Marsh – Gillingham Church

Document –
The Faculty for the Vault in Gillingham Church, with Plans of the same and sundry letters and other Documents relating thereto, necessary to be kept with the same.
William Marsh – 14th November 1827 (initials W.M.)
The Faculty granted to George Marsh Esq, his heirs December 1777.
A subsequent Correspondence in May and June 1835 with Mr J Siddon of Rochester.
and subsequently in March and May 1838 with Dr.Page!

————————————————-

1621

Gillingham Antiquities (neat script handwriting)
The Collections of Baptist (Tufton?) Parish Clerks of Gillingham 1621.
(Over view?) of the wyndowes and other monuments as they then were in the said Church.

—————————————————–
A Memorial of such Momentos as and now extant in the parish church of Gillingham in the county of Kent as as well as such as are paynted upon the glass windows, as also such as have been (erected?) over those who have been buried in the said church and chancell and Chappells as they are now to be (seen, found?) the first day of September in the year of our Lord God one thousand Six hundred and twenty one.
Ffirst in the (beltowno?) window on the South side of the said Church there is no picture.
From in the first window on the South Side of the church in the first light there of there is the picture of the Blessed Virgin sitting with her lamb upon her knee and in her left hand a golden sceptre with this inscription on her right hand much broken and defaced. – Missercordian memento (nostri – and with this inscription on her left hand also broken and defaced ‘ Secundm Peccate nostra que – And beneath is the portraiture of Robert Beaufitz who lyeth interred in the church.
(different neat handwriting) Thomas of Gillingham. In this wyndow is the coat of Stanhope (b&L) Quarterly E & G. It appears by many (Sialos) of his tyme.
In the board light of this window there is no picture.

In the second window on the South side of the church there are figured the three kings going to worship Christ after he was born.
And in the second light thereof the Virgin Mary is portrayed as the (mass?) in the Stable with the Baby cradled before her, whom the Ox, the Ass and the Manger are also represented.
The Kings have above them the inscription “Hoc sigum dom est Easmus et offeremus ei mineva anum offins , et myrrham.”
And beneath in the (low brond?) Light of the said window ther eis the picture of John Beaufitz the younger Esquire with a Garland of Rosesw upon his head whose body is interred in the North Chappell. There is this inscription above his head in the said window “Miserere mei Deus fecundum” (the rest?) is defaced.

In the third window on the South side of the Churchin the first light thereof is the portraiture of St.John the Baptiste, hoding in his left hand a book with a Lamb and a Cross figured (thereupon) and his right hand pointing to the Lamb with this inscription “Sismosler Protector pigyov et rector.”

——————————————

I have also seen other Arms of Thomas of Gillingham foaled(?) in (gazow?) ways with qu life quartered Coat , whereby it (shows?) the Coat of (real?) family was quarterly Ermyn and (garlos) which is now born by the famly of Stanhop.
Also by an other deed in which part or wax – 12E3.

Continuing description of Church of Gillingham
And beneath in the same first light of the third wyndow St. John theBaptist is figured with his neck upon the block, the (headman?) with his sword elevated to take of his head,and the daughter of Herodias standing by with a charger ready to received it.
(different handwriting) – In this wyndow is Arms of Beaufitz and Stanhop. impaled erratz Gillngham E andG.
(different handwriting again) – I have seen an old (date?) 17 fil . R.E. Thomas of Gillingham (reloasole?) to Robert Beaufitz the (son?) of A – – (description of arms?)
In the (round?) light of the said wyndowe there is the picture of St.Christopher carrying Christ upon his (shoulder?) over a great water., his staffe in the (meantime?) flourishimg with leaves and flowers.
And underneath in the same light, Herod and Heralias sitting crowned at a Banquet.
And lowest of all Herod stricken with (remorse), dead upon the pavement, and the daughter of Herodias (betraying?) him.

——————————————–(2.)

File 0001 –
In the Western Window up on the North side of the said Church there is a Remnant of St.James as appareth by his face, the (top?) of his pilgrims staffe and his Pilgrims (hat?) being beyonde.
In the first window in the North of the Church there is no picture
In the (broad (round?)) window on the north side of the said Church in the first light thereof is portrayed the Ancient of Days, sitting holding in his hands the upper part of a

• — the lower part thereof is (Christ?) sat in a Globe with this word “Gloria” but part thereof is deranged.
  And in the (brond?) light thereof is the picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary,sitting wth Christ in her right arm, and a (scepter?) in her left hand.
  And beneath is the portraiture of Sara the wife of Robert Beaufitz who was interred with her (in the back in the

In the Chancel towards the north side lyeth the tombstone of Robert Beaufitz and Sarah his wyfe with their portraint made from – — in brass, and – – – it engraved in brass
Hei icent Robert Beaufits et Sara – – –
And above their heads this inscription in brass to ECCE MMC in pulieze dormis
Here towards the north side of the said chancel is the tombstone of John Beaufitz Esquire and Isabel his wife with their portrait — being faire set out in brass– (cabinet?) at his feet a Lyon Courrant and the the at the foot a little doggo with a collar of balls and ruond about in a faint border of brass it is – – -in the form of language –
Cy gisent John Beaufitz qm mort le cc ‘iome del mois de Novembre l’an de Dieu MC il dddd 111y, et Isabelle sa femme que mornst le III del mois de Decembre l’an de Dieu MCIIIdddIX. – – –
There is proceeding from him
(Robert Beaufitz – 1336-1380 – father of John Beaufitz 1361 – 1427
St.Mary’s Church, Gillingham
(Second letter describes the stain glass windows and the people in them including Sarah, wife of Robert Beaufitz.
(Third letter mentions William Godfrey and Johanne and Maryanne his wives – in brass. – pictures taken away as happened to a lot of the brasses in the church.
If your charity prays for the soul of William Godfrey, Johane, and Mayan his wives, – – -departed this transitory life the – – -day of – – in the year of our Lord God MCC – – and the – – the 8th day of November in the year of our Lord God MCddd LIIII – – -the said Maryan deceased the xx day of xx in the year of our Lord Mbth CC on whose – – – John had – – –

3:H7 – Robert Arnold of Gillingham: by his last will dated 13 July 1488 bequeathed his body to the Earth and by the grace of God he is buried in the – – chappell and he ly on the left side of this John Beaufitz and the younger.

• -Upon the pavement at the end of the said chappell towards the South of the church lyeth

Here lyeth the body of Dorothy Payntow – – -late wife of William Payntow Esquire deceased and how died the fourteenth day of October 1617 being 80 years of age.

Vicars of Gillingham mentioned in old Deeds

4. E:1 – 4th Year of Edward 1st – Nicholas persona DrGill; mentioned in records at the Tower.
   16.E:1 – 16th year of Edward 1st – Dno, John vicar after Dr Gill
5. E:3 – 32nd year of Edward 3rd – John

etc – – –

ano 1637
22 Novcember 1455 0 12th: H.6.
The – – of John Beaufitz will invented and (tripartide), whereof onepart was given now (by St.Ffrancis of – – ) a months divers of his writings of (Twovalla nd (Earl Court) in Gillingham in front. And in St.John’s Chappelle in the will mentioned we find John Beaufitz lyes buried, he died the 25th November 1433 the very day six years after his father.
(Signed W. Hayneter?)

