It is difficult to imagine Willenhall as a health resort; yet it was no fault of Dr. Richard Wilkes that his native spot did not become a fashionable inland watering place.

It should be explained that during the eighteenth century there was almost a mania to discover and exploit wells and springs, and to regard them as fountains of health to which the fashionable and the well-to-do might be attracted.  Before the newer fashion of sea bathing was introduced—which was early in the next century—there was a great number of these newly-invented places of inland resort.  For instance, Dudley had its charming Spa on Pensnett Chace; and to show that Wolverhampton was not behindhand, we take the liberty of quoting from the MSS. of Dr. Wilkes:

“A medical spring has lately been discovered at Chapel Ash, in the south-west part of this town, which purges moderately and without the least uneasiness.  A brown ocre, or absorbent earth, remains after evaporation, mixt with salt and sulphur; so that it seems to promise relief in all kinds of disorders proceeding from costiveness, and alcaline, fiery, and acid humours in the stomach and bowels, attended by a flow of feverish heat, eruptions on the skin called scorbutic, headaches, giddiness, flatulency, sour eructations, flying pains called nervous and rheumatic, the hemorrhoids or piles, asthma, and many other disorders which seem incurable by the most powerful medicines.”

Truly the Doctor might have earned a good living nowadays by writing the advertisements for modern quack specifics.

Shaw’s description of the Willenhall Spa says that “the spring arises on the north side of a brook which runs almost directly from the west to the east, and so very near to it that a moderate shower will raise the brook as to cover it.  About 200 yards up this brook, on the same side, are several springs, one of which was much taken notice of by our ancestors, and consecrated to St. Sunday, no common saint.  Over it is the following inscription:—

“Saint Sunday” must have been some local saint; or, more probably, a jocular embodiment of the sacredness of this day of the week with its peculiarly pagan name, to the cause of idleness, and so dubbed by the native wit of Willenhall; anyway, no saint of this name is to be found in the authorised Calendar of any church.

One of the Wilkes MSS. utilised by Shaw, and dated 1737, records the following experiment worked by the learned doctor with the local mineral waters:—

“I evaporated in a brass furnace 13½ gallons to 3 quarts, then let it stand 3 days to settle, and poured the clear water from the fœces.  This was a light smooth insipid earth of a yellow colour, fat between the fingers, insipid and impalpable, which being dried, weighed 93 grains.  The remaining 3 quarts I evaporated in a brass kettle and had from it 53 grains of a very salt glutinous substance which dried into a solid mass of a brown colour.  When the water came to a pint or thereabout, it began to smell like glew, and continued to do so when in a solid substance; it was then also as high-coloured as lye; but I am afraid this colour might arise from the brass kettle, in some measure, or too great a fire, being perhaps burnt.”

Another of his scientific records runs:—

“Oct. 9th.—I put into a Florence flask as much of this water as filled it up to the neck within 5 inches of the top.  This I placed in a sand heat and increased the fire gradually till it boiled; and so I evaporated ad siccitatem.  Some volatile sal stuck to the glass even up to the top; at the bottom was a small quantity of dark coloured matter, like that above, but I could not get together 2 grains of either.  Here it is plain this sal is so volatile as to be raised and fly away by heat.”

In another place he writes:—

The glovers’ handicraft, it may be mentioned in passing, was once strongly represented in olden Darlaston.

The situation of Willenhall is by no means an elevated one, and the whole plain in which it is situated formerly abounded in Springs, ere the surface had been so much disturbed by mining operations.

On the edge of the valley, under the shadow of Sedgley Beacon, was the famous Spring known as the Lady Wulfruna’s, and which gave the place its name, Spring Vale; from this spot the silvery stream flowed eastwards into Willenhall, seeking the cool shade of the pleasant woodland there.

So far the scientific aspect of this once famous Well.  The popular view of a much frequented mineral spring which had “long been celebrated for disease of the eye and skin” opens out an even wider aspect.  As previously mentioned, the brook flowing past it ran from west to east; a stream so directed was always accounted by the Druids of old as a sacred watercourse.  Being thus from the earliest dawn of history within sacred precincts, there can be little doubt the Willenhall fountain enjoyed the reputation of a “Holy well” for many centuries.  As such it came in for the annual custom of “well dressing,” a vestige of the old pagan practice of well worship.  Respecting this ancient custom, Dr. Plot, writing in 1686 in his “Natural History of Staffordshire,” says:—

“They have a custom in this county, which I observed on Holy Thursday at Brewood and Bilbrook, of adorning their Wells with boughs and flowers; this it seems they do at all gospel places, whether wells, trees, or hills, which being now observed only for decency and custom’s sake, is innocent enough.  Heretofore, too, it was usual to pay their respect to such wells as were eminent for curing distempers (one of which was at Wolverhampton in a narrow lane leading to a house, called Sea-well; another at Willenhall; others at Monmore Green, near Wolverhampton; at Codsall and many other parts of Staffordshire) on the saint’s day whose name the well bore; diverting themselves with cakes and ale, and a little music and dancing; which, whilst within bound, was also an innocent recreation.”

