A HISTORY OF TITHES H.W CLARKE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Deceived AUG ...17.1892 , l8g Accessions No. ^^^S^. Class No, A HISTORY OF TITHES HISTORY OF TITHES BY THE REV. HENRY WILLIAM CLARKE, B.A. TRIN. COLL., DUB. Author of " The Past and Present Revenues oj the. Church of England in IVales" and " The Public Landed Endowments of the Church in Anglo-Saxon Times " EontJon SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO. PATERNOSTER SQUARE, E.G. 1891 * v f / f BUTLER & TANNER, THE SELWOOD PRINTING WORKS* FROME, AND LONDON. IN my former 1 as also in my present work, I have taken Selden's " History of Tithes," ed. 1618, as my chief authority. I adopted his views on the interpretation of King Ethel \vulf s char- ter as having been the first legal title deeds of granting tithes to the clergy. After carefully consulting the best authorities, especially Mr. Kemble, Mr. Haddan, and Bishop Stubbs, I have in my present work adopted their views, that Ethel \vulf granted a tenth part of his lands and not the tithes of the lands of his kingdom. I have also considered Archbishop Egbert's alleged canon for the tripartite division of tithes as an anachronism. In preparing my former work, I laboured under the great dis- advantage of residing too far away from a good public library, where I could consult the best and most recent authorities on the subject. Just as the sheets of my former work passed through the press, a third edition of Lord Selborne's work, " A Defence of the Church of England against Disestablishment," was published. And in the following year, 1888, appeared his "Ancient Facts and Fictions concerning Churches and Tithes." I could only then refer in the briefest manner in my former book to his first work. But his two works contain so many erroneous and fallacious statements, that I thought it a public duty to expose and refute them. With this view and in order to prepare materials, I had taken 1 "The History of Tithes from Abraham to Queen Victoria," 1887. vi Preface. steps to have access to the Library and to the manuscripts in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum. I had not gone far with my work when I found it absolutely necessary to rewrite the whole of my " History of Tithes," and to make the present work, as it really is, quite a new one. I had not only to deal with Lord Selborne's works, but also with historians, who wrote private letters to parsons against the threefold division of tithes, which letters contradicted statements made in their own histories which favoured the tripartite division of tithes, and the Church Grith law of A.D. 1014. The tithe disputes in Wales brought forward crude, erroneous, misleading and ill-digested statements about the origin and his- tory of tithes in this country. " Our Title Deeds," by the Rev. M. Fuller, is a most remarkable specimen of that class. Directly and indirectly, I have dealt with all these matters in my present work. I mention these facts in order to indicate the abso- lute necessity I was under of rewriting the whole of my history. And now in reference to Lord Selborne's works, which, owing to his high position, have influenced the opinions of many, one unsound mode of reasoning runs through many parts of them, especially his " Ancient Facts and Fictions." I mean his infer- ences from negative evidence. And these inferences are so cleverly iind shrewdly expressed, in the special pleading style, that although I knew they were wrong, yet I found it extremely diffi- cult to prove how they were wrong, because they were based on negative evidence. This mode of reasoning in the hands of a shrewd, clever lawyer is most powerful, misleading and em- barrassing ; and is at the same time most difficult to answer from the nature of the evidence. In order to elucidate my meaning, I shall give one out of many examples. He wants, in support of a certain cause, to sweep away the Church Grith law (A.D. 1014) which enacts the tripartite division of tithes, and this is his mode of reasoning : " Selden and Spelmah were well ac- quainted with the Worcester (Cottonian) manuscript [he calls it " The Worcester Volume " on the same page] ; and, as neither Preface. vii of them made mention of this Church Grith document, it may be inferred that they did not regard it as having the character or the authority of a law}' 1 x The reader of the book would naturally suppose that Selden and Spelman had seen the " document," although it is an unquestionable fact that they had never seen it, simply because it was never in Sir Robert Cotton's library during his lifetime for them to see. I could not have proved this point if I were not aided by the official catalogue of 1632. I have often thought that Lord Selborne's error arose in his assuming that all the manuscripts which are now in the Worcester volume, Nero, A. i, were in the same volume when Selden and Spelman consulted it during the life of Sir Robert. If I am right, it is a clear proof how unsound it is to draw inferences from negative evidence, and how careless he must have been in not having made himself quite certain that the " document " was in the volume for them to see. As this is a vital point in the dis- cussion, I have devoted the whole of chapter x. in defence of this Church Grith law. But the most unfair part adopted by the opponents of this law is, that whilst they parade, with a great flourish of trumpets, the opinions of Price and Wilkins against the law, they carefully omit material evidence furnished by Archdeacon Hale, which is dead against their opinions (see pp. 107, 108). Since my former work was published, there appeared in July. 1887, the Parliamentary Return of the Tithes Commutation of 1836. I have dealt with this important information in Chapter XIX., and also in the Appendices. In Chapter XVII., I have given a very full account of the enormous revenues received from tithes and house rentals by the incumbents of parishes in the City and Liberties of London for the spiritual work of small populations, and which revenues have become a public scandal because valuable endowments are thus wasted. The "Redemption" of tithes is dealt with in Chapter XVIIL 1 "Facts and Fictions," pp. 280, 281. viii Preface. I have inserted in Chapter XX. the Tithe Act of 1891. Appendix F contains a summary by counties of the rent charges of England and Wales, taken from the return of 1887. Appendix G is an analysis of the Tithe Commutation Return as regards (i) the number of old parishes; (2) parishes appro- priated and their vicars ; (3) parishes which had not been appro- priated. Nearly one-half (or 3,864) in England were appropriated. It was worse in Wales, for of 834 old parishes, 468 were appro- priated. When we add the sinecure rectories, pluralities and non-residence of incumbents, we can form a correct conclusion as regards the cause of the present position of the Church of England in Wales. In addition to the above, I have also given the number of parishes in receipt of lands and money payments in lieu of tithes by numerous Inclosure Acts. But the most important statistics are given at page 257 as regards the gross aggregate amount of the " Revenues of the Church of England." Hitherto, very small and misleading amounts of these revenues have been given. But the Parliamentary Return, made up in the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and just pub- lished, has now given the public, for the first time, a generally correct idea of the gross annual amount, from permanent sources, of these revenues, and also the number of benefices and parson- age houses with their rateable value, which is much less than their actual value. The Return is defective; (i) because it is framed on values in 1886, and (2) it omits the large fluctuating income about a million a year from fees, pew-rents, and Easter offerings. Correctly, the gross income in 1890, was ^6,825,730. But the permanent income capitalized equals ^140,000,000. My best thanks are due to Walter de Gray Birch, Esq., of the MSS. Department of the British Museum, for his kind assistance and courtesy ; also to the officials connected with the Library. HENRY WILLIAM CLARKE. CONTENTS. Introduction, pages xvii.xxiv. Difficulties in writing a true history of tithes, xvii. No tithes paid for centuries after the Christian Era, xviii. Canons passed for their payment, xviii. Papal interference in the British Church, xix. Custom of paying tithes in eighth century, xix. Population of England then, xx. Norman monks initiated appropriations, xx. Infeudations condemned by Lateran Councils, xx. Monastic lands granted by Henry VIII. and his children, xxi. Changes made by Ecclesiastical Commission, xxi. , xxii. No physical transfer of En- dowments at the Reformation, xxiii. Present trustees of Church Endowments have only a Parliamentary Title, xxiii. A Roman Catholic Bishop's views on present movements in Church of England, xxiii., xxiv. CHAPTER I. Before the Christian Era, pages 1-3. Abraham the first recorded payer of tithes, I. Old Testament passages for payment of tithes, I. When tithes ceased to be paid by Jews, 2. Heathen nations paid tithes, 2. Story about Adam having paid tithes, 3. CHAPTER II. From the Christian Era to the Council of Mas$on, pages 4-12. Maintenance of ministers in Apostolic times, 4, 7. Alleged " Apostolic Constitutions," by Pope Clement I., 5. Anglican divines supporting claim to tithes on such constitutions, 6. Emperor Constantine's edict, 7. Divisions of offerings and oblations, 7. Are Christians justified in adopting the Mosaic Law for the payment of tithes ? 7, 8. Tithes first given as voluntary offerings, as alms, 8. Fiction and facts mixed in "Englishman's Brief," 9. Earliest supposed council which ordained payment of tithes, 10. Spurious, 10. CHAPTER III. The JRoman Mission to England, pages 13-19. Landing of Augustine in England, 13. Cordial reception by King of Kent, 1 7. Christianity established in his kingdom, 14. Creation of Archbishopric of Canterbury, and Bishoprics of London and Rochester, 15. Augustine's questions to Pope Gregory and his reply, 16, 17. How Bishops and their x Contents. Clergy were at first maintained in England, 17. Brewer's and Dibdin's trans- lation of "portiones," 17. Quadripartite division, 17. Blackstone's opinion, 18. Bishops' churches, and chapels-of-ease, 18. Did Augustine preach pay- ment of tithes? 19. King Ethelbert's grant of tithes a fiction, 19. Fuller's misleading statements in "Our Title Deeds," 19. CHAPTER IV. The First Documentary Statement of Tithes in England, pages 20-28. Theodore's " Penitential," by " Discipulus Umbrensium," 20. Its genuine- ness, 20. Bede's silence about it, 21. Bede in evidence as to the common law right of the poor to a share of the tithes, 21. Landowners' churches, their origin, 23, 24. The parish bank, 24. Edgar's law of giving one-third of tithes to Manorial Church, 26. Domesday's testimony as to the one-third, 26. Mother churches had remaining two-thirds, 26. Church seats free, 27. No pew rents, 27. Tithes first voluntary, afterwards compulsory, 28. The "Confessional" and its power to get tithes, 28. CHAPTER V. Archbishop Egbert's Works, pages 29-32. His " Penitential," 29. His " Confessional " and " Excerptions," 29. The " Excerptions" not Egbert's, 30. Effect of this on Roman Catholic Church, 30. Selden's opinions on the " Excerptions," 30-32. CHAPTER VI. The First Public Lay Law for the Payment oj Tithes, pages 33-52. Law of, A.D. 779, by King of France, 34. Milman's observations on the working of this law, 34, 35. Quarrel between Augustine and the British Bishops, 35, 36. Gloomy aspect of Roman mission, 36. Arbitraiy assump- tion of Papal authority over Anglo-Saxon Church, 37. King Oswy's decision about keeping Easter, 37, 38, 39. How Theodore was appointed Archbishop, 39. The Pope's supremacy over Church of England dates from A.D. 668, p. 40. Early instance of endowed bishops neglecting their flocks, 40. King Offa and Pope Adrian I., 40, 41. Lichfield an Archbishopric, 41. First legatine council in England, A.D. 787, p. 42. Councils at Colchyth (Chelsea) and in Northumbria, 43. Twenty injunctions passed, 43. The I7th referred to the payment of tithes, 44. Selden's opinions on these injunctions, 43. First supposed civil law in England for payment of tithes, 44. Opinions of Lord Selborne, Bishop Stubbs, and Selden on I7th injunction, 45. Offa's sup- posed law of tithes in A.D. 794, p. 47. Dean Prideaux's opinion on it, and wrong quotations, 47, 48. Lord Selborne and Kemble on Bromton, 49. Who was Polydore Vergil? 