This John Beaufitz above mentioned was the son of John and Isabelle his wife, both which lye buried under a fair stone in the Chancelle. Both said John and father (as appeareth by the epitaph there in french) dyed the 25 of November 1467 . 6th .H.6.

file 20
Last will and testament of John Beaufitz- Oby- 19th M 1433

Hac est ultima voluntas mei Johannis filis Johns Beaufitz de Gillingham in Dom kanc onuterr et tenementor redditiu et servic ad edificys quicunque hoise fuerunt feooffe ti ad oslum padick John patris mei, bet ad – – – -meu ac etiam om terrara e tenemento ne dedditue e fernie cum edificys supdeificate e lan suie m guiby nup feofffaxi feoffatos meos e ommius bonoru et – – –

File 21 – Latin
reddit et fercuir in teinham wade, et church, et Newington, et de redditu de Mabillefetos que etiam Cantaria p dica erit fmaliter ordinator Secunda meliorum puifionem swam et difcreti confily xoris meae et Alm bicary mei iam existeritis ad hoc eis specialiter vocardo confilium peritorum put necefe fuorit et dica Vantarja sufficient fundetur. Salus tamen spatio temporis ad eligenda p dicta Vapollanum posa decessium meum quitiens aliquo tempore futuro talis santaria baraus per cessationem expulssionem bel alio modo talis Capellanus non frebeat quod quidem – – – –

File 22 – continues – Latin

et quieta ablgs pturbatione ommaterr et tem reddto et feruicsa p dicta et valorem annua corum

File 23 – Latin
Gillingham ea quondam occupauerit et excepta bna pecia terre iacent apud Labery cont i acr et Di et tres Seywareas terre quam bolo qd Thomas ffelar hbeat ad terminum vitea fuse et quarm post decessum euis Johes filius Johes Brown baeat ad termini vitae fuc si tune bix it et qua post deccessu eorum Johes Erenestede habibit et tenebit sibi et haereditz suis et placia quon is John Hays cu j – – –

Gillingham once occupied it and except a good piece of land lie at Labery, containing one acre and two and three Seywareas of land which Thomas Felar had for the term of his life and which after the death of his son John Brown he will have for the term of his life if he then dies and which after the death of their son John Erenestede will have and hold for himself and his heirs and the places which he is John Hays with

FILE 25 – Latin
dictor nonon vendere pmutare vel m alios issue conbtere et volo qd honeste gubernet liberos meos et quemq Seu quage Morum qui biscere contigerit Secunda statu quom et at meleus ista pficiant prdict

Google Translate – I do not sell, exchange or exchange other issues, and I want to honestly govern my children and whoever or whatever morals happen to be in the second state, and at the best, I will preach.

Filke 26 – Latin
rabunt ad alquom pensionem p dict mec ad Solucoem annua elimossmoe frumenti Sequontis Item volo qd et ppetuis temporibus futuris quolibet amo m vigilia sti John

Google Translate – They rob someone for a pension, p says me to Solucoem, the annual harvest of wheat, the following item I want because and in future times I love anyone I watch this John

File 27

– – exequenda geu psequondas exbibearnt Capelli p dici anu atim innforma p dic a atrogs Capello annuatim capreante annuea pensione dece marcaru bonae et legalis monnetae anglicanae de terr et temm reddit et – – –

File 28 – Latin
et Seruit in quibus fui sextitus ad osum meu vel legitime et en Sarra conscientia mibi ptmere debent et libera – – –

and Served in which I was sextitus for my use or legitimately and here Sarah conscience my own should be free and free

File 29 –
ornabis cu ymagime si Johannis Baptiste in medio ot sti John Evangeliste m dextero et sti Jacobi in Sinistra cu curtims et cateris necessarys et ben stallo ordmando m exterion latere interclusory p’dicti Vancelli recipente executore officy ante orotio nem pnunciano post pslme magnificat – – – Iterm bolo qd dominus Robertus Pipperose Capellanus occupet portiferum meu illud honeste custodiend it qd post mortem euis liber meus remaneat m perpetuu in Ecclissia de Gillingham ad – – –

You will adorn yourself with the image of John the Baptist in the middle, or John the Evangelist on the right, and James on the left, with the garments and the necessary provisions, and you will be well-arranged on the outside, laterally intervening in the psalms of the said Vancelli, the recipient of the executor of the office, before the oratory, and after the psalms, he will magnify it. – – – –
I further agree that Lord Robert Piperose, Chaplain, shall occupy my porter’s office and keep it honestly, so that after his death my book may remain in perpetuity in the Church of Gillingham at

————————————————————————

Envelope
Bricklayers Bill
Messrs Marsh funeral
August 16 1777

——————————————————————-

16 August 1777 – Mr Marsh Bill to William Archer for taking up pavement in Gillingham Church and laying down again over the Grave
Workmen and Materials – £0.10.6
Received then the Contents in full.
from
William Archer.

—————————————————-

6th December 1777
Faculty for the Vault in Gillingham Church
FREDERICK, by divine providence Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan to all Christian People to whom these presents shall or may (come?) and most especially to the Vicar(?) Churchwardens, parishioners and Inhabitants of the parish of Gillingham in the County of Kent and (Deanery?) of Shoreham(?),

Greeting in our Lord God evertlasting
whereas it hath been alleged before the Worshipful Francis Simpson Doctor of Laws’ Surrogate of the Right Worshipful Sir George Hay Knight, Doctor of Said Laws, Dean or Commissary of the (Deanery?) of the ( archies?) London, Shoreham and Croydon the peculiar and immediate Jurisdiction of us and of our Cathedral and Metropolitan Church of Christ Canterbury lawfully constituted on the part and behalf of George Marsh Esquire one of the Commissioners of his Majesty’s Navy that at a public vestry holden in and for the said parish of Gillingham on the sixth day of November last pursuant to public notice given for that purpose in the said parish church it was unanimously agreed
That the said George Marsh should take down two pews situate on the south side of the middle aile near the centre of the said church and build a vault under the same of the dimensions of ten feet in length from the South Cross Aile to the (struod, round?) pillar on the South side and nine feet seven inches in width if the Said Tits(?) and Graves will admit for a Burying place for himself and his ffamily exclusive of all others as by the original order of the said vestry produced and shown to the said Surrogate and now remaining in the Registry of the Deanery of Shoreham(?) doth appear
And whereas the said Surrogate having maturely(?) weighed and considered the premises and rightly and duly proceeding there in at the petition of the Proctor of the said George Marsh decree the Vicar, Churchwardens and Parishioners and Inhabitants of the said Parish of Gillingham in special and all others in general having or pretending to have any Right, Tithe or Interest in the premises
to be Cited to appear before our Dean or Commissary aforesaid, his Surrogate or some other competent judge in this behalf at a certain competent time and place to show cause if they, any or either of them had or know any why a (sirture?) ffamily or should not be granted to the said George Marsh for taking down the aforesaid two pews situate on the South side of the middle aile near the Centre of the said Parish Church and building a vault under the same of the dimensions of ten foot in length from the South Cross Aile to the (stroud?) pillar on the South side and nine feet seven inches in width if the Land, Tits and Graves will admit
and for appropriating and confirming the same as and for a Burying place for himself and ffamily exclusive of all others with (Intimation Inhumation?) that if they, some or one of them do not appear at the time and place and to the effect aforesaid or appearing did not shew good and sufficient cause to the contrary or (crease in paper- – -) the Commissary aforesaid, his Surrogate or some other competent Judge in this behalf did intend to proceed to decree and grant such (Sireur?) or family to the said George Marsh for the purposes and in the manner aforesaid their abscure(?) or rather contumacy any wise Nothwithstanding
and Whereas it doth appear by the proceedings remaining in the Registry of the Deanery of Shoreham

That the said (Initmation/Inhumation?) was duly read and published in the Parish Church of Gillingham aforesaid on Sunday the twenty third day of December last by the Reverend John Jenkinson (Elect?) Vicar of the said parish and returned into Court on Monday the first instant and the Vicar, Churchwardens, parishioners and Inhabitants of the said parish of Gillingham in special and all others in general having or pretending to have any Right, Tithe or Interest in the premises being at such time publickly called into Court to come and shew cause if they or any or either of them had or knew any such at (Sireur?) or ffamily should not be granted to the said George Marsh for the purposes aforesaid and no person then appearing the Worshipful Francis Simpson, Doctor of Laws, Surrogate of our Dean or Commissary aforesaid at the petition of the proctor of the said George Marsh continued the Certificate of the said In (intimation, inhumation?) to this day

And on this Day the said Vicar, Churchwardens, and inhabitants of the said Parish of Gillingham in special and all others in general having or pretending to have any right, Tithe or interest in the premises being again publicly called into our Court to come and shew cause if they, any or either of them, had or have any why a (Sirure?) and ffamily should not be granted to the said George Marsh for the purposes aforesaid and no person then appearing the said Worshipful Francis Simpson, Doctor of Laws, Surrogate of the said Right Worshipful George Hay, Knight, Doctor of Laws, our Dean or Commissary aforesaid did at the – – – – of the proctor of the said George Marsh decree a (Sirture?) or ffamily accordingly Justice so requiring.