Pitt’s “History of Staffordshire,” issued in 1817, gives a long list of local wells bearing at that time some similar repute for their remedial waters.  Among them was Codsall Well, near Codsall Wood, supposed in olden times to be efficacious in cases of leprosy, and adjacent to which once stood a Leper House, replaced at a later period by a “Brimstone Ale-house,” so-called because the water was sulphureous.  The waters of the Monmore Green Well are described as containing “sulphur combined with vitriol.”  The Sea-well Spring still retained its name as a “Spaw” famous for its “eye water”; while those of Willenhall and Bentley were said to yield a valuable remedial sulphur water so long as they “could be kept from mixture with other waters.”

Folklore not only connected these Wells with patron saints, but associated their magic precincts and curative effects with beneficent fairies.  A well like that of Willenhall, which in a post-renaissance period was honoured with a stone frontal bearing a Latin inscription, would of a certainty be attended by fairy elves in an earlier and more primitive era.

About this Spring (if ancient fame say true)
The dapper elves their midnight sports pursue;
Their pigmy king and little fairy queen,
In circling dances gambolled on the green,
While tuneful sprites a merry concert made
And airy music warbled through the shade.

Owing to the meagreness of the record, a complete list of the holders of the benefice is not to be expected.  Thomas de Trollesbury has been named as “the parson of Willenhall” in 1297 (Chapter VII.); while we also have the names of three chantry priests here—William in the Lone, 1341 (Chapter XI.); Thomas Browning, “chaplain of the chantry” in 1397 (Chapter VII.); and Hugh Bromehall in 1526 (Chapter X.); all of them doubtless nominees of the Deanery of Wolverhampton.

Of course, it was possible, though not often the practice, for the holder of the living to act as “chaunter” priest as well.  The Chantry endowments, as we have seen, were forfeited at the Reformation, at which period the benefice was returned as of the annual value of “£10 clear.”

Either of these notorious evil-livers mentioned in Chapter XI., the non-preaching “dumb-dogs,” Mounsell and Cooper, may have been the occupant of the Willenhall curacy in 1586.  In 1609 an improvement in the intellectual status of the holder had been effected, William Padmore, D.D., being then incumbent.

In a previous chapter it was shown that the Rev. T. Badland was expelled from the living of Willenhall in 1662.  It can now be shown that he was holding the benefice at least as early as 1658—and possibly from the beginning of the Cromwellian rule and the overthrow of the Episcopacy in 1646.

About 1645–6 ordinances were passed appointing a Committee to consider ways and means of upholding and settling the maintenance of ministers in England and Wales.  In 1654 the powers of the Plundered Ministers’ Committee were transferred to the Trustees for Maintenance.  The Committee took the receipts of all Tithes, Fifths, and First Fruits; and later on the income of the rectories, bishoprics, deaneries, and chapters; they sold the bishops’ lands, &c.

“Thomas Badland, of Willenhall (6 months to 1659, March 25) . . . £10.”

In curious contrast with this high-minded clergyman, who sacrificed his living to his conscience, is his successor in the Curacy of Willenhall, the Rev. Mr. Gilpin, who had to be seriously admonished for non-residence and other faults, and was at last, in the year 1674, turned out of the living altogether.  Not improbably this gentleman was a pluralist, an example of the class of clergymen by which the Church of England was very much degraded at that period.

Dr. Oliver’s history printed the following “Dismissal of the Rev. Thomas Gilpin,” from the original document found in the possession of Mr. Neve, of Wolverhampton, in 1836:—

After the expulsion of Mr. Gilpin the Rev. John Carter, who was appointed to succeed him, continued in the Curacy of Willenhall till his death in 1722.  In 1727 mention is made of a Mr. Holbrooke being Curate of Willenhall.

Soon after the Registers assist in tracing the successive holders of the benefice.  Here are three interesting memoranda, for instance, bearing the signature of the Rev. Titus Neve:—

1748, March 4th.—The faculty for rebuilding and enlarging ye chapel of Willenhall, ye then present minister, ye Rev. Titus Neve—(to charge and receive certain fees, etc.)

1750, January 20.—Then it was yt service began to be performed in ye New Chapel, after almost two years discontinuance, by Titus Neve, Curate.