48, 49. First mention of tithes in English writings, 51. Position of the Christian poor, 51. Contents. xi CHAPTER VII. King Ethelwulfs Alleged Grant of Tithes, pages 53-66. Dean Prideaux on this grant and on Selden's " History of Tithes," 53. Selden's erroneous view on this grant, 53. Opinions of Saxon Chroniclers on it, 54. Folcland and Bocland defined, 56, 57. Kemble's six canons to test genuineness of charters, 59. Ethelwulfs charters thus tested, 59, 60. The Malmesbury Cartulary, 60. Ethelwulfs second charter of grants, 62. Kem- ble's opinion on Ethelwulfs first and second grants, 64, 65. Charter C, an abridgment of William of Malmesbury's charter, 65. Selden's conclusion on Ethelwulfs charter, 65, 66. CHAPTER VIII. Tithe Laws Made by Anglo-Saxon Kings, pages 67-80. Lord Selborne's. denial that tithes are referred to in the laws of Alfred, 68. Fuller's errors about the tithe laws of King of Kent, 68. Edward and Guth- rum II. passed a tithe law, 69. Athelstan's law on tithes, 70. This is the first general law in England for payment of predial and mixed tithes, 71. Opinion of Lord Selborne and Dr. Lingard on Athelstan's law, 71. Kemble, Stubbs, and Prideaux express a contrary opinion, and Mr. Thorpe by implica- tion, 71, 72. What constituted a Witenagemot ? 73. Kentishmen's letter to King Athelstan, 75. Lingard and Freeman on this letter, 75. Definition of tithe, 76. Tithe laws of King Edmund, 77. Church-scot, 78. King Edgar's laws, 79. Threefold division of churches, 80. First English law expressly ap- propriating tithes, 80. CHAPTER IX. Origin of our Modern Parish Churches and Boundaries, pages 81-93. The old minster, 81. Chapels of ease, Si. Landlords' churches, 81. Church boundaries conterminous with landowners' estates, 82. Manorial Churches in Domesday with one-third of tithes, 82. Errors created by con- founding original meaning of " parochia," with subsequent meaning, 83. Selden on Edgar's law, 84. Bishop Kennett on Manorial Churches, 85. The parish bank, 83. Lay patrons had taken two-thirds of tithes for poor and repairing Churches, 86. Edgar's canons and gloss to same, 86, 87. Origin of his canons, 88. Population of England in Anglo-Saxon times, 91. Population when tithes were first given, 92. Populations in A.D. 787, A.D. 927, and A.D. 960, respectively, 92, 93. Number of Bishops in England in A.D. 705, p. 93. Number at Conquest, 93. CHAPTER X. The Laws of Ethelred II., pages 94-124. His nine laws, by Thorpe, 94, 95. Church Grith law, A.D. 1014, p. 95. Art. 6 enacts the tripartite division of tithes, 95. Bishop Stubbs's views in his xii Contents. history on the tripartite division, 96, 97. His views in private letters, 97. Origin of Sir Robert Cotton's library, 98. His death, 100. Catalogue 01" library, 100. First printed catalogue, 100. Library vested in trustees, 100. Second catalogue, 100. History of the "Worcester " volume, Nero, A. I, p. 101. Lord Selborne's object is to upset the Act of A.D. 1014, pp. 101, 1 02. Selden and Spelman never saw the Church Grith law, 103, 104. Lan - barde, Wheelock, and John Johnson, never saw it, 104. Thorpe's opinion of Wilkins's "Concilia," 106. Price's evidence is worthless, 107, 108. Free- man's history, like Stubbs's, is in favour of the genuineness of Church Grith law, but contradicts himself in his private letters on same subject, 108, 109, no, in. Old Latin Translators of the Anglo-Saxon laws omit fifteen Anglo- Saxon laws, 112. Dr. Lingard accepts this law as genuine, 116. Contents of Worcester volume, Nero, A. I stated, 117. Brewer, supported, but Dib- den denies, the tripartite division, 119, 120. Mr. Thorpe in favour of the genuineness of this law, 121. Canute's laws in three branches, 121. He modelled his laws on Edgar's and Ethelred's, 121. Thirty-six of the forty- four articles in the Church Grith law are incorporated in Canute's, 121. How Lord Selborne disposes of the other eight, 121. When Poor Law Act was passed, why did not Parliament claim a portion of the tithe for the poor ? This is answered, 123. CHAPTER XL The First Poor Law Act> pages 125-132. First Poor Law Act, 125. Total annual revenue of all the monastic estates, 125. Cromwell's advice to the King, among whom to divide the monastic properties, 121. Owners of monastic lands to maintain hospitality, 126. Blackstone on the support of the poor prior to 27 Henry VIII., 127. Blackstone quotes the '* Mirror " in support of the common law claim of the poor to a part of the tithes, 127. Lord Selborne's argument answered, that the part allotted to the poor out of tithes would now be insufficient for their maintenance, 127. Sir Simon Degge says : " The poor have a share in th^ tithes." Lord Selborne's criticism on this statement, 129. Who Anthony Harmer was, 129. Sir Simon Degge's legal position and antecedents, 130. Lord Selborne quotes from a garbled edition of the "Parson's Counsellor," 130, 131. The Acts which gave poor a portion of the tithes, 131. Eliza- beth's Act, 131. How rectors closed upon all the tithes, 132. CHAPTER XII. Canons for Payment of Tithes, pages 133-145. Pope Alexander III.'s influence over English bishops to induce the people to pay the tithes, 133. Provincial Synod held in 1175 at Westminster, 133. A similar synod in North of England in 1195 for the payment of tithes, 133. The most important English canon for the payment of tithes, 1295 (23 Ed. I.), 134. Personal tithes by this canon, 134. Mortuary fees the origin of burial fees, 135. 2 and 3 Edw. VI., c. 13, modified personal tithes, 135. Timber tithable by canon in 1344, p. 135. Canon of 1344 led to bitter strife, 136. First victory of the young House of Commons as regards tithes, 136. Statute Contents. xiil of Mortmain, 136. How evaded by the monks, 137. Act of 1531 against land being willed to religious houses for more than 21 years, 137. Action of House of Commons against canons for the payment of tithes without the assent of Commons, 137. Some views in the " Brief" combated. Church of England holds her endowments by a Parliamentary title, 140. Amount received by parochial incumbents from the Common Fund, 141. Four-fifths of the Common Fund has come from national property granted to the Church, 142. From A.D. 1215, appropriating parochial tithes to monasteries abolished, 144. Three objects of original donors of Church endowments, 144. Dr. Howley, of Canterbury and Dr. Sumner, of Winchester at loggerheads in the ' Lords/' 144. CHAPTER XIIL Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries^ pages 146-158. Impetus to the building of monasteries, 146. Lay-owners arbitrarily appro- priated their tithes and churches to whom they wished, 147. The monks initiated the practice of appropriating parochial tithes, 146. Bishops, chapters, and nuns followed their example, 147. Form of conveyance used, 147. The incumbent not originally a freeholder proved from one of the Acts of Third Lateran Council, A.D. 1180, p. 148. This Council gave a death-blow to arbitrary lay appropriations, 148. Its decrees opposed by English lay-owners, 148. A national assembly at Westminster, A.D. 1125, condemned lay appro- priations, 149. They gradually ceased in the reigns of Richard I. and John, 149. Fourth Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, gave parsons the parochial rights to tithes for the future, 150. Monasteries and chapters had to show their title to tithes by grants or by prescriptions, 151. Monastic tithes were of two kinds, 151. 15 Richard II., c. 6 (1391), provides for the poor and the vicar, 153. Lord Selborne on this Act, 153. His remarks open to grave objections, 154. This Act failed, 154. So the Act 4 Henry IV., c. 12 (1403), was passed, 154. Vicar perpetual endowed by the bishop and not the monastery, 154. His three functions, 155. He was to provide for the poor out of his endow- ments, 155. A list of the small tithes given to vicars, 155. Various changes in shifting the persons who were to repair churches, 156. Archbishop Stratford's 4th canon made in a provincial council, A.D. 1342, for the maintenance of the poor, 157. The poor had a claim on the tithes from this canon and the Act of 1391, p. 157. The Act of 1403 gives the vicar a permanent position, 158, 159. CHAPTER XIV. Infeudations Exemptions from Payment of Tithes ', pages 159-162. Infeudations defined, 159. Third Lateran Council first forbid them, 159. Lay impropriations commenced after the dissolution of monasteries, 159. The value of this property then and now, 159. The present position of owners of monastic estates, 159, 160. The four privileged orders paid no tithes, 161. Purchasing bills of exemption put a stop to by 2 Henry IV., c. 4 (1400), p. 161. The Statute of Premunire, 16 Rich. II., c. 5 (1393), pp. 161, 162. Such lands still exempt by 31 Henry VIII., c. 13, p. 162. Contents. CHAPTER XV. . Monasteries, pages 163-176. A sketch of the origin and progress of monasteries in England, 163. Danes destroyed the monasteries, 164. This gave an impetus to building manorial churches, 165. King Edgar rebuilt them, 165. His leading church ideas, 165, 1 66. The English monks passed through three reformations, 166. The Norman bishops divided the properties of the cathedral church, 1 68. Table showing the monasteries built from William I. to Henry VI., 169. Alien monasteries, 170". Main indications of a religious revolutionary wave passing over England, 170. The preaching of Franciscans, Dominicans, and John. Wickliffe that tithes were only alms, 170-172. Wickliffe's opinions pro- nounced heretical, 171. Cathedral Act of 1840 [3 &4 Viet., c. 113] passed to sweep away Church abuses, 172. Beneficial effect of the Act, 173. The object of owners in appropriating tithes to monasteries, 175. Charter of the Earl of Chester to the Monastery of Chester, 176. CHAPTER XVI. Dissolution of Monasteries, pages 177-185. Eight cases to guide Henry VIII. in dissolving monasteries, 177. His own action in dissolving them, 179. Most objectionable appointments to college livings, 178. Henry VIII. made "Supreme head of the Church of England," 179. Political expediency swept away the monasteries, 1 80. Monasteries with less than ^200 a year dissolved by 27 Henry VIII., c. 28, p. 180. Property obtained ^32,000 per annum, and personal effects ;ioo,ooo, p. 1 80. The conditions upon which Parliament granted Henry VIII., and by him to others, such vast estates, 1 80. He created six new bishoprics ; he intended to create twenty-one, 181. The manors and palaces surrendered by Cranmer to the King, 182. The Act I Eliz., c. 19, p. 183. Houses dissolved by 31 Henry VI II., c. 13, p. 183. Three abbots executed, 184. Over 653 monasteries dissolved, 184. In 1546, 90 colleges, no hos- pitals, and 2,347 chantries suppressed by I Edward VI., c. 14, p. 185. The preamble ran, " For erecting grammar schools, augmenting universities, and a better provision for the poor and needy" This object completely failed, 185. An Act in Henry VIII. 