Now we the Archbishop aforesaid by virtue of our (priest?) ordinary and and Archispisropal(?) and as far as by the Eccleisastical or Temporal Laws of this Realm (dot?) may or (raw?) do Grant unto the said George Marsh and (Sirture?) or ffamily for taking down the aforesaid two pews situate on the South Side of the Middle Aile near the Centre of the said parish Church and building a vault under the same of the dimensions before set forth if the Land (Tits?) and Graves will admit and for appropriating and confirming(?) the same as and for a Burying place for himself and ffamily exclusive of all others in manner and form as on his behalf has been (payed?) and desired

In Witness whereof I have caused the Seal of our Dean or Commissary which (We, I ?) use in this behalf to be affixed to this (presents?) dated the sixth day of December in the year of our Lord One Thousand seven hundred and seventy seven

Abscure – Obscure and abstract at the same time.
Contumacy – Stubborn refusal to comply with authority

—————————————————————————-

Envelope
Sundry letters and papers relative to the Faculty Vault at Gillingham Church – chiefly during my dear Father’s life time.
William Marsh

—————————————————————————

note (Date?)
A Bill of the Customary Fees Due to the Minister and Clark for A Burial in Gillingham Church in the County of Kent. One who did not Die in the Parish of Gillingham aforesaid
To the Minister the sum of Two pound twelve shilllings.
To the Clark the sum of One pound twelve shillings
And three pence stamp duty on Burials for George Marsh Jun. Esq.
£4.4.7
John Bensted. Clark.

———————————————————————————–

1777
George Marsh Esq.
Marsh agreement the Vicar, Churchwardens, Parishioners and Inhabitants of the Parish of Gillingham in the County of Kent in special and all others in general
Stamps for Intimation – £0.3.6
Signing the same – £0.5.6
Sealing – £ 0.2.6
Coach hire to Bow Church – £0.3.6
Paid Dr Bever with Case to move for Faculty – £1.1.0
Paid Registers Bill for Faculty – £4.14.8
Sealing the Faculty – £0.7.8
(total) – £6.17.8

————————————————————————————

Plan of Vault
Plan and Section of a Vault in Gillingham Church, Kent, belonging to William Marsh Esq.,
Scale – ¼ Inch to a Foot.

————————————————————————————————-

Length – 17 feet
Height 8 feet 8
Breadth 7 feet 6
Dimensions of the Vault

——————————————————————————————–

Envelope label
11 Dec 1777
Copy of my letter to the Rev. Mr Jenkinson upon obtaining a Faculty for a Vault in Gillingham Church, together with a copy of my engagement for every Corpse which may hereafter be buried therein.

——————————————————————————

Letter

11 December 1777

Sir,
I have obtained the Faculty which my Brother will present to you to be Registered; and inclosed is the obligation you requested from me.
I have desired my Brother to present you with five Guineas for the trouble I have given you on this occasion; and must entreat your acceptance thereof.
I am with my compliments and service to Mr Jenkinson and the young Gentlemen.
Sir, your most obedient humble servant.
George Marsh, London, Navy Office, 11 December 1777
Having obtained a Faculty to build a Vault for a burying place for myself and Family in Gillingham Church near Chatham, Kent. I do hereby engage myself and Executors to pay the Minister of the Parish, Two pounds twelve shillings for the burial of every corpse here after there in; provided the person so buried in it, should not be a Parishioner, but if a Parishioner, One pound six Shillings only is to be paid for that purpose.
George Marsh

——————————————————————————–

Letter to
Milbourne Marsh Esquire,
Victualling Office,
Chatham

Letter
Mr Jenkinson with respectful Compliments to Mr Marsh sends the underwritten for his Inspecting.
George Marsh Esq, one of the Commissioners of his Majesty’s Navy obtained a Faculty to build a Vault for a burying place for himself and Family exclusive of all others in the Parish Church of Gillingham the Sixth Day of December 1777.
This is the manner Mr Jenkinson intends to register the Faculty if Mr Marsh approves of it.
Gillingham,
18th December 1777

—————————————————————————————

A Bill for the Burial of – at Gillingham in the Church on Saturday the 16th August 1777
To the Minister – £2/12/0
To the Clark – £1.11.0
For Minister and Clark – £4.3.0
Received in full per me, John Bentley, Clerk
Tolling the Bell – £0.4.0
(total) – £4.7.0

————————————————————————

Burial Dues
Parons & Clerk at Gillingham – Miss Marsh
16 August 1777
£4.7.0

—————————————————————————

16 August 1777
Paid of Mr (Pilestes?) Undertaker Two Pounds Ten Shillings for the use of the Poor of Gillingham Parish for Miss Marsh bury here in Silk as a Faculty.
John Jenkinson

————————————————————————-

Image – design for a monument
Ft – In
7″ 5 high
4″ 2 wide
Nil Labore Sine

————————————————————–

File 0302
design for memorial
Anne, daughter of George Marsh of Blackheath Esq., departed this Life, the 30th of August 1777 in the 18th Year of her Age.
Farewell dear Maid, of modest worth possest
With virtue, sense, and genius, richly blest.
Farewell my Child, till happier times arrive;
When thy fair form, shall from the dust revive,
If worthy Judg’d thy Joyful Father then,
To his fond Breast, shall clasp his Child again.

Anne Wife of George Marsh Esq., and Mother of the above named Anne died the 1st of April 1784 Aged 63 Years

George Marsh junior Esq., Proctor in Doctors Commons son of the above mentioned George and Anne Marsh, died the 14ht of July 1790 in the 41st Year of his Age.

———————————————————————————

Inscription for above monument
To the Memory of Anne, daughter of George Marsh of Blackheath Esq., who departed who departed this life the 11th of August 1777 in the 18 year of her age.
Farewell dear Maid of modest worth possest with virtue, sense and genious, richly blest.
Farewell my Child, till happier times arrive.
When thy fair form shall from the dust revive
If worthy Judg’d: thy Joyful Father than,
To his fond Breast shall clasp his Child again.
Anne, Wife of George Marsh Esq., and Mother of the above named Anne, died the 1st of April 1784, aged 63 years.
George Marsh Junior Esq., Proctor in Commons, son of the afore-mentioned George and Anne Marsh, died the 14th of July 1790 in the 41st year of his Age.

————————————————————————

Letter
George Marsh Esq.,
Navy Office.

letter contents
Sir,
I am desired by my Father to inform you, that you may erect a Monument to your Daughter’s Memory in Gillingham Church. My Father would have wrote himself but is not well.
Sir, I am, your most obedient humble servant.
L Jenkinson.
411 opposite Adelphi Buildings, Strand,
10th October 1779
My Father and Mother desire their respectful to you and Mrs Marsh

————————————————————————-

The Book of Common Prayer and administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church of England.
Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, painter to King’s most Excellent Majesty and by the assignes of John Bell 1639, cum privilegio.
Deep architectural uncut border 1in all round.

——————————————————————————-

9 April 1784
George Marsh Esq., to Sam Nicholson Dr(?)
Taking up and relaying stone of Vault in Gillingham Church for the burial of Mrs Marsh
To (hods?) of Morter – £0.1.4
2 Bricklayers 1½ day each – £0.8.0
2 Labourers 1½ day each – £0.5.6
(total) – £0.14.10
14th April – Received the Contents for the use of my Father’s (time?)
Ann Nicholson

—————————————————————————

9 April 1784
By Order of Mr George Kirby
Dr to John Witheridge
To 8 Bearers Habbits – 0.12.0
Rec. the Contents
John Witheridge

————————————————————————–

Note
The 9th day of April 1784
Wife of George Marsh Esquire of London was Buried at Gillingham, the County of Kent in a Vault in the Church. Burial Dues to the Parson the Sum of Two Pounds and Twelve Shillings .
To the Clark the sum of One Pound and twelve Shillings and Burial and Receipt, Stamps, Seven pence £4.4.7 Received in Full per me, John Bensted, Clerk

————————————————————————–

envelope
19 April 1784
Gotty’s receipt for the expenses in burying my wife together with (2ND?) Mr Kirby received the whole expence
£59.4.0 (crossed out – 57.19.10)

————————————————————————–

envelope
19 April 1784
Gotty’s receipt for the expenses in burying my wife together with (2ND?) Mr Kirby received the whole expence