1763, February 17th.—Joyce Hill made oath that ye body of Benjamin Stokes was buried in a shroud of Sheep’s Wool only, pursuant to an Act of Parliament in that case made and provided.—Witness my hand,

Titus Neve.

(This entry has reference to the Act for Burying in Woollen, one of those pieces of legislative folly whereby it was sought to bolster up artificially our decaying trade in wool.)

A sermon preached by him in Worcester Cathedral on August 12th, 1762, was printed in Birmingham by the celebrated Baskerville (see Simms’ “Bibliotheca Staffordiensis”).

His successor was the Rev. William Moreton, who, according to an entry in the Registers, was “sequestered to the vacant chapelry of Willenhall, December 4th, 1788.”  Toward the close of his ministry Mr. Neve appears to have had the assistance of Curates—George Lewis signs the Registers as “Clerk, Curate” between December, 1778, and July, 1779; and the signature of Mr. Moreton in the same capacity begins to appear in 1784.  Among the entries of the last-named is a record that in 1786 he paid the “tax” on a number of Baptisms and Burials himself, whereas in 1785 he shows that a “Collector” received it.

* * * * *

The advent of the Rev. W. Moreton marks an epoch, and we now turn aside to consider the peculiar history of the Advowson, or right of presentation to the living of Willenhall.  In 1409 it is found in private hands, being then the property of William Bushbury and his wife (see Chapter VII.).

When the lord of a manor built a church on his own demesne, he often appointed the tithes of the manor to be paid to the officiating minister there, which before had been given to the clergy in common; the lord who thus founded the church often endowed it with glebe, and retained the power of nominating the minister (canonically qualified) to officiate therein.  But a chapel-of-ease like Willenhall, built by a resident in the locality, often had its minister, maintained by the subscriptions of persons living close around it, and they naturally claimed to elect their own ministers.  The authorities at the mother church would reserve the right to approve and confirm, and would see that they suffered no loss of fees and other emoluments.

The curacy of Willenhall is endowed with land to the value of £35.  The lords of Stow Heath have, in the last two vacancies, usurped upon the Dean and Chapter, and have nominated to it.

Shaw, the county historian, writing in 1798, after stating that whoever holds the Curacy of Willenhall must have a licence from the Dean of Wolverhampton, proceeds to say:—

There has been lately a serious contest between the Marquis of Stafford and the inhabitants about the nomination of a curate.

The gift of the living (says the same authority), or nomination of the minister or curate, is in the principal inhabitants that have lands of inheritance here.  He is to be approved of by the lords of the manor, and admonished by them when he does amiss; and if he does not amend in half a year, they may turn him out and nominate another.

This practice is believed to have existed in Willenhall since the time of James I.

The power of the parishioners to elect their own clergymen, though not common, exists in various parts of the country; as at Hayfield and Chapel-in-le-Frith, both in Derbyshire; and in this more immediate locality at St. John’s Deritend, Birmingham, and at Bilston and Bloxwich, nearer still.

The only remedy for this state of things seems to be the voluntary surrender of their privilege by the parishioners; or the provisions of a special Act of Parliament.

As to the soundness of the general principle of a people being consulted in the choice of their spiritual pastor, there can scarcely be two opinions.  But where the danger lurks in a case like that of Willenhall is the assumption of our English law—an assumption quite unwarranted in any country where freedom of conscience exists, and with us one of the penalties for maintaining an established State Church—that every parishioner is a Churchman.

Now, as a matter of fact, votes are recorded at these elections by Romanists, by Dissenters of various shades of opinion, by those who are unattached to any religious denomination, and by many who never, at other times, take a great interest in Church of England affairs.  At the last election even trustees of Nonconformist chapels were empowered to vote if they were householders, and the trust in respect of which they qualified had been constituted by a properly executed deed.  So it can scarcely be claimed that the choice of minister rests solely with those most concerned, namely, the congregation, the customary worshippers at St. Giles’s Church.

Resuming the story of the benefice at the election of 1788, it is said that Mr. Moreton having been elected, the then lords of the manor declined to present him to the bishop on the ground that they did not regard him as a fit and proper person.  Litigation ensued, and the High Court of Justice declared the election void, and ordered a new one.  Meanwhile, the income seems to have sequestrated, probably lying in the hands of the churchwardens till the new minister should be properly instituted.

The new incumbent of Willenhall was popularly given out to be an illegitimate “nephew” of George III.; he bore a strong facial likeness to the Royal family, and had been at college with the Duke of York.  But whatever his origin or extraction, he was a typical sporting parson of the old school, an enthusiastic cock-fighter, and “a three-bottle man.”