's reign for payment of tithes, 185. Lands exempt from paying, 185. CHAPTER XVII. Tithes in the. City and Liberties of London, pages 186-200. How the London citizens, in early times, supported their clergy and churches, 186. Bishop Rogers' Constitution, 186. Archbishop Arundel's additional elevenpenny tax, 187. Constant quarrels by the citizens with the clergy about this extra charge, 187. In 1403 the Pope sided against the citi- zens and for the iir/., yet they considered it a cheat and fraud, 187. By 27 I [enry VIII., c. 21, the citizens were to pay their tithes at 2s. gd. in the pound, 188. Another change in the payment by 37 Henry VIII., c. 12, p. 188. The Contents. xv Fire Act of 1670 (22 23 Charles II., c. 15) regulating payments in lieu of tithes to 86 parishes, 188, 189. These annual payments increased by 44 Geo. III., c. 89 (1804), 190. Name of each church given, with the amount paid in 1670, 1804 and 1890 to each, 190-192. Churches consolidated in the city and liberties, 192. Amounts paid to other churches not included in the Fire Act, 194-200. CHAPTER XVIII. The Commutation Act vf 1836, pages 201-215. Tithe a tax on industry, 201. Paley's and Adam Smith's views on tithes, 201. Lord Althorp failed to solve the tithe problem, 202. Sir R. Peel's scheme, 202. Lord Russell's Commutation Bill, 202, 203. The principle of the Commutation Act, 203. Lord Russell said, " Tithes were the property of the nation," 203. Formula for finding the tithe-rent charge for any year, 204. The wording of the 8oth section, by which the landlord is to pay the tithe, 204, 205. But generally the tenant contracted himself out of this section, 205. The injustice of tithe-rent charges on one kind of property, 206. A re- valuation would be unjust and impracticable, 207, 208. The repeal of the Corn Laws an injustice to the tithe-owners, 208. Difference in amount be- tween tithe and tithe-rent charge, 207. Redemption of Tithe-rent Charges. The difficulty in dealing with this ques- tion, 209. Everything turns on the word "value, "209. Are we to start from "par value" or "current value?" 209. ;ioo commuted value should not be sold for less than .2,000, and reasons given, 210. Gross value of the tithe-rent charge of England and Wales, 210. Extraordinary Tithe-rent Charge. The Middlesex market-gardeners in- fluenced Lord Russell to introduce the above in his Bill, 211. The tax is against the principle of the Commutation Act, 211. Duty on hops repealed in 1862, p. 213. Market Gardens Act of 1873 an d its origin, 213. The Act of 1886, no new extraordinary charge to be made, 213. And to redeem such charges that were made under previous Acts, 213. An annual rent-charge free from rates on the redemption money in lieu of the extraordinary charge, 213, 214. CHAPTER XIX. Tithes of Church in Wales, pages 216-224. The gross commuted value of the Tithes in the four Welsh dioceses in 1836, p. 216. The same in 1890, p. 217. The clerical appropriations in Bangor, Llandaff, St. Asaph and St. David's, 217-221. The Vicars-choral of St. Asaph, 219. The amount of tithe-rent charge in possession of the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners in each of the thirteen counties in 1890, p. 223. Amount still outstanding on leases, p. 223. The annual payments of the Common Fund to the Welsh bishops, chapters, Archdeacon Lam peter, and parochial incumbents, p. 223. The net income derived from Wales, 224. The total gross revenues of the four Welsh dioceses from all sources, 224. Population ot Church people and of Dissenters in the four dioceses, 224. xvi Contents. CHAPTER XX. Tithe Act, 1891, pages 225-242. I. Liability of owner to pay tithe-rent charge, 226. 2. Recovery of tithe- rent charge through county court, 227. 3. Rules, 229. 4. Lands occupied rent free, 230. 5. Restrictions as to costs, 231. 6. Rating of owner of tithe- rent charge, 231. 7. Power of appeal, 232. 8. Remission of tithe-rent charge when exceeding two-thirds annual value of land, 233. 9. Definitions, 235. 10. Commencement and application of Act, 236. n. Repeal, 237. 12. Extent of Act and short title, 237. 13. Schedule of fees, 238. Remarks upon the Act. One of the main objects in passing this Act, 238. County court, a new machine, removing friction between tithe-owner and tithe-payer, 239. The tithe-payer cannot be imprisoned for non-payment, 240. Provision made to prevent collision between landowner and tithe-payer, 240. Section 4 upsets the main principle of the Act. 241. The tithe-owner must pay all rates, etc., 241. The Relief clause quite a misnomer, 242. Appendices, pages 243-258. Tithe-rent charges in 1836 of A. Archbishops and Bishops, 243. B. Chapters, 244. C. Separate estates of Deans, Precentors, Chancellors, Treasurers, and Prebendaries, Vicars Choral and Archdeacons, 245, 246. Summary of A, B, and C, 246. D. Universities, public schools, hospitals, charities, etc., 247, 248. Summaiy of D, 248. Beneficial operations of the Ecclesiastical Commission, 249, 250. Unsatisfactory results of extension of Local Claims in the Act, 1860, 250, 251. E. Septennial averages of wheat, barley, and oats for 55 years, ending 1890, p. 252. F. Summary by Counties of Tithe-rent charge in England and Wales, 253. G. Analysis of F, showing the number of old parishes, and the number appropriated to monasteries, etc., 254, 255. Explanation of this Analysis, 255, 256. II. Lands and money payments made in lieu of tithes by the Inclosure Acts, 257. I. Gross annual amount of Church Revenues, and number of Benefices and Parsonage Houses, 258. Index pages, 259-268. INTRODUCTION. WHEN engaged in writing the History of the Rise, Progress, and Present Position of the Ecclesiastical Commission for Eng- land, I had to deal with the endowments of the Church. My desire was to collect facts as to their origin in the Christian Church generally, and in the Church of England particularly. In searching after truth and facts, I experienced no little difficulty in arriving at correct conclusions, from the various contradictory statements on the subject. One party saw in the payment of tithes a continuity of old Scriptural laws in the Christian Church, payment which Christians were bound to make, whether they liked it or not ; passages from the Old and New Testaments were distorted, and forced meanings given to them ; apostolical con- stitutions were forged in support of their payment. What Isidore did as regards his forged decretals we find other writers did as regards tithes, and sham miracles are paraded in their works in support of tithes in the Christian Church. Another party, of whose views John Selden is the impartial exponent, took a more correct view of the subject, and denied that the patriarchal cus- tom, or Mosaic law, bound Christians to the payment of tithes qua tithes. He asserted, with truth, that the Divine Founder f the Christian religion and His apostles left behind them no ritten instructions for the payment of tithes, but the latter did state how the ministers were to be maintained, viz., on the purely xviii Introduction* voluntary principle. I am certain it is against the whole tenour of the New Testament writings, that any funds for the support of those who minister at the altar, or in building or repairing sanctuaries for divine worship, should be collected vi et armis. It is revolting to all Christian principles enunciated in the New Testament, that men should be imprisoned, or their goods seized, or, even as it has happened in Ireland within this century, be shot dead, because they refuse to pay tithes. But there have been, and there are still, men in England who unblushrngly justify all the above means by which an odious and unscriptural tax should be collected for the support of the ministers of the Church of England. Some foolish writers assert that the payment of tithes is not a tax. It is unquestionably a tax. On the other hand, there have been, and there are still, in England noble- minded, sympathetic, and large-hearted Christians, who have conscientiously opposed such taxation as unscriptural. For centuries after the Christian Era, the Christians paid no tithes qua tithes. In some of the episcopal writings of the second and third centuries suggestions are thrown out, but nothing more, recommending the payment of tithes according to the Mosaic law - 3 certainly not with the view of handing over to the ministers all the proceeds of such payments, but to supplement the Church funds for the support of the poor, the fabric of the churches, and the ministers. According to the Mosaic law, the priests received but the one-hundredth part of the tithes, for the Levites had also to be provided for. It was not until the fifth century that canons were passed for the payment of tithes. They were unknown in the British Church when Augustine landed on our shores, at the end of the sixth century. His mission was a mixture of good and evil. It was good, because it introduced among the Anglo-Saxons an Introduction. xix active evangelical spirit. It was evil, because it formed the first link of an alliance between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. From that time forward the bishops of Rome interfered in the discipline and doctrines of the English Church. They sent their legates to England to attend provincial synods and to pass canons for the payment of tithes, without consulting the laity. The Church of Rome never allows the laity to have a share or a voice in any ecclesiastical matters. That was always, and is still, the most prominent feature in her organization. In the eighth century, tithe free-will offerings were first given in Eng- land by a few individuals. In the ninth century Charlemagne passed the first lay law for the payment of tithes in his dominions. This was a great victory gained by the Church. His father, in A - D ' 75 5> g ave Ravenna to Pope Stephen III., and thus initiated the temporal territorial power of the popes. Milman in his history gives a sad account of the working of the tithe law in the Emperor's territories, so different to the teaching and spirit of the Gospel ! The laity, however, refused to pay the tax. In England, the custom of giving tithes as free-will offerings gradually began, as I stated above, in the eighth century, or eleven hundred years ago. The clergy were then quite satisfied with such voluntary offerings. A few only at first gave them ; then the number gradually increased, by means of the pressure exercised in the confessional box, in the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, until it finally became customary for all to pay their tithe offerings. The usual question put by the priest from the confessional box was, Did they duly pay their tithes to God ? In A.D. 850 a German bishop in his visitations had specially this article of inquiry, " Si decimas recte darent?" The custom in England gradually changed into a common right, and it was by virtue of this common right that people were legally bound to xx Introduction. pay tithes. There was no positive law made for their payment. But here is their injustice. When this custom commenced, the population of England and Wales could not have exceeded 160,000, with less than a quarter of a million of acres under cultivation, and yet this custom, originating under the above cir- cumstances, generated a common law right, which legally bound all subsequent generations to the payment of predial, mixt, and personal tithes. I call this barefaced injustice. It is utterly wrong to state, as some Church defenders do, that all the parochial tithe endowments were voluntarily bestowed on the Church by the landowners. In a subsequent part I have explained the 2 and 3 Edw. VI., c. 13, s. 5, about barren and waste grounds brought into cultivation, and also the lands and corn rents awarded in lieu of tithes by the