Custom demised: Eastbourne Great Tythe feast

Standard

Lundens, Gerrit; Peasants Feasting in a Barn; National Trust, Melford Hall; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/peasants-feasting-in-a-barn-171766

In Royer’s 1787 History of Eastbourne, 1787 a curious custom is described:

“On the three first Sundays in August a public breakfast, says  p. 126), is given at the parsonage-house by the tenants of the great tythes to the farmers and their servants, each farmer being entitled to send two servants for every waggon that he keeps. So that if a farmer have five waggons to do his necessary business he may send ten servants, and so on in proportion for a less or greater number.”

Thus was laid out a feast:

“The farmers are entertained in the parlour with a sirloin of hot roast beef, cold ham, Sussex cheese, strong ale, and Geneva; the men are entertained in the barn with everything the same as their masters except the beef. It is presumed that this custom had its origin from the time the tythes were first taken in kind in this parish, in order to keep all parties in good humour.”

Chambers’ Handbook of Eastbourne, 1872 records

“A petition to Parliament for the abolition of this custom was presented as far back as 1640, and, in 1649, an ordinance was enacted that 20l. per annum should be paid for the relief of the poor in lieu of the feast. “

It would be clear that during the Commonwealth the custom did stop but during the reign of Charles II:

“In 1687 the custom was revived; more recently an annual payment of 20l. for the education of poor children was substituted, and this amount now figures year by year in the accounts of St. Mary’s schools as paid by the Duke of Devonshire.”

It seemed that it was that the event encouraged poor behaviour rather than the custom’s cost. As summed up by the Sussex Archaeological society’s 1861’s Sussex archaeological collections relating to the history and antiquities of the county:

“That the Eastbourne Sunday is no matter of regret are dying out to which no good morals would be applicable.”

When it finally demised is unclear but it was certainly before the above account. It probably died out when many of the other harvest homes demised.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.