It was not long before the old mocking doggerel was applied to Willenhall:—

A tumble-down church—
   A tottering steeple—
A drunken parson—
   And a wicked people!

That this old rhyme fairly described the condition of things we may venture to believe if we can also accept as true the rhyme oft quoted by this Willenhall worthy, and which was said to embody his philosophy:—

Let back and sides and head go bare,
   Let foot and hand go cold,
But God send belly good ale enough,
   Whether it be new or old.

Of “Parson Moreton” innumerable tales are told, all of them racy, though not a few of them apochryphal.  There can be little doubt that in the later years of his life he was a bon vivant, and indulged openly in the less refined sports of the period, a cockfight above all things having a strong fascination for him.

And yet, on the plea that “a merciful man is good to his beast,” he indulged his old grey pony, “Bob,” on which he regularly ambled about, with a share of every tankard of ale he quaffed on his rounds, till the knowing quadruped refused to pass any inn along the road for miles around without stopping for refreshment.

Into all his lapses from the conventionalities of clericalism, he was a gentleman at the core, having a dignified bearing and a commanding presence.  He candidly admitted his shortcomings as a clergyman, telling his flock to do as he said, not as he did.  This naturally failed to satisfy very many of them; and it has been asserted that the strength of Dissent in Willenhall at the present time is directly due to the influence of his incumbency.

Of the Rev W. Moreton, it may at least be said that he was a remarkably fine reader, and his sermons were always well-constructed compositions.  For many years he lived with Mr. Isaac Hartill in the house at the corner of the Market Place, opposite the Metropolitan Bank; an old house still retaining its original oak floors and staircase, and its substantial old-fashioned doors of the same material, although the building is now made into two shops.

For nearly fifty years Parson Moreton was a familiar figure in the streets of Willenhall.  His last signature in the Registers appears in 1833, a year previous to which the Rev. George Hutchinson Fisher had come into the parish to assist him, taking up his residence in the house next to “The Neptune Inn,” now the Police Station.  He died July 16th, 1834, and was buried on Sunday the 20th.

When Mr. Fisher came to preach Mr. Moreton’s funeral sermon, the most notable feature of the oration was the absence of direct reference to the departed.  Towards the close of the sermon, however, the following passage was uttered with impressive solemnity:—

“May every occasion like the present bring instruction and edification to your souls.  May the failings which you have witnessed and lamented in others urge you to examine and correct your own; and when their removal makes you think on the nature of the account they will have to render, may you be awakened to scrutinise your own stewardship; and instead of recording the sins of the departed, seek to be delivered, whilst the Redeemer invites you, from those which are a burden to your consciences.”

Truly a charitable and Christian-like obituary!

The living of St. Giles’s, Willenhall, popularly supposed to be worth some fourteen hundred pounds a year, the reversion of it was looked upon with eager eyes by not a few of the surrounding clergy.  Between Darlaston and Willenhall, particularly, there seems to have existed some sort of pretensions to a clerical inter-relationship.

The Rev. Titus Neve, who held the living of Willenhall from about 1748 to 1788, acted as Curate of Darlaston in 1760, and became Rector of that parish in 1764; while his son, the Rev. Charles Neve, was also Curate there from 1790 to 1793.  The Willenhall record of his ministry and interment runs:—

The Revd. Titus Neve, Minister, Curate, or Stipendiary Priest of Willenhall Chapelry, Prebendary of Hilton and Sacrist of the Collegiate Church of Wolverhampton, and Rector of Darlaston, in the County of Stafford, departed this life December 23rd, 1788, and was interred in the Chancel.

His successor, the Rev. William Moreton, went as Curate to Darlaston in 1786, and was sequestered to the vacant chapelry of Willenhall, December 24th, 1788, the day following Mr. Neve’s decease.

At the termination of Mr. Moreton’s tenure, the Rev. George William White, who had been a curate at Darlaston from 1823, made a very determined bid for the Incumbency of Willenhall; and although, as we shall see, he was not successful, he was able to console himself, some nine years later, with the rectory of Darlaston (1843).

It appeared that when the Rev. W. Moreton became very old he neglected his duties sadly, often keeping funerals and congregations waiting an unconscionable time, greatly to the scandal of the whole parish.  In consequence of this the Churchwardens induced the Incumbent, two or three years before his death, to appoint and pay an energetic young Curate to assist him in his parochial ministrations.

Long before the advent of Mr. Fisher, however, the Darlaston folk had settled in their own minds that their Rector, the Rev. Mr. White, was to annex the Willenhall living whenever it become vacant.  Whether they looked upon it as being appurtenant to the more important office of their own shepherding cannot be determined at this distance of time; but certain it is that an intense feeling of rivalry existed between the men of Darlaston and the men of Willenhall.  The intensity of the feeling may best be judged by a remarkable incident which occurred some five years before Mr. Fisher appeared on the scene.