various Inclosure Acts passed in the last and present centuries. Certain writers argue in the most unreasonable manner against the division of tithes in England, and assert that the parson was legally entitled to, and had enjoyed, all his tithes without diminu- tion. Lord Selborne, in his recent works, is the latest supporter of this erroneous view. In another part I have fully explained how untenable these views are. The Norman monks initiated the appropriation of tithes to monastic bodies. The lands belonging to the four privileged orders were specially exempted from paying tithes, whilst others purchased bulls of exemption from the popes. The Third and Fourth Lateran Councils, held in 1180 and 1215 respectively, issued decrees against Infeudations and for the payment of tithes. The latter council gave the English parson a common right to parochial tithes. General Councils in which the laity were unrepresented, had no right to pass decrees for the disposal of the private property of the laity to whatever religious Introduction. xxi purpose they wished, or for the payment of tithes. Their func- tions were confined to the discipline and doctrines of the Church. When monasteries and chantries were swept away by Henry VIII. and his son, the lands, tithes, and all other kinds of pro- perty passed to the Crown, and the Crown granted the greater part of the tithes to bishops and chapters in exchange for landed estates which were granted to laymen, many of whose posterity or assignees hold them at the present day. In Edward VI.'s reign about six millions of acres were under cultivation, but from that time to the present over twenty millions of acres of waste lands have been brought under cultivation, and for which tithes are paid. From A.D. 1547 to 1890, about 5,000 new parishes and districts have been formed, of which 1,530 were formed from A.D. 1547 to 1818, and about 3,470 from 1818 to the end of 1890. Towards the end of the first quarter of the present century there arose a cry for Church Reform. Dr. Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury, was the first to take steps, in 1829, to reform the then existing abuses in the Established Church, as to epis- copal revenues, commendams, non-residence of incumbents, sinecures, pluralities, etc., which were like so many cancers eating away the body politic. This led to Earl Grey's Royal Commission of Inquiry, dated 23rd of June, 1832 ; to Sir Robert Peel's Commission, dated 4th February, 1835 ; to the five remark- able reports of this Commission ; to the Episcopal Act and Tithe Commutation Act of 1836; to the Ecclesiastical Commission for England, 1836; to the Pluralities Act of 1838 ; to the Cathedral Act of 1840; in fine, to the passing, from 1836 to 1890, or fifty- five years, of about one hundred and thirty statutes directly and indirectly affecting the Church of England, besides some thousands of Orders in Council, having the force of Acts of Parliament when published in the London Gazette. Yet many x x i i Introduction. Churchmen boastingly assert that the Church of England has received no help from the State (!) The Ecclesiastical Com- mission is actually a State Department. And what amount ot money would have remunerated the members of the various successive governments from 1832, who boldly stepped forward to drag the State Church out of that sink of abuses in which the first Reformed Parliament found her ? If our leading statesmen in and after 1832 had not promptly and energetically taken steps to reform the flagrant abuses of the Church, it could not possibly long survive as an Established Church. The Commutation Act of 1836 settled a long-burning question. The gross value of the tithes was about six millions. These were commuted to four millions. The landlords not only gained two millions, but also increased rentals from the improvements which their tenants made when the tithe was commuted into a corn rent payable in money and permanent in quantity, but fluctuating yearly in value, so that any improved value given to land would not increase the amount of the rent charge. Again, the land- lords gained about half a million a year by the various changes which were made in the extraordinary tithe rent charges. By the Commutation Act, the landlords and not the tenants are the reaV tithe-rent payers. But the landlords having contracted them- selves out of the 8oth clause of that Act, and having arranged with the tenants to pay the tithe rent-charge, a good deal of ill- -feeling has sprung up in certain parts of the country, especially in Wales, on the part of the farmers against the tithe-owners. The Tithe Act of 1891 makes the owner of the lands and not the occupier liable for the tithe-rent charge. Henry VIIL, as "Supreme Head of the Church of England/' made no change in her doctrines, and the clergy received their tithes as hitherto for saying masses for the repose of the souls of Introduction. xxiii departed parishioners, granting absolution, teaching transubstan- tiation and doctrines as regards purgatory. The tithes and landed endowments were originally granted for teaching these doctrines. But in the reigns of his son and Elizabeth changes were made in both ritual and doctrines, and those incumbents who refused to adopt the doctrines, framed in accordance with those used in the Primitive Christian Church, were deprived of their incumbencies and consequently of their tithes and other Church endowments. But there was no physical transfer made then of such endow- ments, and the Church was the same Church of England, but reformed. Their successors, who embraced the doctrines against masses, purgatory, absolution, confession, transubstantiation, etc., were appointed on the condition of strictly complying with the Act of Uniformity and of the doctrines enunciated in the Thirty- nine Articles. It was in virtue of such compliance that they were put in possession by Acts of Parliament of the tithes and other endowments of the Church, which their predecessors had enjoyed. It was purely a change of usufructuary possessors without the least disturbance of the property. The new tenant solemnly engaged to comply with the new laws of the Church ; the old tenant refused to do so, and had therefore to leave. That was all. The incoming trustee held his endowments by a Parlia- mentary Title. The present usufructuary possessors of Church endowments hold them also on the above conditions, and by the same Parliamentary Title. And as Parliament gave the Title, it can also change the Title. But how do matters stand now? Dr. Vaughan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, in a small pamphlet recently published, says of the Church of England, "Its bishops, ministers and people are busily engaged in ignoring or denouncing those very articles which were drawn up to be their eternal protest against the old religion. The sacramental power x x i v Introduction. of orders, the need of jurisdiction, the Real Presence, the daily sacrifice, auricular confession, prayers and offices for the dead, belief in purgatory, the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, religious vows, and the institution of monks and nuns the very doctrines stamped in the Thirty-nine Articles as fond fables and blasphemous deceits all these are now openly taught from a thousand pulpits within the Establishment, and as heartily em- braced by as many crowded congregations. Even the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been recently enthroned upon a majestic altar under the great dome of St. Paul's." From these facts Bishop Vaughan claims that England is already " half Catholic." A HISTORY OF TITHES. CHAPTER I. BEFORE THE CHRISTIAN ERA. THE first instance on record of the payment of tithes is found in Genesis xiv. 20, when Abraham, after having rescued Lot, was returning a victor from the battle with the spoils of war. King Melchizedek met him on the way, and Abraham gave him, in his office of priest of God, "tithes of all." It is a disputed point whether Abraham meant a tithe of all his property or of all spoils of war which he had with him. The next instance we find is the vision of Jacob's ladder. He vowed to God " Of all that Thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto Thee" (Gen. xxviii. 22). It is laid down in the Mosaic law, " And thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field brought forth year by year " (Deut. xiv. 22). It is important to note the word "increase" in this passage, which in our law courts had often decided disputed cases, whether certain things were tithable or not. For instance, Were all herbs tithable? Only those which man eats. In Leviticus xxvii. 30-32, " All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's : and the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord." It was the custom for a person to B A History of Tithes. be at the sheep-cot with a coloured rod, and as the sheep came out one by one, every tenth was marked with this rod ; and that is what is meant by " passing under the rod." The priests at Jerusalem received the first fruits and heave offerings, but not the tithes. The heave offerings were the one- sixtieth of the gross produce. But the tithes were devoted to the whole tribe of Levi at Jerusalem, and they gave the tithe of their tithes to the priests that is, one-hundredth part. It was from this custom, and in order to support the Crusades, that the popes of Rome exacted, early in the fourteenth century, the first fruits and the tithe of the tithes from the hierarchy and beneficed clergy, who were under their spiritual jurisdiction. And when King Henry the Eighth displaced the pope and assumed the supreme authority in the Church, he also exacted the first fruits and tenths. Queen Anne, by an Act passed in 1704, gave the first fruits and tenths back to the Church for the special purpose of augmenting poor livings. After the destruction of the second temple and the dispersion of the Jews, the payment of tithes among the Jews ceased, be- cause they thought that Jerusalem alone was the place where tithes ought to be paid, and also because it became impossible to trace out the tribe and priesthood to whom alone they were to be paid. It is a question whether the Jews who were converted to Christianity before the destruction of the second temple had paid tithes to the Levites. The heathen nations seem to have copied and adopted the Jewish custom of paying tithes. We read of the Greeks having paid tithes of the spoils of war to Apollo, and of the Romans to Hercules. But, properly speaking, they were not the sort of tithes mentioned in the Mosaic Law. They were only arbitrary vows and offerings ; but no conclusion can be drawn that they Before the Christian Era. were tithes because tenths were given. Sometimes the heathen offered more and sometimes less than one-tenth. Some ardent supporters of the payment of tithes make them- selves ridiculous in tracing their origin to Adam. They state that Adam paid tithes. Here is their story as stated by Selden : " God charged Adam when there was but one man in the world that he should give Him the tenth part of everything, and to teach his children to do the same ; but as there was no man to receive it for Holy Church, God commanded that the tenth part of every- thing should be burned. In the offerings of Cain and Abel, Abel tithed truly of the best, but Cain tithed falsely of the worst. Cain killed Abel because he said he tithed evil. So people mu&t see that false tithing was the cause of the first murder, and it was the cause that God cursed the earth." l It is very wrong that Scriptural passages, such as that given above, should be distorted in order to induce people to pay tithes to " Holy Church." 