£59.4.0 (crossed out – 57.19.10)

file 9940
Dr. to William Gotty
George Marsh Esquire
To the Funeral of Mrs Ann Marsh interred in a Vault at Gillingham Church, April 6th 1784 for a Stout Elm Coffin with a Silk Quilted Lining, Pillow and Ruffeling, a Stout Lead Coffin there with – £7,7,0
for a fine Crass Quilted matters and Bran pillow – £0.12.0
for a 1in & ½ Oak Coffin with Lids (San’d) on the Curve and the Bottom & Lid in one badth to Receive the above Coffin Covered with the Best Black Cloth Ornamented with 2 (kows?) of the bset Black (Cas’d ?) Nails and a (gw?) of Large Laed ovel chas’d handles and a (Duble?) Chas’d Lead Plate inscription Cat. dey(?) – £7.7.0
for the Use of a Large State Velvett Pall – £0.10.0
for the Use of a Lid of Black Feathers – £1.0.0
For a man to Carry in Possession 2 Days – £0.16.0
for use of hatband and Gloves for ditto – £0.3.6
for 2 men on horse back as Portters 2 Days with Silk – Scarfe & hatbands at 12 per day & 2 pair Gloves for ditto – £1.6.0
for 2 horses for ditto 2 days at 9 per day – £0.18.0
for 4 Gentlemen Crass hatbands – £1.0.0
for 4 pair of Gentlemen plane Kid Gloves at 2/3 – £0.9.0
for the Use of 4 Gentlemen Cloks – £0.6.0
for 3 Crass hatbands for Servants – £0.15.0
for 3 pair of Best Lamb gloves for ditto – £0.4.6
(total) – £22.8.0
…………… next page…………….
Brought up – £22.8.0
for 1 Rich Armerzeen Scarf for the Minister 3 yard p t 12s – £2.2.0
for 1 pair of (Lasd?) Kid Gloves for ditto – £0.5.0
for 1 masite Silk hatband for ditto 2 yard ¼ at 5/8 – £0.13.0
for 1 (mode?) Silk hatband for Clark 7&1 per Red Gloves to ditto. 4/3 – £0.9.3
for 2 (mode?) Silk hatband for Self & Son – £0.14.0
for 2 pair of Gloves for ditto – £0.4.6
for 2 horses 2 Days for ditto at 9s per day – £0.18.0
for hurst and Six horses 2 days – £4.16.0
for hurst Velvets & horse ditto – £1.0.0
for the Sets of Black Feathers for hurst & Six horses – £2.10.0
for the use of 1 Clok and 2 hatbands for hurstman – £0.8.0
for 2 paris of Gloves for hurstman – £0.2.0
for 8 Bearers with (Cass?) and trunchers in Possession over heath – £1.4.0
for 8 pairs of Lamb for ditto – £0.8.0
for 1 morning Clok and Six horses 2 days – £4.16.0
for Use of 1 Cloke and ten hatbands for Cochman 2 days – £0.8.0
for 2 pair Gloves for Cochman – £0.2.0
for 2 (lach payes?) in Possestion over the heath with hatbands and gloves – £0.11.0
Paid at Northfleet for Gentlemen and attendance breakfast and coming back – £0.14.8
Paid fees at Gilingham £4.4.7 &c to the Ease of the poor at ditto 2.10.2 Bills – £6.14.9
Paid at the Crown at Rochester 2 Days £1.16.4 and 5 stable horses £2.10.9 – s14 – £2.10.9
Paid 2 turnpikes for 2 Setts and 5 stable horses – £0.11.8
Paid Diner at Shooters Hill for attendance and horses – 9s. – £0.11.0
Minister and Clark at Lewisham – £1.11.6
(total) – £56.19.1

————————————————————————–

note
Gillingham 12 July 1793
Buried Mrs Amelia Marsh – Accustomed Fees to the Minister – £2.12.0
Clerk – £1.12.0
Stamps – £0.0.3
Affidavit – £0.0.6
(total) – £4.4.9
Received the Contents Dan Bendsted, Clark.

———————————————————————

Blackheath, 10 September 1799

Memorandum for my dear and beloved son, being entirely satisfied and truly sensible that he will comply with my wish, and respecting what follows and therefore think it unnecessary to have inserted any thing more in my Will than I have done.
I desire to be buried at as little Expence as possible by my wife and Family, my Coffin to be put upon my late son George’s close to the side of my Wife’s in my Vault in Gillingham Church and too of a morning, if my death should happen in Winter short days to prevent the confusion and Racket that always attends burials by Candle light. Sidden junior of Rochester is an Industrious and I think a very honest man, who could send the Coach and Hearse, or the Hearse at least,from thence and conduct the burial.

I have had a plain monument provided by Mr.Pierce, Stone Mason at Deptford, and if my son has no objection, I wish to be indulged with that piece perhaps of human folly of having the Inscription wrote thereon agreeable to the inclosed,with such alterations however, if any, as my son may judge proper, and placed as near and low can be, with that of my Families now in the said Church.

What I have written thereon or rather mean to have written, I know from my heart to be Facts and and therefore cannot be deemed with truth to my son, who it may be supposed has inserted it out of affection to my memory, as flattery to it.

But should some people think so, it will not make it the less true, that it was done by myself and being conscious it is not the produce of Vanity, but intended only as a lesson for the loving Reader to do the like. I was from this motive only induced to have such an inscription on my monument.

——————————————————————-
The Inscription left by my dear Father as his wish to be put upon his Monument in Gillingham Church

Inscription draft
To the Memory of George Marsh Esq., late one of the Principal Officers and Commissioners of His Majesty’s Navy, who died the (blank)
He served in various Naval departments (blanck) years constantly with indefatigable attention and fidelity; was appointed in 1763 one of the Commissioners for Victualling His Majesty’s Navy; and by the King’s command in 1772 a Commissioner of the Navy.
Prudence equity and order were sen in all his concerns and Temperance was the companioin of his Life
Charity, humanity and benevolence were always upper most in his Heart.
For these purposes he limited his own desires and expences, which produced the sublimest of all satisfaction, an independence in his Soul, superior to all contingencies, and opened the source from which the noblest of all Earthly enjoyments are derived.
He possessed good health, cheerful spirits, and a large share of happiness, but nevertheless he did not neglect the most material of all concerns, the preparing himself for his certain dissolution, by dayly kneeling and offering praise to Him, for these blessings, whose Throne is Universal and who seeth in Secret.
Something like the above both as to matter and form. I think may not be improper; subject however, in every respect to such alteration as my Son’s good sense my judge necessary.

————————————————

Shooters Way – Penny Post
6th May 1835
Mr S.Sidder., Rochester. Acknowledges my letter of the 4th and that he would take an early opportunity of inspecting the Vault in Gillingham Church

Rochester
6 May 1835
Dear Sir
With infinite pleasure I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your kind letter of the 4th instant and altho’ it is a long time since We had any communication, you have on many occasions frequently occupied my mind, and am now happy to find that you are in enjoyment of good health, as I have also reason to be thankful for the share of good health that I have so long enjoyed, but my sight is not good as I could wish, and which I attribute in a great measure to writing by candle-light.
With respect to Gillingham, altho’ at your advance period of life (being Senior by 8 years) I probably may be the first to go, yet it is a gratifying and pleasant reflection, to find that in the event of my surviving you, the same good feeling existing now as at the decease of your worthy and excellent father, 34 years ago, as to induce you to think of me on such occasion, which I trust please God may yet be some few years, but should such Offices be required in my life time, the same attention shall be paid as heretofore, to the other branches of your good family.
But in case it should please God to take me first, I have two sons who I would recommend, partners in the business and very attentive, the eldest about 45 years, has had eleven children – nine living – His brother, fearing such might be his lot, remains single.
I am very sorry to find that your son, George had been for so long a period, so seriously ill, and can readily conceive your anxiety, but sincerely hope your apprehension of his decease may be far distant and that he may yet be restored to his wife and young family.
Dr Page is quite well, who I presume, that you having a Faculty Vault, consider you as on former occasion.
My son Samuel has been near you house twice lately on business to Sir I Aprece(?) and I certainly should have desired him to have called to enquire after your health had I known your residence.
My poor wife am sorry to say has been confined to her room upwards of 7 months with Parellises on her right side from the shoulder to her foot. She is taken out of bed into a chair with casters at the bottom and wheeled to and from the fire-side, morning and evening, but thank God fells no pain and has a good appetite. But what is still worse, her sight is so very bad that she can neither read or write or work, but very patient under her sufferings.
Yet hoping it may please the Almighty that your son George may speedily recover, and in case you should fell disposed in course of the summer to take a trip to Gillingham in the course of the summer I should be most happy to have the honor of seeing you at my house to accompany you, but not to visit our excellent friend Mr Scott, and I remain,
Dear Sir
Most sincerely and respectfully
Your very humble servant.
Sam’l Sidder
I should have written before, but have been engaged at Marden on surveying and marking timber to be felled.