During the earlier months of the year 1827 it would appear that there had been, from time to time, incursions and alarms between the two towns, and even rioting that involved hand to hand fighting in the streets.  Never were such exciting times in these places.  At last the rivalry culminated in an act of aggression as daring in execution as it was original in conception—the Willenhall men woke up one fine Sunday morning to find that the Darlastonians had entered their town in the dead of night and stolen the cock from the church steeple!

Now the desperate achievement of this triumph over their enemies had a deeper significance than at first meets the eye.  It must be borne in the mind that those were the old cockfighting days, when town matched against town their gamest birds, and sought the glories of a victory in the cock-pit.  As between these two neighbouring parishes in particular, there had been much vaunting of birds and challenging to the arbitrament of the spur; the Darlaston men would take a game cock into Willenhall, hold him up to show him the weathercock on the steeple, and then give vent to a roar of defiant laughter when the bird crowed his challenge.

Consternation reigned supreme in Willenhall; it was felt that the pass to which matters had been brought by the enormity of this latest aggravation by their enemies could only be met by an appeal to the law, which, hitherto, both factions had so recklessly set at naught.  So the following public notice was promptly issued:—

10 GUINEAS REWARD.

Whereas, early on Sunday morning last, some evil disposed Persons did steal and carry away the

WEATHERCOCK
from off the
STEEPLE.

Any Person giving Information so that the Offenders may be apprehended, shall upon Conviction receive Ten Guineas Reward over and above what is allowed by the Association for the prosecution of Felons.  And as more than one were concerned, if either will impeach his Accomplice or Accomplices, they shall receive the above Reward, and every endeavour used to obtain a free Pardon.

Willenhall,
   July 24, 1827.

Thomas Hincks,
James Whitehouse,

Chapel Wardens.

 

Bassford, Printer, Bilston.

It was some time after the Willenhall pride had been thus lowered that the old weathercock was accidentally found by some miners who were re-opening an old coal pit which lay between the rival townships.  Almost needless to say, the new vane was instantly fetched down, and the old one once more set up to flaunt itself as bravely as of yore in the eyes of distant Darlaston.

The good folk of Willenhall, feeling humiliated, did all in their power to cover up their shame by burying the episode in oblivion; and to this day Willenhall men will deny that the Darlastonians ever came and took away their church weathercock.  By way of throwing doubt upon the historical accuracy of the incident, they point to the fact that the church at that time had no spire; it is known, however, that a vane surmounted the church tower, and there is evidence of the Reward Notice, the loose wording of which is responsible for the use of the term “steeple” to signify a tower.

The authenticity of the said Notice is always open to investigation, for a framed copy of it still hangs in the Neptune Inn, preserved as a curiosity.  (This copy, probably the only one in existence, bears intrinsic evidence of being a genuine document, and is a treasured possession of the Baker family, to whom the “Neptune” property belonged, the paper having been discovered some fifty years ago in a piece of old furniture, by Mr. Phillips, a connection of his family.)

Resuming the history of the benefice, it may be observed that a doubt has been raised whether Mr. Moreton had to go through a contested election in 1788, but there can be no doubt as to an electoral struggle in 1834.  Mr. Fisher soon found himself drawn into the vortex of factional strife, for he was speedily pounced upon by the home party, and very much against his will adopted as their figure-head, if not their champion.

Cracked sconces, broken noses, split ears and black eyes resulted by the score; to which list of casualties must be added the number of the half-drowned who had to be rescued from the canal.  Onslaughts made on public-houses and other party headquarters led to a considerable destruction of property, which, however, was borne with much complacency when it was remembered that the whole Hundred would be called upon to pay the bill.

Among the candidates for the Incumbency were the Rev. R. Robinson, lecturer at the Collegiate Church, Wolverhampton, in recommendation of whom Mr. G. B. Thorneycroft wrote a letter, dating it from Chapel House in that town, 16 July, 1834; the Rev. John Howells, the Rev. Mr. Rogers, the Rev. Mr. Gwyther, and the Rev. Mr. Wenman; but the Rev. George Hutchinson Fisher, who had been Curate two and a-half years in the town, was recognised as the most formidable competitor.  He was the son of a headmaster of Wolverhampton Grammar School, and an M.A. (1834) of Christ College, Cambridge.  He received his nomination from Mr. Jeremiah Hartill, and there was little doubt of his ability to obtain the necessary approval of the lords of the manor and the confirmatory licence of the Dean of Wolverhampton.