1 Selden's " History of Tithes," p. 169. CHAPTER II. FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA TO THE COUNCIL OF MASQON. IN Apostolical times the Christian ministers were supported by voluntary contributions out of a common fund, and this practice prevailed for four hundred years. 1 Those who preached the Gospel lived by the Gospel, but this Scriptural statement did not mean, as some assert, that they were to live on the payment of tithes, otherwise it would have been stated. St. Paul ordered weekly collections to be made for the saints in the Churches of Galatia and Corinth (i Cor. xvi. i, 2). The voluntary contribu- tions of the faithful were collected and put into a common treasure (Acts ii. 44 ; iv. 34). The liberality of the Christians then far exceeded anything which could have been collected from tithes. And even if tithes had been exacted, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the progress of Christianity would not have been materially checked at its outset. The Jewish Law, as regards the payment of tithes, was not binding on Christians, no more than the custom of bigamy and polygamy adopted by the Israelites is binding on the Christian Church. There is no injunction in the New Testament binding Christians to pay tithes to their ministers. And when the pay- ment was first urged in the Christian Church, it was supported by references to the Mosaic Law and not to St. Paul's words, viz., " That those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel." 1 Van Espen, "jus Univ. Canon," pars. ii. sec. 4. 4 From the Christian Era to the Council of Masgon. 5 There was a growing habit of looking upon the clergy as the successors and representatives of the Levites under the Old Law, and this habit had given an impulse to that claim which they set up to the payment of tithes by the laity. 1 The Apostolical Constitutions for the Christian Church, col- lected, as it is alleged, by Pope Clement I., the successor as is said of St. Peter, first bishop of Rome, were fabricated more than eight centuries after apostolical times. Cardinal Bellarmine is honest enough to ignore them. But they imposed on the credulous and were accepted without criticism as genuine, even by canonists, in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Selden thinks they were concocted about A.D. 1000 ; others think in 1042. In these Constitutions tithes are stated to have been paid by the Christians to the Apostles. Sir H. Spelman (p. 108) thinks the first thirty-five canons are very ancient. " Dionysius Exiguus," he says, "who lived within 400 years after the Apostles, trans- lated them out of Greek." The fifth canon ordained that first fruits and tithes should be sent to the house of the bishops and priests, and not to be offered upon the altar. The Greek word in the copy is not Se/caor/Ws. No solid argument for the payment of tithes can be founded on this canon, for if we take the custom of the Anglo-Saxon Churches at the end of the sixth century, which was in accordance with that in primitive times, we find no account for the payment of tithes. "There is no mention of tithes," says Lord Selborne, "in any part of the ancient canon law of the Roman Church, collected towards the end of the fifth century by Dionysius (called Exiguus or the Little), a Scythian monk who collected 401 Oriental and African canons." 2 1 See Kemble's " Anglo-Saxons," New Ed, : 1876, vol. ii. 473. 2 " Facts and Fictions," pp. 9, 47. A History of Tithes. The monks in their cells had sufficient leisure to concoct these Constitutions, and palm them on the credulous as the genuine production of the Apostles. The concocted Constitutions were copied and handed down from century to century without any attempt being made to test their genuineness and authenticity. It seems exceedingly strange that African divines and laymen should refer to the Apostolical Constitutions as an authority for the pay- ment of tithes in apostolic times, although Cardinal Bellarmine, a great champion of " Holy Church," ignored them. 1 Churchmen like Archdeacon Tillesley, many of whom are in the receipt of tithes or tithe-rent charges, will naturally act like drowning men, and snatch even at passing straws to save the tithes. Could anything, for example, be more childish and absurd than the story of tracing the payment of tithes to Adam ? And what .makes the case worse is to distort Scripture so as to deceive the people who could neither read nor write, and even those who could read had no open Bible to consult to see for themselves whether these things were so. Members of the Anglican Church forget when using such weapons as the " Constitutions " in support of tithes, that the very cause of the English Reformation in the sixteenth century was the adoption into the English Church of the traditions and errors of the Church of Rome, which were said to have been handed down by the Apostles in the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, although many of them can be shown to be contrary to the Scriptures. Archdeacon Tillesley does not defend the whole volume of the so- called Constitutions of Clement I., but he does that part which deals with the payment of tithes. He evidently had forgotten the mechanical axiom, that nothing is stronger than its weakest part. 1 See the Animadversions on Selden's " History of Tithes," in 1621, by Dr, R. Tillesley, Archdeacon of Rochester. From the Christian Era to the Council of Mas$on. 7 ' " Because the early Christians," he says, " were liberal to the Church, therefore it was reasonable that tithes in the { Constitu- tional Apostolical' were true." Nothing of the sort, because it does not follow as a logical sequence. After apostolical times, monthly offerings and oblations, we are informed, were made in all the churches, and were used for three purposes, (i) In maintaining the clergy; (2) in supporting the sick and needy ; and (3) in repairing the church fabric. These monthly contributions were in the third century augmented by grants of lands, which were annexed to churches, the revenues derived from which were appropriated to the same three pur- poses. In A.D. 322 Constantine, the first Christian emperor, published an edict which gave full liberty to his subjects to be- stow as large a proportion of their property to the clergy as they should think proper. From all these sources of revenue the Christian Church was rapidly increasing in wealth. But for more than four hundred years after the Christian era there was no authoritative Church canon made for the payment of tithes ; and then such canon was founded upon the Mosaic Law. The ques- tion then is, are Christians justified in adopting the Mosaic Law for the payment of tithes ? This law had no force outside Jewish territory. There is no order in the New Testament for their payment. Among the Jews we fail to find such anomalies, rather scandals and misappropriations, in respect to the distribution of tithes, as are found in England and Wales. The gross amount of tithe-rent charge is slightly over four millions per annum. Add to this the extraordinary rent charges on hops, the corn rents and extensive lands awarded in lieu of tithes by the large number of Inclosure Acts. Among the Jews we find no record of lay im- propriators, schools, colleges, charities and hospitals receiving tithes. Granted, for argument's sake, that the Christian priesthood A History of Tithes. as succeeding the Mosaic priesthood, claimed the tithes according to the Mosaic Law, then it is a misappropriation of tithes to give them to those outside the priesthood, and who perform no spiritual functions. We must therefore go back to very early times, to the history of tithes in the Christian Church, for the beginning of the scandalous misappropriations of tithe endowment for spiritual purposes. In England the scandal commenced after the Nor- man Conquest with the Norman monks who were in English monasteries. About one-fourth of the whole tithe rent charge is appropriated or rather misappropriated to lay purposes by laymen, many of whom are quite unconnected with the religious duties of those parishes from which the tithes arise. Then, again, we have a large extent of land formerly monastic which is tithe free. There are also lands in the vicinity of large cities and towns built upon, for which the landlords receive enormous ground rents, and when the leases expire they take possession of the house property. But they pay nothing to the Church for the increased value of their land, which may be one hundred times the yearly value per acre before it was built upon. In the Christian Church tithes were at first given by the faith- ful as spontaneous offerings, at the urgent solicitations of the clergy. " Nam nemo compellitur," says Tertullian, " sed sponte confert," These spontaneous tithe free-will offerings were not given in cash but in kind. Some gave a tithe of sheep, others of wool, or of corn, etc., just according to the free-will of the donor. This was the germ of tithes in the Christian Church, which com- menced in the fourth century, and were ordered to be paid by canon law about the beginning of the fifth century. These canons were framed and passed by ecclesiastics. The people who paid had no voice in the matter. The canons which were framed -From the Christian Era to the Council of Masgon. 9 afterwards had ordered them to be paid as a right, as a divine law of the Old Testament, and were not to be considered as free- will offerings. Here is just that specimen of arbitrary conduct on the part of the ecclesiastics which would only be tolerated in the dark and middle ages. Tithes were too profitable a source of revenue to be ignored in the Christian Church. A book entitled, "The Englishman's Brief on behalf of his National Church," has been published by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. A good cause needs no fiction to bolster it up. In that book there is quite twice as much fiction as fact. The exten- sive circulation of this mixture has embarrassed many in gaining a correct knowledge of the tithe question from the earliest period to the present time. It is written in the style adopted by special pleaders. It gives a one-sided account of the subject. It asks questions and then furnishes the answers. The answers are most misleading and also erroneous, and it carefully omits a great deal which could be said on the other side. I strongly object to this way in dealing with so important a subject as the history of tithes in this country. To be appreciated, the "Brief" should be im- partial, which it is not. It is not my object to review the book here seriatim, and to point out what is fiction and what is fact. In my statements a good deal of the fiction is refuted indirectly without reference to the " Brief." But I may just indicate one remarkable feat of fiction which appears in it. When the Chris- tian religion was first propagated, the writer of the " Brief" would have us to believe that the converted Jews transferred the pay- ment of their tithes from the Jewish to the Christian ministers, just as easily and as quietly as one could transfer the payment of a cheque from one bank to another. Here is the statement, " So that when the Jews and heathen became Christian, throwing off their old religion and adopting the new religion of Christianity, io A History of Tithes. they never dreamt of being less liberal to that form of religion which they loved the more and had adopted, than they had been towards that which they had loved the less and had discarded. Hence the transfer of tithes from the old religion to the new re- ligion." 