———————————————————

13 June 1835
Mr S. Sidder – Stating that he had been into the Vault at Gillingham Church, and also with a copy of the Register of all those dear friends already in it!!
Shooter’s Hill – Penny Post
To – William Marsh Esquire, Blackheath Park
Postmark – Rochester – July 1835
William Marsh Esquire
NZ – When I receive an Account of the expenses I will agreeably to your request, forward it accordingly.
Mr Bensted desires His beset Respects. He (stays?) very much and appears to be growing the Old Man.
I had forgot to state that there is another large Vault adjoining the one before stated, sufficient to contain, ten or twelve coffins with grown persons. – – –

– -with a copy of the Register, by which you will perceive that your dear little Sarah is included therein. –
Register

Buried –
Mrs Mary Long – 30 January 1770.
Miss Ann Marsh – 16 August 1777.
(two above) Removed into a new Vault 17th January 1777. Miss Ann Marsh name inscribed on the Middle Monument.
Mrs Ann Marsh – 9 April 1784
George Marsh jun Esquire – 20 January 1790. * right date
Mrs Amelia Marsh – 12 July 1793.
Miss Sarah Marsh – 5 September 1793
(four above) These four Names also inscribed on the Middle Monument.
George Marsh Esq. – 4 November 1800 – Inscription on the East Monument
Mrs Francis Marsh – 13 April 1805 –
Miss Francis Mary Marsh – 9 May 1818
(above two) Name incribed on the Western Monument
Master Arthur Marsh – 30 August 1824
William Marsch Junior Esq. – 24 September 1824
Signed – D. Bensted, Parish Clerk.

I feel very great pleasure, and am extremely happy to find Dr Holland has taken leave of your son George, stating to be out of all danger. And that your good self and family may, by the blessing of God long live to enjoy a state of good health in which my family join.
I remain – My dear Sir, Most respectfully, Your very (abelated?) Sam’l Sidder.

– 2 – Should this not have been 20th of June 1790 in which month and year brother died + 20 July 1790 is the right date. 20th of June 1790 for my brother not as Mr Sidder has wrote it.

——————————————————————-

28 June 1835
Mr S. Sidder, Rochester, the account of the expense of some alteration in the Family Vault at Gillingham.
£4.19.01 – and my answer of 1st July 1835
Shooter’s Hill – Penny Post
(Postmark) – Rochester – July 9 1835
Rochester, 28 June 1835.
Dear Sir,
Agreeably to your request I forward the annexed Account of the expenses for opening and closing the Vault in Gillingham Church, which at your perfect leisure with thank you to pay Messes Siddon and Glyn & Co, on account of the Rochester Bank, and hoping that yourself and Family will continue to enjoy good health and that your son George may be fully restored.
I remain, Dear Sir, Most repectfully, Your humble servant. Sam’l Sidder
William Marsh Esquire – To Messrs Sidder
2nd June – No.5 Iron bars in the vault – £3.3.2
Paid Carriage £0.3.0
Dr John Hester as (F ?) a/c enclosed £1.13.6
. £4/19/8
(pencil under) £5.0.0 £1.13.6
£3.6.6 + 3.6 = £3.10.0

————————————————————————-

1835 – Mr S. Sidder & co
Mr S.Sidder, Surveyor & Builder, Rochester

(Ti?) Jn’s Hester
June 2 – to removing the stone work and opening the Vault of G. Marsh Esq. fixing the Iron Bearers, refixing the stone work and making the paving in Gillingham Church. £ s. d.
6 loads of mortar – £0.3.0
3 feet of York paving – £0.3.0
7 foot paving tiles 19 bricks – £0.4.6
2 Bricklayers, 2 labourers, 3 days – £1.1.0
Allowance given to workmen – £0.2.0
. £1.13.6
Received of Mr Sidder
J Hester

———————————————————————————

22 May 1836
from – William Marsh, Blackheath Park, Blackheath,
To – Rev’d I.Page D.D., Vicarage, GIllingham.
Dear Rev’d Sir,
In my reply to your letter of the 30th March I informed you that I was the next day to leave home for sometime, and I am sorry that since my return I have not sooner been able to write to you.
I mentioned in that letter that I would take an Opinion upon the question between us, and as I have no wish for any concealment, I annex a copy of Dr Addams’s Opinion; but by which you will only collect that we are at liberty to enter into a suit in “The Arch-Bishop’s Court of (Reviews)” I concluded we can have but one Opinion upon that point.
I will therefore as briefly as possible state my view and feelings upon the question between us.
My Father in December 1777 obtained a Faculty for a Vault in Gillingham Church (with the consent of the then Vicar and the Parish in a Vestry called for that purpose) for the exclusive burial of himself and family
The Rev.’d Mr. Jenkinson, the then Vicar proposed the fees to be established for the Vicar and Clerk, and requested my father’s written Agreement and approval of the same, and with which request my father complied as follows.
” London Navy Office, 11 December 1777
Sir, Having obtained a Faculty for building a Vault for a Burying place for myself and family in Gillingham Church near Chatham, Kent, I do hereby engage myself and Executors to pay to the Minister of the Parish, Two pounds 12s / for the burial of every corpse hereafter therein, provided the person so buried should not be a Parishioner, but if a Parishioner one pound six shillings only to be paid for that purpose” George Marsh
The above was enclosed was enclosed in a letter to the Rev’d Mr Jenkinson as follows –
“Sir, I have obtained the faculty which my Brother will present to you to be Registered, and inclosed is the Obligation you request from me. I have (desired?) my Brother to present you with five pounds for the trouble I have given you on this occasion.”
I am – – George Marsh
In reply on the 18 December Mr Jenkinson sent the following note to Milbourne Marsh Esq, (Commissioner Marsh’s Brother) and who was then Agent Victualler at Chatham)
“Mr Jenkinson with respectful compliments to Mr Marsh, sends the underwritten for his inspection.
George Marsh Esquire, one of the Commissioners of his Majesty’s Navy obtained a Faculty to build a Vault for a Burying Place for himself and Family, exclusive of all others in the Parish Church of Gillingham, the sixth day of December 1777. This is the manner Mr Jenkinson intends to Register the Faculty if Mr Marsh approves of it.” Gillingham, 18 December 1777″
From the above date until (August &) September 1824, a period of nearly 50 years Nine Funerals took place in this vault when the Fees invariably paid in each instance were as follows made out in a Bill ( in conformity with Mr Jenkinson, the round sum made out, signed and received by Mr Binsted his Clerk.
A Bill of the customary fees due to the Minister and Clerk for a Burial in Gillingham Church in the County of Kent, one who did not die in the Parish of Gillingham aforesaid, To the Minster the sum of Two Pounds, 12s. to the Clerk the sum of One pound, 2 shiilings, and 3d for Stamp Duty,” Received in full (sum?) John Binsted, Clerk”
It may not be amiss to state that for many years after the Faculty was granted, my Father and myself had a small Freehold in the Parish.
The two Burials in August and September 1824 when your fee was ‘By inadvertance” as you state, charged only £5.5.0, one of them was that of my eldest son’s infant, and the other that of my youngest so, William and the whole accounts for both were settled by my eldest son as the father of one and executor of the other with Mr Siddons but which for reasons I have fully explained in my former letter, I could have no knowledge of the increase to £7.14.0 and consequently could not then object to the same, nor have I yet been able to learn whether as you received only £5.5.0 Mr Bensted had the increased balance of £2.9.0? But the impossibility of my knowing of any alteration in these (as I feel settled ) fees, is surely a much stronger plea for my not then objecting, or not on the recent occasion, “making any previous enquiries of my Undertaker!” than mere “inadvertance” can be for not demanding an increased(?) (and increasing) fee!
If upon any future application for a Faculty Vault in Gillingham Church yourself and the Party soliciting same might then fairly enter into a Treaty for any Sum you might agree upon for your fee, as the Rev’d Mr Jenkinson and my Father did and then with the consent of the Parish the Faculty might be obtained.
But I presume to think that you are now as morally bound by what was so settled, and so repeatedly acted upon, as by any other due or right existing whom you succeeded to the (Vicarage?), and that if a “Convocation or association” of neighbouring Clergymen can at any time meet and settle an increasing fee, no person would probably in future incurr either the trouble or expense of soliciting a Faculty.
You observe “that after all, how small a portion of funeral expenses our Church Rates are.” I believe beyond doubt that those persons who usually conduct “the melancholy Ceremony” or rather those that keep the (Heavy?) Black Coaches &c &cand all the other necessary (because usual) Paraphanalia, on such occasions are few in number in any district and consequently take every possible advantage of the situation and feelings, and the impossibility of the moment of the parties to help themselves, and therefore extort as you state – but I am quite unwilling to suppose, or admit, that this should form an example for a Member of the Established Church.
A Burial in the Church imposes no extra or inconvenient Duty upon the Incumbent, but quite the contrary, as the whole duty is performed in the Church, without his being exposed to a Walk in all seasons to a distant corner perhaps of an extensive and exposed Church yard, and for a very triffling fee!
You also state that “Mr Jenkinson found it necessary to raise the fees to prevent the Church and Church yard from being completely blocked up.” He certainly never appeared to have felt that this consideration applied to his Agreement with my Father!
I cannot, of course, be certain how many Faculty Vaults there may be in Gillingham Church, but I cannot but think that the Church was “Blocked up with them,” as you express it, it ought not to be a source of regret, at the fee, settled with the Rev’d Mr Jenkinson, and in so many subsequent instances uniformly paid.
For these, and other reasons alluded to in my former letter as well as in your’s, I cannot but persevere in thinking the fee of £20.12.0 (?) as settled at the time the Faculty was granted, an ample fee for the Duty preformed and that it would be deemed so by your Diocison (?), or Arch-Deacon, or in any Court – –
I am ready to pay the same either in London, or Rochester, as you may request. I beg leave to assure you that in what I have stated I merely wish to express my plain view and feelings upon the question, and that I remain, very truly, Dr & Rev’d Sir, Your Obedient Servant,
William Marsh
P.S. I do not see by Mr Siddon’s Account that he has any ting to Mr Bensted – The only Item at Gillingham is the usual Bank Acc for yourself. I have mislaid Dr.Addams’s opinion but I will find it and send you a copy tomorrow Monday – I have found the Opinion but it will be too late for this Post, but I copy it.
I might have remarked in the above letter, in reply to what Dr.Page states about “Mr Jenkinson raising the fees” that he could not have refused the Church Yard for a Parishioner, but need never have provided it to a non-Parishioner,and that if the Church Yard from the increase of the Population was in danger of “being Blocked up,” raising the fees would make one foot more room, and the proper and only remedy would be, “for the Parish to find a new or additional Church Yard” –