At that time the Duke of Cleveland was impropriator, but the tithes had been leased by his Grace to Messrs. James Whitehouse and Charles Quinton.

As the day of battle approached public feeling ran so high that on the eve of the poll, which took place on August 5th and 6th, 1834, the Returning Officer deemed it prudent to issue the following Appeal to the Inhabitants:—

Needless to say, all this rowdyism and disgraceful violence were sternly reprobated by Mr. Fisher, whose rabid opponents must have come to realise that their cause was a lost one when they waylaid the polling clerk and tore his poll-book to shreds.

As to the Magistrates and the Constables, the custodians of the peace discreetly pursued a policy of the most masterly inactivity.  Perhaps they felt that the resources of their command were totally inadequate to cope with an uprising of the dimensions and intensity which presented themselves to their consideration; or, maybe, they philosophically recognised that these stirring tumults were the inevitable concomitants of a parochial struggle of so momentous a character.  Anyway, their attitude appears to have been justified when everything settled down quietly after the election, the Fisheries tranquilised by victory, and the White Boys dejected by defeat.

Like his predecessor, he held the living a long time, the tenure of the two covering a century.  Mr. Fisher resided for a number of years at Bentley Hall.

In 1887, soon after Mr. Fisher’s “Jubilee” in Willenhall, a public movement was instituted, in which many Dissenters took part, to acknowledge his fifty years of devoted service among all classes of the community.  A presentation was made to him of a silver service and his portrait in oils—the latter the work of Thomas Hill, a native of Wednesfield, and which now hangs on the walls of the Free Public Library.

Although St. Giles’s Church is known as the Parish Church, and a church has probably been on the same site some six centuries, the church of Willenhall is really a Proprietary Chapel of Ease, and its Incumbent legally nothing more than a Perpetual Curate, or Curate in Charge, though Incumbent of Willenhall, and receiving in respect of that office a very substantial “living.”  The official return set forth in Crockford’s Clergy Directory for 1893 was: Tithe rent charge, £640, net Income, £1,300.

Strictly, there is no St. Giles’s parish, nor any parish attached to St. Giles’s Church, and in law the Incumbent might, if he wished, ignore the so-called parish so long as he performed satisfactorily certain duties in the church.  The unappropriated district, commonly known as St. Giles’s parish, includes that part of Willenhall which has not been allocated to the properly constituted parishes (or ecclesiastical districts) of St. Stephen’s, St. Anne’s, and Holy Trinity, Short Heath, plus the entire civil parish of Bentley—the whole being really part of the ecclesiastical parish of Wolverhampton.

The position is extraordinarily anomalous.  The Incumbent is elected by the inhabitants of the township of Willenhall being sufficient householders and having lands of inheritance there; that is to say, the voters must be freeholders as well as householders.  Litigation followed the choice of the Rev. William Moreton in 1788, and also the election of the Rev. G. H. Fisher in 1834.  It is understood that this system of “patronage” has been condemned by the Privy Council; and that application has been made for the proper constitution of a St. Giles’s parish, but the Bishop demands a quid pro quo.

All attempts to create a Parish of Willenhall have, so far, utterly failed.  The existing system of patronage is always the obstacle, and nothing will induce the voters either to sell or to surrender their rights in the Advowson.

On the death of the Rev. G. H. Fisher in 1894, no less than 23 formal applications were forthcoming for the vacant living.  The keynote was given at a preliminary meeting of St. Giles’s congregation, at which Dr. J. T. Hartill presided, and when the most likely candidates were formally proposed and seconded for adoption.

The voting (recorded on cards) resulted in favour of the Rev. William Elitto Rosedale, M.A., Rector of Canton, Cardiff, for whom there were 265, as against 26 given for the Rev. W. L. Ward, of St. Anne’s, Willenhall.  The Churchwardens consistently directed the procedure at this public election as nearly as possible along the lines which would be followed by private patronage; they declined to take any active part in the circulation of testimonials, or afford facilities for any candidate to preach in the church, to the possible prejudice of the others, but they passively acquiesced in each one approaching the electors in any way which seemed fitting and proper to himself.

The votes recorded on this occasion were:—

The result having been forwarded to the Lords of the Manor, they formally nominated the one at the head of the poll to the Bishop for appointment and induction to the living.  The successful candidate was a native, being the son of the Rev. D. Rosedale, to whose exertions the building of Holy Trinity Church was largely due, and in the Vicarage House attached to which the said candidate was born.  But he possessed other than local claims, though these, no doubt, prepossessed many Willenhall folk in his favour.