1 We are not informed upon what authority this state- ment is made. There is nothing about it in Josephus. There is no order in the New Testament for the payment of tithes. No order of a general or provincial council. We read nothing of this in the writings of the first and second centuries. We read of ex- hortations to pay tithes in the writings of the third and fourth centuries. We read of canons having been made for their pay- ment in the fifth century. But I have failed to find any evidence to support the statement quoted above from the " Brief." The Provincial Council of French bishops, held at Masgon in A.D. 586, is commonly considered to have been the earliest council which ordained the payment of tithes. It ordained, " Ut decimas ecclesiasticas omnis populus inferat, quibus sacerdotes aut in pauperum usum, aut in captivorum redemptionem erogatis, suis orationibus pacem populo ac salutem impetrent." Isidore, in his compilation of decrees of councils, makes no reference to this council. Friar Crab is the first to have mentioned it in his edition of the councils under Charles V. Lord Selborne considers the canon of this council as spurious, because it proves too much, for it wanted to prove that the Mosaic Law, as regards the payments of tithes, was regarded in A.D. 586 not only as binding from the first upon Christians, but also as having been for centuries universally observed. This was going too far, in his lordship's opinion, and therefore he stamped it as spurious. Selden was the first to throw considerable doubt 1 Page 34. From the CJiristian Era to the Council of Mas$on. 1 1 upon the genuineness of this canon at the Council at Masgon. 1 The mistake originated in calling the offerings and oblations tithes. The same mistake is repeated by writers at the present time. For instance, Dr. J. *S. Brewer, in his " Endowments and Establish- ment of the Church of England," 2nd Edition, 1885, translates " portiones " (quoted from Bede), tithes. Pope Gregory says in his reply to Archbishop Augustine's question, "Communi autem vita viventibus jam de faciendis portionibus, vel exhibenda hos- pitalite et adimplenda misericordia, nobis quid erit loquendurn." " But as for those who live in common, why should we say any- thing now of making portions ? " etc. Brewer translates the passage thus, " As for those who are living in common, I need give no advice about dividing tithes" etc. Now, the Latin word for tithe is decima, and is so used in all the monastic charters. The same writer states, and he is followed by writers of leaflets for the Church Defence Institution, that the scriptural precept, " To live of the Gospel " (i Cor. ix. 14), refers to the payment of tithes. I am certain that St. Paul never intended anything of the sort. I fully admit that the passage may cover a tithe free-will offering, as it would any other free-will offering, but I cannot admit that it implies a compulsory payment of tithes, that is, to carry it to its logical sequence, a distraint on the goods of a per- son who is unable or unwilling to pay tithe. Such compulsion would be contrary to the spirit of the Gospel of Christ. I hold strongly to the view that free-will offerings are the only scriptural mode for the maintenance of the Christian ministry, and these are the same kind of offerings to which Pope Gregory referred in his answers to Augustine's questions. The instances are many in which words of old authors and passages of Scripture are not only strained but intentionally dis- 1 " Ancient Facts and Fictions," Edition 1888, pp. 47, 48. Selden, p. 58. 12 A History of Tithes. torted, in order to show the early origin of tithes. There is nothing gained, bat much confidence lost, in this critical age by distorting the meaning of, or giving a forced interpretation to, plain words of Scripture, or of secular and religious writers. The Christian religion had been introduced into Britain at a very early date, and from Britain it passed over to Ireland. Ire- land was. specially remarkable for her evangelical missionary monks, who visited Scotland, England, and the Continent, for the purpose of converting the heathen. Its geographical position favoured a quiet, retired and contemplative life. Britain served as a buffer for many centuries against the piratical devastations of the northern hordes. The inhabitants of Ireland were therefore left in quiet and undisturbed possession of their lands, churches, and monasteries at a time when the inhabitants of Britain were driven from the east and south to the west of the island ; their lands were taken from them, their churches and monasteries were pillaged, and then burnt down by the invaders. CHAPTER III. THE ROMAN- MISSION TO ENGLAND. IN A.D. 596 Pope Gregory, commonly called Gregory the Great, selected Augustine, prior of St. Gregory's monastery in Rome, to conduct in the same year a mission to Britain in order to con- vert the people to Christianity. The journey to Britain was then considered a hazardous undertaking, being thought in so remote a part of the world. Even this band of Christian pioneers became disheartened on their journey. Augustine, much dis- couraged, left his companions in France and returned to Rome, but Gregory sent him back, urging him and them to valiantly carry out their mission. In 597 Augustine and forty companions landed in the Isle of Thanet. Ethelbert, a noble-hearted, liberal-minded and intelli- gent heathen, was then King of Kent ; but his wife, Bertha, daughter of Charibert, King of Paris, was a Christian. Augustine announced his arrival to the king, and the object of his mission, The king repaired to Thanet and granted an interview to Augustine and his companions. He was much impressed with their external ceremonies, and permitted them to reside in Canter- bury, the metropolis of his kingdom. He presented his palace in Canterbury t0 Augustine as a residence for himself and his successors. On the 2nd of June in the same year the king publicly declared himself a Christian and was baptized. On the 1 7th November, 597, Augustine went to France and was con- 14 A History of Tithes. secrated archbishop by the Archbishop of Aries, and returned to England in 598. There were at that time in the island some British Churches, bishops and clergy, but no divisions of parishes, no parish churches, no connection with the Roman Church, and indubi- tably no tithes whatever were paid. We are therefore on solid ground in asserting that during the first six hundred years of the Christian era there is no genuine record of tithes in any shape or form having been paid or given to the clergy of this island. The Roman Mission subsequently produced mighty changes in the Church of England through this initial connection. In the several letters which the popes addressed to the kings and arch- bishops of England in subsequent centuries, constant references are made to Augustine's mission ; and the popes refer to this event as the source of their supreme authority over the Church of England. King Ethelbert's laws which were passed between 596 and 605, recognise Christianity and the Christian priesthood. Bede in- forms us that they were enacted by the advice of his Witan. 1 Article i. " The property of God and the Church [when stolen, a fine of] twelve-fold ; a bishop's property, eleven-fold ; a priest's property, nine-fold ; a deacon's property, six-fold, etc.' ; 2 The title runs thus, " These are the dooms which King Ethelbert established in the days of Augustine." The Laws of Ethelbert and other Kentish kings are taken by Mr. Thorpe from the Textus RoffensiS) in possession of the Dean and Chapter of Rochester, and is the only ancient manuscript in which they are found. The manuscript is of the twelfth century. " We shall hardly," says Mr. Kemble, " be saying too much if 1 " Hist. Eccl." ii* 5 : cum consilio sapientium. 2 Thorpe's "Ancient Laws," etc. i. 3. The Roman Mission to England. 1 5 we affirm that the introduction of Christianity was at least ratified by a solemn act of the Witan." x In 60 1 Augustine received his pall from Rome, died on the 26th of May, 605, and was buried in St. Augustine's Abbey, near the high altar. He was not of the Benedictine order of monks, but followed the order of Pope Gregory in the cloister which he had founded in Canterbury. 2 In 602 he laid the foundation ot his cathedral church in Canterbury. In 604 he ordained Melli- tus, one of his companions, bishop of London ; and Justus, another companion, bishop of Rochester. King Ethelbert granted them London and Rochester respectively as their episcopal sees. 3 These bishops and their clergy were then but missionaries among the heathen Saxons in the country, and being monks, had lived together close to their cathedral churches, from which they pro- ceeded as itinerant preachers to the neighbouring localities. The bishop's church was at first the only one in his diocese, hence it was called mater ecclesia. Subsequently it was called the Catht- dral Church, because the bishop's cathedra, sedes, stool or chair was in the choir and on the same level with the seats of other mem- bers of the choir. But now there are only two cathedral churches in England in which the bishop's seat or throne is in the choir, and that in a raised position. In all the other cathedrals, the throne is placed outside the choir in a conspicuous part of the church. The bishop's circuit or diocese was the parish. It will here- after be shown that the origin of parishes was erroneously traced back to the episcopal division of dioceses, when " parish " and " diocese " were synonymous. 1 " Saxons in England," ii. 205. 2 Hook's " Archbishops," i. 134. 8 The three bishoprics were thus State creations in the kingdom of Kent, and were then established and endowed by the State, with the approval of the Witenagemot. See Hook, i. 59. 1 6 A History of Tithes. The bishop was originally both bishop and rector of the parish or diocese, and the episcopi clerici were his curates. Augustine, Mellitus, and Justus, and their respective clergy were supported by the offerings and oblations of their flocks, which were brought to the bishop's house, and put into a common fund, which was disposed of by the bishop himself. Canon law gave the bishop the right over all these collections Augustine asked Pope Gregory, "Into how many portions ought the oblations given by the faithful to the altar to be divided?" " De *his quae fidelium oblationibus accedunt altari, quantae debeant fieri portiones ?" He answered, " That all emoluments which accrue ought to be divided into four portions, namely, one for the bishop and his family, because of hospitality and enter- tainments : another for the clergy ; a third for the poor ; and the fourth for the repair of churches." " Ut in omni stipendio, quod accedit, quatuor debeant fieri portiones ; una, videlicet, episcopo et familiae propter hospitalitatem atque susceptionem, alia clero, tertia pauperibus, quarta ecclesiis reparandis." The pope added, " But because your brotherhood has been brought up under monastic rules, you ought not to live apart from your clergy in the English Church, which, by God's assistance, has been lately brought to the faith ; you ought to follow that course of life which our forefathers did in the time of the primitive Church, when none of them said anything that he possessed was his own, but all things were in common among them." " Sed quia tua fraternitas monasterii regulis erudita, seorsum fieri non debet a clericis suis in ecclesia Anglorum, quae, auctore Deo nuper adhuc ad fidem adducta est, harfc debet conversationem instituere, quae initio nascentis ecclesiae fuit patribus nostris; in quibus nullus eorum ex his, quae possidebant, aliquid suum esse dicebat, sed erant eis omnia communia." The Roman Mission to England. i7 He further adds, " But as for those who live in common, why need we say anything of making portions ? " " Communi autem vita