—————————————————————————————

envelope
24th May 1836
Copy of my letter to Dr Page with copy of Dr Addams’s Opinion.

————————————————————————-

Response from William Marsh
Blackheath Park, 6 August 1836
Dear Rev’d Sir,
I will not delay one Post in acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 3rd inst, and expressing my great gratification at it’s contents, as it settles a question that had arisen on my part more from necessity, when looking forward for others! than (I can with truth add) any other feeling.
I have been confined to the house for the last fortnight by an attack of (Enjisselus?) which though very slight, have deemed it prudent to promptly attend to.
It may therefore be towards the end of this week or the beginning of the next, before I shall venture to town, though I have some rather pressing calls there. but when I do go, I will make the payment of the “three Guineas” myself at Messrs Cocks & Biddulph on your account.
I feel equally unwilling with yourself to have any (reconnence?) to the past; but I will not omit to say that nothing which has passed in our recent correspondence has in the least degree lessoned the truth with which I can assure you I remain with respect and esteem, Dr, & Rev. Sir, your sincerest humble servant.
W. Marsh

———————————————————————–

Letter
30 March 1838
from –
Vicarage, Gillingham
To – Mr Marsh
Dear Sir,
I hear with much regret from Mr Siden that your delay in the payment of Burial Fees arrises from a doubt of the propriety of my claim. Now as this is the first instance of that propriety being questioned during my Incumbancy, I think it right to offer you an explanatory statement; in order that the matter may be settled, without giving me any longer plea for suspecting your liberality, or allowing you to suspect one of extortion – premising that I think you would have done better had you directed your Undertaker to make the proper enquiry previously to the Burial
My Predecessor (some years before my accession to the Living) in consequence of the numerous applications from the vast increasing Population for Vaults, gravestone &c, felt himself obliged to raise the amount of Fees, to prevent the Church and Churchyard from being completely blocked up: and soon after my coming, upon a requisition from the Incumbents of Chatham, and St.Margarets, Rochester, it was agreed to equalise all our Fees, to prevent any complaint and invidious comparisons among the Inhabitants of our several Parishes.
The Fee for opening a Vault for Burial in the Church was somewhat less in my Parish than at Chatham, and that at Rochester was higher than either. We therefore took Chatham as the mean between the other two, and that was 5 guineas, and double that sum for a Non-Resident in the Parish.
When your Grandchild was buried in 1824, you were charged by some inadvertance 5 guineas (as for a resident Parishioner);and when after a lapse of 3 weeks only, you had the misfortune to lose a son, at a period of peculiar distress.
I forbade my Clerk to trouble you with any mention of our recent inadvertance, and out of respect to your family, made only the same charge of 5 guineas again.
Since that time the 10 guineas (with 1.10.0 for the Clerk and Sexton) have been regularly paid without demur in every case similar to your Vault; and how small a portion, after all, of Funeral Expenses our Church Fees are, I cannot held thinking you would have viewed the matter in a different light, had you been aware of the circumstances I have just explained.
At all events, I am anxious to convince you that I have no wish to be imposing or litigious, but that I should sincerely regret any interruption of those feelings of kindness and respect which I have uniformly entertained for yourself and your family.
and believe me, Dear sir,
Yours very truly, I Page

————————————————————————-

envelope cover
4th April 1838
Copy of my reply to the Rev. Dr. Page’s letter of the 30th March

———————————————————————–

Letter
4th April 1838, Blackheath Park
To – Rev’d I Page D.D., Vicarage House, Gillingham, Kent
Dr & Rev.d. Sir!
I duly received the favour of your letter of the 2nd inst. I beg leave to assure you that I have not the slightest feeling of “hostility” arising out of the question at present existing between us! At the same time it must appear that I consider the fees you state to have been approved of and settled with yourself and your neighbouring respectable – – – , too high for the occasion and duty performed; and they if at such a meeting the fees can be so settled, there can be no certainty that a future Incumbent may deem “proper!”
Burying in the Church imposes extra or unpleasant Duty upon the Clergyman, but not decidedly the converse.
I admit, he is the natural and proper Guardian of the venerable building, but for the benefit and use of the Parish, and not for any exclusive Possession! I do not suppose “a Faculty” may have the same legal force as a (Mohus?); but as your predessesor at the time the Vault was built, settled the fees, it may be said you as his successor if not legally bound by them, are morally so!
In truth, if the Church was full of Faculty Vaults, it would it would be a great benefit to the Incumbent, with such fees as settled by the Rev.d. Mr Jenkinson!
I would explain to you, that for the four or five Funerals subsequently to the Faculty being granted, the fee was always the same, as settled by that Gentleman! My eldest Son’s infant, and my younger son’s burial, both in September 1824! I had nothing more to do with, than to give my consent (as the Possessor of the Faculty) to their being buried in the Vault.
My eldest son’s child died in the month, and was conveyed to the Church in a private carriage, by the Nurse and another female servant, and the whole expense of course was defrayed by my son, and who from the consequent small amount of the same, probably never took any notice of the Items in Mr Sidden’s account!
When my youngest son was buried a week or two after, he being of Age, and having a Property under his mother’s Marriage settlement; lived at Exmouth, where he died, and by his Will appointed his elder brother his Executor, and who therefore received and paid everything relative to his Estate, and I never knew or imagined any alteration in the fees, I had before so repeatedly paid, as I never saw Mr Siddon’s account.
I state this to show why I could not object to the increase upon these two previous occasions! I am, and ever have been a sincere friend of the Established Church, and therefore request that (in these times in particular) my

next page –
any such question should arise in which I am a Party, But, being now in my 84th Year! and having 2 son and four daughters, and twelve grand-children, similar occasions to the late unhappy recent one, must and will (too frequently perhaps) occur! and consequently I feel it an imperative duty upon me, to now endeavor to fix a reasonable and permanent arrangement of the question! – otherwise, “the Faculty” my become a useless or a burdomsome Privilege(?)! and this is rendered the more probable, from the circumstances, that have occurred in 1824, and to which you allude!
In this point of view therefore, I do not feel that the question can be viewed either as one of “Liberality or Extortion.”
Under this feelilng therefore I shall stake the case to an Emminent (civilist?) for his opinion, and in the hope that it may lead to an amical and fixed arrangement. In the meantime, and always I shall remain,
Dr & Rev.d Sir, Yours most truly,
W. Marsh
P.S. early next week I am going from Home for a fortnight, only.

