In theory excommunication – expulsion from the community of the faithful – was a drastic measure in medieval Christianity. In late medieval England, however, it was most often used for relatively mild rather than terrible sins, particularly for the failure to obey summonses, orders, and sanctions issued by church courts. This may have dulled its edge somewhat, though excommunication evidently still carried stigma and occasioned court cases. In 1493, Master Richard Draper, official of the London Archdeaconry court, issued a suspension and then an excommunication[1] of William Ely, a parishioner of St Dunstan in the West, when Ely refused to answer a summons over a disciplinary matter (likely sexual misbehaviour with his servant). Before his parish priest could announce his suspension and excommunication, however, Ely rushed to the superior Consistory court to ask for an inhibition, an order to prevent the carrying out of the excommunication. That brought the case into the Consistory court. The testimony below concerns mostly how parochial and other ecclesiastical officials dealt with contradictory orders from different courts; implied is some irregularity with Draper’s issue of the suspension and excommunication and conversely incompetence or fraud in the parish priest’s failure to implement the sanctions. Earlier in 1493 another similar case featured two of the diocesan court officials named here, Draper and Aprece: there certainly seems to have been an apprehension around this time that suspensions and excommunications were being abused by the London diocesan courts.
[Shannon McSheffrey and Collin Bonnell]
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 175v-177r
Testimony of Master Thomas de la Sale, Witness for the plaintiff, 28 Dec. 1493
On behalf of Ely c. Draper
28 December, by the lord Official, in my, Richard Spencer’s, dwelling house.
Master Thomas de la Sale, curate of the church of St. Dunstan in the West in the suburbs of the City of London, bachelor of canon law and apostolic and imperial notary for public contracts, of free condition, fifty years old and more as he says. Produced as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Ely for nine years and Master Richard Draper, the official of the Archdeacon of London, for a year or thereabouts as he says. Examined further on the libel, this witness says that on the day of St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] last past, a certain Thomas Grene, messenger of the Official of the Archdeacon of London, brought to this witness a suspension against William Ely, the date of which at present does not come to his mind, to denounce William as suspended. And then this witness in the morning at dawn of that day warned William about the suspension, after which warning William acquired an inhibition from the Consistory court to inhibit the aforesaid Archdeacon’s Official. And he says that on that day before mass, this witness was required by Thomas Patenson by virtue of a certain inhibition acquired by William that he should not proceed further against William in executing the suspension directed to him, and thus this witness ceased his denunciation. And otherwise he says that on Monday [Sept. 30] following, this witness showed Master Henry Aprece this inhibition in the churchyard of St. Paul and there he saw and read it. And also there this witness delivered to him this suspension that had been directed to him at another time against William Ely. And moreover he says that on the following Saturday, that is on 5 October last past, this witness received from the parish clerk of the said church of St. Dunstan a certain letter of excommunication directed against the said William and a certain Joan, his servant, directed to him by the said Official and sealed with his seal, which was dated 23 October, and as he believes “October” was written between the lines there above “September,” and because this witness was inhibited by virtue of the inhibition acquired on Ely’s part, he refrained from executing those letters. And he says that what he has said above is true, and he doubts the fame.
Testimony of William Priour, Witness for the plaintiff, 29 Dec.[?] 1493
29 [December2], by the lord Official, in the chapel called Holmes Chapel, in my, Richard Spencer’s, presence.
William Priour, holy-water clerk of St. Dunstan in the West, where he has lived for sixteen years, literate, of free condition, sixty years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Ely for four years and Master Richard Draper, Official of the lord Archdeacon of London, for two years. Examined further on the libel, he says that on a certain day falling after the feast of St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] last past, which day he cannot further specify, a certain Thomas Grene, messenger of the lord Official of the Archdeacon of London, in the church of St. Dunstan, wanted to ask this witness to deliver to the curate a certain sealed letter, but he does not know what was contained in that letter. And this witness refused to take that letter, and then the messenger left the letter on the altar. And at vespers this witness showed the curate the letter, and the curate read it. And then this witness asked him what the letter was about, and he would not tell him, and then this witness said that if it were a suspension or excommunication of one of the parishioners of the parish, he would want to give them warning about it, and the curate refused to show it to him. And he says that on the Sunday following [6 Oct.] at dawn, a certain Thomas Water came to the curate for the letter and inhibited the curate from denouncing the letter, and thus this witness did not denounce it. And he says that he does not know against whom the letter was directed except from what the curate told him afterwards, that it was issued against William Ely. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose, but he says that what he said above is true and concerning fame he knows nothing to depose.
Testimony of Thomas Patenson, Witness for the plaintiff, 29 [?] Dec. 1493
[29[3]] December by the said Official in his dwelling house, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence.
Thomas Patenson of the parish of St. Dunstan in the West, where he has lived for twenty-two years and more, illiterate, of free condition, thirty-five years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Ely for six years and more, and Master Richard Draper for two or three years. Questioned further concerning the submissions, this witness says that in a tavern called the King’s Head[4], in the presence of this witness, Master Hugh Evilyn, John Chirdorn, and others, a certain Grene, the messenger of the Official of the lord Archdeacon, said to this witness that he had cited the said William to appear before the Official of the Archdeacon of London. And this witness says that afterwards on the last feast of St. Michael he issued a certain suspension against William to denounce him as suspended on the feast of St. Michael [29 Sept.] last past, and this he says he knows because this witness heard the letter of suspension being read. And then William after he had had notice of the suspension acquired an inhibition against the said Official of the lord Archdeacon, and William showed to this witness this inhibition, and by its authority this witness inhibited the curate from proceeding further against William Ely. And he says that on the Sunday following the curate of the church told this witness that he had a certain letter of excommunication against William Ely issued under the seal of the Official of the lord Archdeacon of London, and he says that he heard from the curate that at the beginning of the mass on that day two messengers came to the curate to get from him the letter of excommunication, and this letter was given over to them, the parish clerk giving it to them as he heard from the curate there. And he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the parish of St. Dunstan.
[1] On suspension and excommunication, see R.H. Helmholz, The Oxford History of the Laws of England: Volume I: The Canon and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction From 597 to the 1640s, (Oxford University Press: 2004), 619-622.
[2] The MS has November, in error for December? The deposition begins mid-folio following an entry dated 28 December.
[3] The MS has 19 December: like the last entry, this also seems to be a dating error, for 29 Dec. This deposition, like the last, begins mid-folio following entries dated (in reverse order) 29 [Nov./Dec.], 28 Dec., and 5 Dec. Alternatively, this and the previous depositions were simply recorded at a later time, out of date order.
[4] There was a tavern called the King’s Head on Cheapside next to St Mary le Bow church, where another church court, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Court of Arches, sat; see https://www.layersoflondon.org/map/overlays/tudor-map-1520.
Consistory 