There can be little doubt the election of 1894 was conducted with far more tact and discretion than ever had been exercised on similar occasions previously.  There was still the old risk of serious public disturbances; but perhaps more than ever there was, as must generally be the case in such methods of conducting a controversial matter of this description, the danger of unseemly and acrimonious squabblings in public.  It reflects the highest credit upon the Churchwardens and all others concerned in the election, that not only was nearly all this avoided, but the possibility always present, of long and embittered litigation to follow, was also reduced to a minimum.  It required some firmness and decision to weed down 23 formal applications, and more than twice that number of business-like inquiries, to workable limits for taking a poll.

The litigation of 1834 had arisen through the manufacture of “faggot votes,” which were eventually disallowed, and had to be struck off.  A difficulty arose in 1894 as to the interpretation of an Act of 1844—would Lord Blandford’s Act debar from taking part in the voting the residents in the newly-created ecclesiastical districts of St. Stephen’s, St. Anne’s, and Holy Trinity, Short Heath?  Although at first dubious on the question, the authorities answered it in the negative.

* * * * *

Exactly two centuries later, as we shall learn in the next chapter, the endowments of, and the right of presentation to, the living were placed upon a definite and legal foundation.  Suffice it here to say that at the present time there are Trustees appointed by the Charity Commissioners for the purpose of holding the Trust property belonging to the said living, and, with the assistance of an official representing the Commissioners, managing affairs connected therewith.

The Trust, to which Mr. Samuel Mills Slater is solicitor, is under the full control of the Charity Commissioners, who have to be regularly supplied with certified copies of all the Trust accounts.

As we shall see presently, the original Feoffees of the Trust property were appointed in 1608 by a Commission of local magnates and landowners, consisting of William Overton, Bishop of Lichfield; William, Lord Paget, of Beaudesert; Sir John Bowes, of Elford; Sir Edward Littleton, of Pillaton Hall; Sir Edward Leigh, of Rushall; Sir Simon Weston, of St. John’s, Lichfield; Sir Robert Stanford, of Perry Hall; Sir Walter Chetwynde, of Grendon and Ingestre; Sir William Chetwynde, of Grendon (half-brother of Sir Walter); Zachary Babington, Doctor in the Civil Law; Raphe Snead, of Keele; Walter Bagott, of Blythfield; William Skeffington, of Fisherwick; Roger Fowke, of Brewood and Wyrley; John Chetwynde, of Rudge, parish of Standon, and Walter Stanley, of West Bromwich—most of them justices for the county of Stafford.

In the year 1889, the number of Trustees had become reduced to one—Mr. John Davies, then residing at Warwick.  By an Order dated 23rd July, 1889, the Board removed Mr. Davies, at his own request, from the office of Trustee, and appointed the following gentlemen to be new Trustees:—

John Clark.

Wm. Henry Hartill.

John Thomas Hartill.

Joseph Johnson.

David Wm. Lees.

Jas. Carpenter Tildesley.

Henry Vaughan.

Henry Hartill Walker, junr.

Of these gentlemen only Messrs. J. T. Hartill, Vaughan, and Walker are now living.

It might be necessary under certain conditions (as, for instance, in any action connected with the sale of the Advowson) to constitute a body of elected Trustees (as distinct from the aforementioned nominated Trustees) of not more than eleven, nor less than five members, duly elected at a statutory meeting of the town’s inhabitant freeholders.

As a matter of fact, a public meeting of the owners of the Advowson, convened on the requisition of a memorial to the Incumbent (Rev. W. E. Rosedale), signed by a number of them, was held in the month of June, 1900, to consider a proposal for the sale of the said Advowson.  A similar proposal had been discussed in 1898 at a public meeting attended by some 200 owners, when it was suggested that half the sum realised should be handed over to the town authorities, while the other half should be spent on the church and schools.

Another speaker gravely cautioned the meeting against over-estimating the capitalised value of this living by remarking that the present incumbent was then a comparatively young man of only forty-two, and healthy at that.

It was given as the opinion of another speaker that the existing method of electing their parson was undesirable in the best interests of the church, and ought to be forthwith discontinued.  Also it was contended that if a sale could be effected, any sum that resulted therefrom might very advantageously be expended in the town for the benefit of the inhabitants generally.

One stalwart stickler for “the eternal fitness of things” upheld the sound principle of the members of every church exercising the right to choose their own minister, and he deprecated generally the practice of trafficking in advowsons.

In the end, although those in favour of selling almost threatened to apply for an Act of Parliament for effecting a sale compulsorily, the meeting finally resolved by a very substantial majority: “That it was not advisable at the present time to sell the Advowson.”

So that two well-conducted public meetings, held within a brief space of each other, were unable to come to any definite decision by which the position of things would be materially altered.