viventibus jam de faciendis portionibus, nobis quid erit loquendum." x This last passage is thus translated by Mr. Brewer and en- dorsed by the new editor, Mr. Lewis T. Dibdin, a barrister : " For those who are living in common (i.e. the monks) I need give no advice about dividing tithes or offerings among them." 3 It is not only misleading, but bad scholarship to translate " portiones " by " tithes." DecimSaxon manuscripts appear, but none of Church Mund and Church Grith laws, because they were not bound up in that volume, and I shall presently prove that these manuscripts were not in the library during the lives of Sir Robert and his son, but were put there towards the end of his grandson's life. Therefore Selden and Spelman, and other antiquarians who consulted Sir Robert's library, did not and could not see the Church Mund and Church Grith laws of King Ethelred II. in the Worcester volume, as it is called, and where they are now bound up. Were they in any other parcel or volume in the library? They were not. Here is the proof. In 1629 the Privy Council ordered the library to be locked up, and a catalogue to be taken of the whole contents of the library in order to find out whether any of the King's books were in it. In 1631 Sir ioo A History of Tithes. Robert died; and in 1632 an engrossed official catalogue was made out by order of the Privy Council. That catalogue is now in the Cottonian Library, in the British Museum, marked "Add. MSS. 8926." I have carefully examined the roll; it has three seals attached to it ; the titles of the manuscripts and books are arranged under thirty-five headings, beginning with " Libri Historici." But there are no press marks such as Nero, A. i, Claudius, B. 3. Another heading is, " Libri Saxonici," under which every Anglo-Saxon manuscript in the library in 1632 was placed; but the Church Mund and Church Grith manuscripts do not appear under this heading. Then when were they placed in the library and in this volume Nero, A. i ? Sir Robert's son and grandson added considerably to the library. Sir John, the grandson, had given permission to Dr. Thomas Smith to make a catalogue of the contents of the fourteen presses. In 1696 Dr. Smith published the first printed catalogue in which the Worcester volume, Nero, A. i, contains only the same ten Anglo-Saxon headings which appear in the list of 1632. I con- clude that the Church Mund and Church Grith laws were not in the Worcester volume in 1695, when Dr. Smith penned his Preface. An Act of Parliament was passed in 1700 vesting the Library, after the death of Sir John, in trustees, who were Matthew Hutton, John Anstis, and Humphrey Wanley. Sir John died in 1702. The library then passed at once into the custody of the three trustees. The first thing done was to make out a catalogue of the contents of the library on the death of Sir John, when the trustees took possession. In 1705, Wanley, one of the trustees, published his " Antiquae Literaturse Septentrionalis Liber, etc.' ; His preface is dated 28th August, 1704. For the first time the Church Mund and Church Grith laws appear in The Laws of Ethelred II. 101 Wanley's Catalogue. He was the first who named the volume Nero A. i as the " Worcester " volume, and Platna copied Wanley. From these facts I conclude that the above laws were purchased or otherwise obtained by Sir John Cotton, and were put into the " Worcester " volume between 1695 and 1702. I am aware that Dr. Smith's catalogue was very imperfect, and these laws might have been in the library when he issued his imperfect catalogue. But this is a pure conjecture on my part. My conclusions are based on facts, and not on conjectures. There is not the slightest doubt about the correctness and com- pleteness of the official catalogue of 1632. They were not then in the library. I have considered these details as vitally essential in the im- portant discussion which is here to follow. LORD SELBORNE'S "ANCIENT FACTS AND FICTIONS." He has published a book on "Ancient Facts and Fictions concerning Churches and Tithes," in which he has devoted a large portion to prove that the Church Grith law of A.D. 1014 "was either a draft or project of laws which the framer, evidently an ecclesiastic of /Elfric's school, wished to have enacted. . . . There is indeed now written in the margin of that manuscript, 1 in a small modern hand, the date 'A . Dom. 101 4.'" 2 I have often examined the manuscript, and found the reading to be " A no . dni. 1014." Lord Selborne gives the reading as it is printed in the Catalogue, but decidedly it is not the reading in the manuscript. It is supposed to have been written by Josseline, secretary to Archbishop Parker. There is internal evidence in article 43 to support this date (1014), viz. 1 Church Grith. 2 "Facts and Fictions," pp. 277, 281. 102 A History of Tithes. " But let us do as is needful to us ; let us take to us for an example that which former secular Witan deliberately instituted. Athelstan and Edmund, and Edgar who was last" etc. Ethelred had returned from exile in the spring of 1014, after which this law was passed. In reference to the above words in italics, Lord Selborne says that Edward (975-979) reigned between Edgar and Ethelred, and therefore Edgar could not have been the last; 1 but it must be remarked also that Edred and Edwy who reigned between Edmund and Edgar, are also omitted in this 43rd article. Then why had the framers of the whole law particularized the names of Athelstan, Edmund, and Edgar, and leave out Edred, Edwy, and Edward? If we look at the arrangement of the Anglo-Saxon laws, we find the order as above, viz., the laws of Athelstan, next those of Edmund, and next the laws of Edgar, none by Edward, then come the laws of Ethelred. The 43rd Article referred to these laws, and therefore Edgar's were the last. So there is no force in Lord Selborne's remarks. King Ethelred's law on the threefold division of tithes has been found so important in the discussion on the tripartite division that Lord Selborne has devoted all his eminent legal powers, though unsuccessfully, to upset this Anglo-Saxon law. (i) His first witnesses are Selden, Spelman, Lambarde, Whee- lock, and John Johnson. "Selden and Spelman," says Lord Selborne, "were well acquainted with the Worcester (Cottonian) manuscript; and as neither of them made mention of this Church Grith document, it may be inferred that they did not regard it as having the cha- racter or the authority of a law." 2 1 "Facts and Fictions," p. 283. 3 Idem, pp. 280, 281. The Laws of Ethelred II. 103 " If Lambarde, Wheelock, and John Johnson," continues Lord Selborne, " were acquainted with either manuscript Church and Mund, and Church Grith (the contrary supposition is impro- bable), the inference as to them also, from their silence about it (i.e. the Church Grith) must be the same," i.e. that " they did not regard it as having the character or the authority of a law." * I shall examine these five writers seriatim. (1) John Selden published his "History of Tithes" in 1618. I have already proved that the Church Grith law was not in Sir Robert Cotton's library in 1632. It was therefore impossible for Selden to have seen it in the "Worcester manuscript." The " Worcester (Cottonian) manuscript " is a very vague and loose way to express the Worcester (Cottonian) volume Nero, A. i. The fact is that Selden had never seen or heard of the Church Grith law, otherwise he would unquestionably have re- ferred to such a law in his " History of Tithes." In dealing with Egbert's Excerptions, Selden has quoted largely in his " History of Tithes" from this very volume, which contained the Excerptions, and which volume in his time had no particular name. In his marginal quotation he merely informs his readers that they were taken from a " MS. in the Biblioth. Cottoniana." We have lost the advantage of his valuable opinion on the Church Grith law, by its absence from the volume from which he had made large quo- tations on other subjects. I agree with Lord Selborne that Mr. Selden was well acquainted with the contents of the volume ; but I totally disagree with his lordship's inference as regards Selden's silence on the Grith Law, because that law was not in the volume for him to see or read ; nor was it in the library. (2) Sir Henry Spelman published his first volume of the "Concilia" in 1639. In this volume he gives only two of King 1 "Facts and Fictions," p. 281. IO4 A History of Tithes. Ethelred's laws out of the nine given by Thorpe. As a matter of fact, he, like Selden, had never seen or heard of the Church Grith law. Spelman was one of Sir Robert's most intimate friends, and had access to every manuscript and book in his library. Lord Selborne assumes without any authority that the so-called Worcester volume in Cotton's Library, open to the inspection of Selden and Spelman, contained all the manuscripts which it now contains. If Lord Selborne had only taken the trouble of reading the original list of manuscripts on the first page of the volume, he would see at once that the Church Mund and Church Grith are not in the list of manuscripts contained then in that volume. Therefore Selden and Spelman could not have seen them. The original list, and no more, is in the catalogue of 1632. (3) William Lambarde, the Kent antiquarian, published his collection of Anglo-Saxon Laws in 1568, in which the Church Grith law does not appear, from which Lord Selborne again infers that Lambarde did not regard it as having the character or the authority of a law. Let us apply his Lordship's canon of criticism to other omissions made by Lambarde in his collec- tion of Anglo-Saxon laws, and then see to what conclusions such inferences lead. He omitted the Laws of the Kentish Kings, the Laws of William the Conqueror and of Henry I. Then are we to infer that Lambarde saw these " documents," but would not notice them in his collection because " he did not regard them as having the character or authority of laws "? This is really the logical sequence of Lord Selborne's in- ferential canon of criticism, as regards Lambarde's omission of the Church Grith law. The fact is that he, like Selden and Spelman, had never seen the law. (4) Wheelock published a second edition of Lambarde's The Laws of Ethelred II. 105 "Laws" in 1644, in which he added the laws of the Conqueror and of Henry I., but omitted the laws of the Kentish kings. Why? Must the answer be according to Lord Selborne's canon of criticism, viz., that " he regarded them as not having the cha- racter or the authority of laws " ? No. He, like Lambarde, had not seen the Kentish laws or the Church Grith law. (5) John Johnson published a " Collection of the Laws and Canons of the Church of England," in 1720, mainly founded upon Spelman's " Concilia," Mr. John Baron, in his new edition of Johnson's collection, published in 1850, says, "Mr. Thorpe publishes some ecclesias- tical laws of King Ethelred at pp. 129, 141, 145, which were altogether unknown to Johnson" 1 There is at p. 129 " Liber Constitutionum " ; at p. 141 "Grith and Mund " ; at p. 145 " Church Grith," Mr. Baron's edition is quoted probably one hundred times by Lord Selborne in his "Facts and Fictions" and "Church Defence," and he must unquestionably have read Baron's Prefa- tory statement that "Grith and Mund" and "Church Grith laws " were unknown to Johnson. Yet in the face of that state- ment, Lord Selborne says, " If Lambarde, Wheelock, and John Johnson were acquainted with either manuscript (the contrary supposition is improbable}, the inference is that they did not regard it (Grith law) as having the character or the authority of a law." I have taken these five authors seriatim, and the general conclu- sion is that the Grith law was unknown to each and all of them. II. His sixth witness is Wilkins. Lord Selborne says : " David Wilkins was the first to publish the Church Grith in his ' Leges Anglo-Saxonica,' where he combined it in a manner, for which the manuscripts afforded no warrant, with the Ordi- 1 Johnson's "Laws and Canons/"' preface, p. vii. io6 A History of Tithes. nances of ' Habam,' etc. If he had regarded it as an authentic ecclesiastical law when he afterwards (in A.D. 1737) published his great collection of * Acts of Councils' and other English ecclesias- tical documents, it must have found a place there, which it does not." i Dr. Wilkins was also the first to publish the laws of the Kentish kings. Mr. Thorpe says of Wilkins's "Concilia/ 7 " As a monument of industry this edition is very creditable to Dr. Wilkins ; at the same time it must, though reluctantly, be acknowledged by every one competent to judge, that as a translator of Anglo-Saxon he not unfrequently betrays an ignorance even of its first principles, that though not unparalleled, is perfectly astounding." 