reg. Bonner, fol. 28 d. 