By the courtesy of Mr. S. M. Slater, of Darlaston, a summarised, but fairly comprehensive account of the Willenhall endowments, and the somewhat exceptional parochial privileges connected therewith, may be given here.

The foundation of the Endowment of the Benefice and the establishment of the right of the Parishioners, or rather the Parishioners of the Township “having lands of inheritance there,” may be said to rest upon, or at all events to have been defined and regulated by, three documents, namely:—

(a) A Decree dated the 27th March in the 5th Year of James the 1st (1607), made in pursuance of an Inquisition, or Commission, issued by the King on the 12th February of the previous (regnal) year.

(b) A Deed of the 23rd September of the 6th Year of James the 1st (1608), entered into between the Lords of the Manor of Stowheath on the one hand, and Sir Walter Levison and others, on behalf of themselves and the rest of the Inhabitants of Willenhall, on the other hand.

(c) A Memorandum entered on the Court Rolls of the Manor of Stowheath, dated the 10th October in the 6th Year of James the First (1608).

It is the opinion of Mr. A. A. Rollason, no mean authority on the subject—vide his recondite articles in the “Dudleian,” having special reference to a similar Commission of Inquiry held in 1638 as to the alienation of lands belonging to Dudley Grammar School—that the Willenhall Inquisition, or Commission of Inquiry, was brought about, as was that at Dudley, in consequence of the uncertain state of the law as to whether the lands, and the income therefrom, came within the Charitable Uses Act; or whether the gifts were absolutely void.

For while Magna Charta declared “that if any one shall give lands to a religious house, the grant shall be void, and the land forfeited to the lord of the fee”—the abbots of old took care to be “lords of the fee,” usually holding their lands direct from the King—there was a Statute of Edward III. by which the King was empowered to grant a Royal licence affording relaxation of lands held under the Statutes of Mortmain.

It seems almost impossible to doubt that the freehold lands belonging to the Willenhall Chantry had escaped confiscation to the Crown under the Statute, i Edward VI., if they had been held solely for performing obits and singing masses for the dead.  Yet it is just possible they may have been re-granted to aid in the maintenance of the Curate of the Chapel-of-Ease, in which case they would be recognised as a “charitable use,” and were consequently safe.

The Willenhall Inquisition of 1607 was addressed by the King (as stated in the last chapter) to “The Reverend Father in God, William, Bishopp of Coventrie and Lichfield And to our right trustie and well beloved William Lord Pagett and to our trustie and well beloved Sir John Bowes, Sir Edward Littleton, Sir Edward Leigh, Sir Simon Weston, Sir Robert Stanford, Sir Walter Chetwynde and Sir William Chetwynde, Knights, Zacharie Baington (Babington), Doctor of Lawe, Chancellor of Lichfield, Raphe Sneade, Walter Bagott, William Skevington (Skeffington), Roger Fowke, John Chetwynde, and Walter Stanley, Esquires.”

The Commission then proceeds:—

The Decree before referred to was signed by Sir Edward Leigh, Dr. Zacharie Babington, William Skeffington, John Chetwynde, and Walter Stanley, and was addressed to the Right Honourable Thomas, Lord Ellesmere, Lord Chancellor of England.  It set out the Commission and then proceeded as follows:—

As will be seen, the Decree states clearly that the yearly income of the Bentley lands was to be used towards the maintenance of a Curate to say Divine Service in the Chapel; this at once brought it under the Charitable Uses Act, and removed it from liability to be confiscated under 23, Henry VIII., c. 10., for perpetuating practices regarded as superstitious and contrary to Reformation doctrines.  It will be noted that a “former feoffment” is mentioned—may not this have been a re-grant by the King, which has been hinted at?  The grant to Nicholas Hellyn and others in 4 Edward VI. has all the appearance of being a gift from the Crown to the purposes of the newly constituted Church of England.

The Decree then proceeds, as mentioned in the last chapter, to make provision for the filling up of vacancies in the number of Feoffees whenever the number may be reduced to three.

Coming to the Memorandum of 1608, it is evident a serious difficulty had arisen with the Willenhall lands held under copyhold tenure, and which were probably dealt with by the same Commission.  For there was probably but one Commission of Inquiry, though there may have been two separate Decrees.

Lands held by Copyhold tenure are usually subject to fealty to the Lord of the Manor, and this was doubtless customary in Stowheath.  It seems conclusive that the King did not take these lands into his own hands, whereby matters would have been reduced to the absurdity of the lord paramount being called upon to do homage to his own tenant.

The suggestion is offered by Mr. Rollason that the tenure of the lands was not precisely a lay one, but partook of a spiritual nature—was, in fact, not feudal, but what was known as a tenure in frankalmoign or free alms.

The Memorandum commences with a recital as follows:—