————————————————————————–

letter
3 August 1838
from I Page, Gillingham,
To Mr Marsh, Blackheath Park,
Dear Sir,
In my last letter I assure you I was perfectly sincere i the intention I expressed of foregoing any claims for the Fee which had formed the subject of our correspondence; I have however, since considered that my refusal of any Fee whatever would naturally make you feel yourself under an unpleasant obligation to me; and without any farther hesitation I will accede to any proposal you think right to make, and which will be satisfactory to yourself.
The most convenient mode of transmitting the payment will be to place it to my Account at Messrs Cocks & Biddulph, 43 Charing Cross, whenever you have a convenient opportunity.
The point being settled between us, I am unwilling to recur to any topics of difference between us, because it does not suit my notions of respect due to one so much my senior, and for whose personal character I have always felt the highest esteem.
I have merely to observe that as the Law is not defined the question, how far the charge is “excessive”, still remains undecided, and of course you are hardly justified in considering the meeting of neighbouring Incumbents to equalise the amount of Fees as a combination trade with a view to worldly practice, rather than to recourse a due regulation of Parrochial Services. It must be kept in mind too, that the Minister’s Duty arrising from the universal necessity to which you allude, extends properly to the administration of simple Burial to Parishioners only.
But I will not pursue the subject farther, and have only to express my surprise at what you have stated respecting Dr Radcliffe’s Fees on similar occasions from the year 1794 to 1818.
It seems I have been led into an error in supposing that Dr Radcliffe had made a considerable increase of Demand for Fees, after his accession to the Living: for your account must be correct, at least, in your instance: and I am sure you will not wonder at my being at a loss to reconcile it with a Declaration (now before me) of Dr Radcliffe, given under his hand in September 1784, directing his Clerk (the same John Bensted) to demand additional Fees, to protect the Church Yard and Church from the increasing applications of an increasing population.
To which I must add that the List of Fees, which I received, made 40 years afterwards on my accession as those customarily paid in my predecessors time, shewed a consideration augmentation upon these even, which had been ordered in 1784.
In conclusion, you will I am sure believe me that I shall now feel the greatest satisfaction in bidding addieu to any farther painful discussion and that hence forward we shall remain on the same terms of mutual good estimation as on our first aquaintance: and with the sincerest wishes for the very long continuance of your health and happiness, and the welfare of your family
Believe me, my Dear Sir.
Yours very truly,
I. Page

X – Vide my letter of the 30th June

————————————————————————————-

—————————————————————-

Letter
Postmark 29 May 1838
From Rev.Dr.I Page, Gillingham,
To William Marsh, Blackheath Park, Blackheath.
WM note – 29th May 1838, Dr Page with my reply of 30th June.
Dear Sir,
I found your letter of the 24th inst awaiting my return home, from which I have been some days absent, and I sincerely regret that this Question of Fees should have given you so much trouble; and that I am not willing to prolong it, I will at once assure you that in order to meet your views and at the same time not compromise my own, I have made up my mind to waive both Mr. Jenkinson’s Fee, and Dr.Radcliffe’s and my own augmented one.
I must beg you therefore merely to direct Mr Sidden to pay our poor old Clerk his Fee, and to take no farther notice of mine.
I justice however to my case, I must be allowed to add a comment or two in good humour on your letter.
Dr.Addam’s Opinion leaves the question nearly as it stood before. He truly says “There is no defined Law applicable to such a Case:” and this agrees with a written opinion (now lying before me) of Dr Swabey given on a similar occasion in 1810, in which he says that “as to amount of Fee for permission &c an Incumbent would do well to exercise reasonable discretion in which he may be guided by the usage of neighbouring Incumbents. The Law however (he adds) has not prescribed any certain payment for such permission.”
. . .
I find my Predecessor, Dr.Radcliffe, giving a peremptory order to the Sexton in 1784, to raise the Fees on Vaults and as a protection from the increasing demand from an increasing Population he expresses himself thus, “I have upon mature deliberation resolved, and I do hereby give you notice &c” from which it is evident that he (himself an Archdeacon) believed that he had an absolute right to raise his Fees on reasonable grounds, and that he was not bound by any Resolution of his Predecessor, Mr Jenkinson.
Indeed I cannot see what right an Incumbant can have perpetually to bind his Successor as to amount of Fees, any more than as to amount of Tithes.
I might as well feel myself morally bound to receive no more than the £15 fixed as the value of my Living in the King’s Books. In the original correspondence (which you have copied for me), between Mr Jenkinson and your Father, I find only that the former fixed certain fees, to which Mr Marsh engaged for for himself,and his Executors to pay him; but I discover no engagement on Mr Jenkinson’s part, that his Successors in the Living should for ever be paid the same, and he doubtless considered it (for he had indeed no right to do otherwise) as merely a personal compact.
The reasonableness of my alteration consisted (as I had presumed on the above-mentioned Opinion of Dr.Swabey) in assimilating my Fees to those of two other most populous neighbouring Parishes, in doing which, some Fees even diminished, others (as unfortunately in the present case) were increased, though not to an amount much exceeding those of my immediate Predecessor, Arch-Deacon Radcliffe.
…..
Dr.Addams thinks my demand excessive, but he states no ground for thinking so. Has he enquired into the usul charges in the London Churches, or other populous towns? If not – it is more matter of opinion with him.so, I may think that £20 or £50 demanded for a Lawyer in Fee, is excessive – he probably would not think so.
As to your implied notion of the amount of Fee being measured by the Minister’s actual labour or inconvenienceon these occasions, I cannot believe you serious.
That a Clergyman’s Services should be remunerated by the standard of a common Labourer’s wages, for work done and time occupied, is at least not very complimentary to the profession; and I am quite sure that you are the last person to have so requited the performance of the office of Matrimony or Christening.
You think too that if my Church is filled with Vaults (which I believe it is, or nearly so) an ample Income must arise from their being occasionally opened. Now since my Induction to the Living, in 182x the average of interments in the Church Vaults has been about two in three years!

I leave you to judge whether according to your proposed basis of £2.12.0 for each (supposing all even to the non-Parishioners) the annual Fees would be likely to be ‘so great a benefit” as you surmise. I must add that some of these vaults belong to Families so long and so far removed as never to be opened at all; and that one of them (the next in size to yours) belongs to a family so dwindled in station and circumstances, as scarcely (I am told) to be above requiring Parochial Relief for Burial.
You will excuse, I hope, my trespassing so long on your patience in these remarks, and I assure you that in declining altogether the acceptance of any Fee. I am actuated by no other feeling than that of studying the wishes of those, for whom (like yourself) I have a most sincere respect, and whose favor I should be to the to forfeit for the sake of any accidental emolument whatsoever.
With my best regards to your Family.
Believe me , Dear Sir,]
Yours most truly.
I. Page

———————————————————————————-

Letter
30 June 1838
Copy of my reply to Dr Page’s letter of the 29 May.
From William Marsh, Blackheath Park,
To
Rev’d I Page D.D., Vicarage, Gillingham, Kent
The arrival of three grand-children from the Cape and other particular circumstances have prevented me from sooner acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 29th of last month; but the tenor of which letter had indeed rendered a prompt reply not so immediately necessary!. I agree that Dr. Addam’s opinion leaves the case, nearly as it stood before, as it stood before, as in truth does that of Dr.Swabey in 1810. “The Law is not defined” because it should seem that the question has never been tried, which would I presume be,”what was a reasonable fee in the case” and not what neighbouring Clergymen meeting for the express purpose of determining upon their own question, might at any time agree came under that description – but what had been the reasonable and “accustomed fee” in the Parish, in that particular case. I never had the most distant idea of classing a Clergyman’s duties “with those of a common Labourer” yet it may be said, that a (council, circle?) of neighbouring Incumbants meeting and combining to charge an ‘excessive” increase of the fee for one of their paramount Duties, of Universal necessity does rather appear to be descending, more to the worldly practice upon such helpless (?) occasions than upholding the character of the established church.
Most certainly an Incumbent cannot bind his Sucessors to any Composition he may have entered into for his Tithes! But then the Right is fixed and and committed to a tenth; and if a composition is not agreed upon, a Clergyman may take them in kind! I therefore cannot see any anology in our Question to that of a Tithe, and still less, in that of judging of the (rowlus?) of your (or any other) Living from the “King’s Book,” which constituted as I have always understood that Book was, is never to be taken as any guide to the real value of the Livelihood.
But I do fully accord with you Opinion “That the (Lawlessness, Lawful?) we sometimes hear of are “most excessive” but here again, no analogy exists, because no one is obliged to pay these extravagant fees, for they are incurred from a previous agreement and under the impression of the Party paying them, that a particular Counsel only has the talent to give that colour and turn to his Case, which the more common statement of facts would not evince and which is necessary for his success at almost any price! But, “everyone must die” and Burials are of daily occurrence and universal necessity; and have (and probably ever will) from the content of history of the Church found a paramount part in the Duty of any Incumbent, and the fee appears to have been so settled as to meet that universal necessity. I never supposed the burials in “Faculty Vaults” would be frequent in the course of any one Year, but mainly that when they did occur they must be more beneficial as to the fee, and the performance of the Duty more (elyable) in all Seasons.
I had forgotten until I received your last letter, that you did not succeed Mr Jenkinson who died in 1780 when Dr.Radcliffe became the Incumbent and as you state was “Arch Deacon” of Canterbury, and that upon the Doctor’s death in April 1822 you became the Incumbent.
Now, I must think that as Dr.Radcliffe who as “Arch Deacon” you appear to state had the power to raise the fees, never did so, upon the following seven funerals during his Incumbancy. Viz.
1794 – 9 April – Mrs Ann Marsh
1790 – 20 July – George Marsh junior
1793 – 12 July – Mrs Amelia Marsh
1794 – 5 Sept – Miss Sarah Marsh
1800 – 4 Nov – George Marsh Esq
1805 – 13 Aril – Mrs Frances Marsh
1818 – 9 May – Miss F. Mary Marsh
(file 9913)
Fees as before paid to the Rev’d Mr Jenkinson as proper and ample, and I cannot but further feel (him?) ought and (dres?) settle the question between us, and consequently I see no fair pretense for the increase! The Bills for all the seven Burials were uniformly as follows and made out and signed by the Clerk.
“Minister – £2.12.0
Clerk & Sexton – £1.10.0
(total) – £4.2.0 – Received – John Bensted, Cleark.”
and I observe the usual charge in Mr Sidden’s Bill £2.2.6 for the number which makes the expense of Burying in this Vault £6.4.6 in addition to all other charges.

From the allusion in part of your letter you appear fully aware, that although I and my family are happily not reduced quite to the state of a family you quote, still as I believe I have stated in my former letter we are so numerous that unless we can compel the omission of all the expenses not absolutely correct and necessary, we are probably likely to find the Vault in question as useless to us, as the one you have already alluded to appears to be to the family you have alluded to.
I neither can feel it right the question should remain upon the footing you have placed it, and still less, that it is wise or prudent in either part, that it should be so left.
Mr Siddons has paid Mr Bensted the £1.10.0, and I am willing to alter the £2.12 – to three Giuneas as your fee for the late and all further Burials in the Vault during your incumbancy and will pay the same in any way you will direct.
In all I have said I beg to assure I have had no other feeling than to state fully and clearly my view of the question, and that I nevertheless remain with all due respect and esteem, Dr & Rev’d, your most obediant servant,
William Marsh

——————————————————————————–

Little Cloister, Westminster
March 12 1839
My Dear Sir,
I have been residing in town for some weeks with my family, and have only just heard from Mr Bensted, my Clerk, that you have had another bereavement in your family, to add to your affliction; upon which I beg to offer you my sincere condolences.
My object in intruding upon you by letters at this distressing moment is partly to express my regrets at not being able personally to officiate at Gillingham on Thursday next, and partly to assure you that I have sent directions through to my Curate to Bensted (whose superannuated faculties I dare hardly trust) to charge no more that the Fee for Burial in which was at last amicably agreed upon after our last correspondence.
Again apologising for troubling you,
Believe me, my dear Sir,
Most sincerely yours.
(J?) Page
(to Mr Marsh Esq)

————————————————————————

Letter
To –
Reverend (I?) Page D.Dr, Little Cloisters, Westminster
From
Blackheath Park – 13 March 1839
My dearest Reverend Sir!
I feel it impossible for me to daly (even at the present moment) expressing to you my very great gratification at the receipt of your most kind and (liberal) letter of yesterday!
Our loss of two such near, dear, and estimable connexions in so short a space, is indeed heartfelt by my remaining daughter and myself! But, such friendly sympathy as is conveyed in your letter brings with it an alleveation.
I can now only assure you that I must ever remain with perfect respect and esteem,
Dear kind Sir,
Your much obliged and most sincere,
Mr M
From what you say of poor William Bersted’s “superanuated State,” I think it will be better to leave the fee &c &c sealed up for you at your house!

Letter cover – of above
To – William Marsh Esquire, Blackheath Park
30th March 1838 – Dr Page with my reply of 4th April
Postmark – Shooters Hill, Penny Post.

—————————————————————————————

Cover
16 October 1839
Rev. I. Page, with my reply of the 24th.
22nd November – paid into Messrs Biddulph’s Georgina’s Drft for £5 agreeable to the enclosed letter of mine to the Doctor
W.Marsh
Red wax seal

—————————————————————————————-

Letter
To, Mr Marsh Esq.
from
I. Page, Gillingham, Chatham
16 October 1839
My dear Sir,
A begging letter is as disagreeable in general to the person who writes it as to the person to whom it is addressed, but nevertheless I daresay you will pardon my Motive at least, if my petition is not successful.
We have begun a subscription for a suitable organ for our Parish Church, which is much needed. The bulk of our Parishioners are, as connected with the Army and Navy, respectable and well educated, but withall of very confined pecuniary means. We have already had numerous subscribers, but the amount of our collection does not yet extend beyond £63 of which I have myself contributed £10.
It has struck me that though you are not personally interested in our behalf, you have a solemn local connection with us, which may induce you to give us your assistance. If however you do not consider that connection sufficiently obligating to join us in this parochial improvement, you will excuse at least my request – if, on the contrary, you consider the appeal to your liberality on this occasion as not undeserving of you attention, I shall be most happy to enroll you among our subscribers, and your subscription might at your own convenience be transferred to my account at Cochis & Biddulphs,
Believe me , My dear Sir, With the highest respect, Yours very sincerely,
I. Page
……
I suppose the Expense of a proper Organ will amount to from £100 to £150

————————————————————————

Reply
24 October 1839
Conquorer Hotel, St. Leonard’s, Hastings.
Dr.Rev.d Sir,
Your letter of the 16th I received here only yesterday evening in a parcel with several others, or it should not have remained so long unacknowledged! You take a very correct view of my feelings upon the question and I cordially wish you may speedily obtain an ample fund for the purpose.
I only regret that I cannot at present limit my subscription to five pounds, and which upon my return to Town, I will take an early opportunity of paying the same into Messrs Cocks & Biddulph on your account.
Myself and daughter have been here since the 12th inst with my two grandchildren from the Cape, who have had the Measles very severely, and this change has been recommended as necessary for them!
All the principal farmers in the neighbourhood sat that they have not for years had so good a Harvest in all respects, as the recent one. I was equally surprised to hear this, as nothing could be worse than our weather at Blackheath all the months of August and September.
Remain always, Dr & Rev.d Sir, with the sincere respect and esteem,
Yours most obedient servant
W. Marsh

---