2 I shall now examine the above statement of Lord Selborne. I have failed to find that Wilkins combined the Grith with the Ordinances of Habam. These Ordinances do not appear at all in his "Saxon Laws." The four laws of Ethelred which he has are (i) Liber Constitutionum, (2) Mund, (3) Church Grith, (4) Wantage. Now the " Liber Constitutionum " has 35 articles, of which 19 are ecclesiastical. But Wilkins did not insert it in his " Concilia." And yet Lord Selborne makes no remark on its omission, but he is careful to note the omission of the Church Grith. III. His seventh witness is Mr. Price, 3 who commenced to edit, under the instructions of the Record Commissioners, an edition of the "Anglo-Saxon Laws." Archdeacon Hale, of London, like Lord Selborne, was a great stickler for the non-admission of any tripartite division of tithes in England. He was mainly guided by Wilkins's edition of 1737, and had not even seen his 1 " Facts and Fictions," p. 281. 2 Thorpe's Preface, xxi. 3 " Facts and Fictions," p. 282. Laws of Ethelred II. 107 "Anglo-Saxon Laws," which were published in 1721. But after having written strongly against the tripartite division, a friend referred him to Ethelred's law of 1014, in Wilkins's " Anglo- Saxon Laws." He became anxious on reading it, and stopped a new edition of his work until he could have the point clearly settled. He consulted Mr. Price, who, on the 26th July, 1832, addressed the following letter to him : " It is an unauthorized assemblage of points of canon law, gathered indifferently from foreign and home sources, and he did not think it genuine, because Wilkins had omitted it from his new edition.' 7 x The Archdeacon seemed not to be satisfied with this formal opinion, and so after Price's death, which occurred soon after he had written the above letter, he consulted another gentleman, " Whose reputation," says the Archdeacon, " for extensive know- ledge of Anglo-Saxon literature is not confined to his own uni- versity, or to this country, but whose name I do not consider myself at liberty to mention. He gave me in writing an opinion at variance with that of Mr. Price, and was in favour of the genuineness of the law of Ethelred, and his opinion was founded upon the fact of Schmid having published it in his edition of the Anglo-Saxon Laws, and upon the persuasion that no weight what- ever was due to what Wilkins had said or thought upon the subject"* I have always admired the straightforward manner in which the Archdeacon placed the whole matter before the public. A preju- diced person would have kept back the damaging opinion of the unnamed writer. He is therefore much fairer on this matter than Lord Selborne, Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Chancellor Dibdin, who, while quoting Price's opinion, carefully avoided any reference what- 1 Kale's " Antiquity of the Church Rate System," App., p. 51, ed. 1837. 2 Idem., App., p. 51, foot-note. io8 A History of Tithes. ever to the second or favourable opinion, although it is printed in a footnote at the page where Price's letter appears. 1 Reinhold Schmid, to whom the Archdeacon's second referee referred, was Professor of Laws at Jena, and published at Leipzig in 1832 an edition of the " Anglo-Saxon Laws." "This edition," says Mr. Thorpe, " is a very creditable publication, decidedly superior to the preceding ones (i.e. Lambarde's and Wilkins's). The version is free from the gross errors of Wilkins and generally correct." 2 This statement corroborates the independent testimony of the Archdeacon's unnamed writer. IV. Lord Selborne's eighth witness is Professor Freeman, of Oxford. " Mr. Freeman/' says Lord Selborne, " who seems to have accepted the date A.D. 1014 as evidence that the document repre- sents some public act of that year, was also led to the conclusion that these were ' hardly laws at all,' but mere ' advice,' and an expression of pious and patriotic feeling, a promise of national amendment rather than legislation strictly so called." 3 I shall give some extracts from Mr. Freeman's letter written in 1885, directly referring to the Church Grith law, and then I shall contrast such opinions with those expressed on the same subject in the last edition of his "Norman Conquest," published in 1877. The reader can then form his own conclusion with regard to the letter and the historical statement. " The only case " he says in his letter, " of the action of the See for omissions " Facts and Fictions," p. 282; "Fuller," p. 120; Dibdin, p. 156, ed. 1885. 2 Thorpe's "Ancient Laws," Preface, xxi. 3 "Facts and Fictions," pp. 279, 280. Mr. Fuller gives Mr. Freeman's letter in full in " Our Title Deeds," p. 164. Laws of E their ed II. 109 State in the ancient laws is that to which I have referred in the laws of Ethelred. 1 Here the sixth enactment of 1014, under the head of Church Grith, clearly ordains_the threefold division, and that with solemnity. " Here then at last we come to the threefold division of the tithe enjoined by secular as well as by ecclesiastical authority. But something is wanting to make legislation perfect. If we look on a little further to the next clause but one, we shall find a strict enactment about the payment of tithes, and not only an enact- ment, but a means prescribed for carrying the enactment into force. But this is simply copied from an earlier law of Edgar. 2 And in the law of 1014 it stands almost alone as a real piece of legisla- tion with a sanction. In truth these laws, of which I have found something to say elsewhere, 3 are hardly laws at all. As was not wonderful, under the peculiar circumstances of the time, they are rather an expression of pious and patriotic feeling (see the last clause), a kind of promise of national amendment than legislation, strictly so called. They go along with the discourses of Arch- bishop Elfric, good advice rather than legislation, rather than with those codes which not only make decrees, but provide means for executing them. In such a collection of recommendations rather than of real statutes we are not at all surprised to find the three- fold division of tithe. Bat it is nowhere found in any of those codes which are real acts of legislation, providing the means for carrying out what is ordained, etc." Mr. Freeman, in his long private letter, has produced no proof whatever to upset the Church Grith as a proper legal enactment. He has not stated what the something was to make the legislation 1 Thorpe, i. 342; Schmid, " Gesetze der Angelsachsen, " 244. 2 Thorpe, i. 262 ; Schmid, 186. 8 " Norman Conquest," i. 368. no A History of Tithes. perfect. If he means that no provision was made to carry out what was ordained, he contradicts himself, because he distinctly states above what is true, that as regards the sixth law for the payment of tithes, " means were prescribed, copied from Edgar's laws, for carrying the enactment into force." It was quite common for an Anglo-Saxon king and his Witen- agemot to re-enact some of the laws of his predecessors. So Ethelred re-enacted Edgar's law as to the punishment which would follow the non-payment of tithes. And Cnute re-enacted wholesale the laws of his predecessors. The most remarkable, inconsistent, and contradictory part of this letter is the abrupt jump which the writer takes from state- ments he was making /// support of the Grith laws, to the state- ment, " In truth these laws are hardly laws at all." I now turn to Mr. Freeman's " Norman Conquest " to find what he has written in it about this law. In it we get the mature thoughts of the historian, before Lord Selborne's books appeared. " It was most likely," says Mr. Freeman, " in a Gemot held on his return, that the King and his Witan passed the laws which bear the date of this year. 1 They relate mainly to ecclesiastical matters, but they contain the same pious and patriotic resolutions as the codes of former years, and they also contain some clauses of a special and remarkable kind. He expressly approves the con- duct of certain earlier assemblies held under Athelstan, Edmund, and Edgar, which dealt with ecclesiastical and temporal affairs con- jointly, and they seem to deplore a separation between the two branches of legislation which had taken place in some later assem- blies." He then refers to sections 36, 37, and 38 of the Church Grith, and adds, " cf. sec. 43, where the three kings are named." 1 In the margin of the " Norman Conquest" is, " Ethelred's return and legislation, Lent, 1014." Laws of Ethelrcd II. 1 1 1 "The laws of this year (1014) again proclaim that one God and one King is to be loved and obeyed." " Such is the general summary of the last recorded legislation of Ethelred, conceived in exactly the same tone as the laws of earlier assemblies" 1 Here there is no reference whatever that in this last recorded legislation of Ethelred, "they were hardly laws at all, but rather an expression of pious and patriotic feeling, a kind of promise of national amendment, than legislation strictly so called." The two statements one in the History, and the other in a private letter are contradictory. Contradictory statements coupled with an immense display of pedantry and egotism, characterize the recent writings of this author. 2 Historians must be kept to the opinions expressed in their published histories until they publicly repudiate them. This Mr. Freeman has not yet done. Private letters which contradict them, are not only worthless, but are injurious. Historians who adopt this plan place themselves in a false position before the public. They cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. They cannot consistently address private letters to clerical tithe-owners expressing opinions against the threefold division of tithes, and Church Grith law, which contradict their historical opinions and statements. V. The next witnesses produced by Lord Selborne are the Old Latin Translators of the Anglo-Saxon laws. " An earlier 1 " Norman Conquest," i. 368, 3rd ed. 1877. 2 See his pedantic, erroneous and misleading articles in the February and June numbers of the Contemporary Review for 1891, on the "Landed En- dowments of the Church." Compare pp. 191, 192, of former article with p. 490 vol. iv. and p. 41 vol. v. of the "Norman Conquest," on lands in the four Northern Counties, and his remarks upon my article in the January number of the same Review, for a case of sheer pedantry. 112 A History of Tithes. collection," he says, " of the Anglo-Saxon laws, translated into Latin in the twelfth century, of which Bromton may be presumed to have made use (though by giving the Habam Ordinances he has shown that he had also access to other materials) contains, with that exception, the same laws which are in Bromton." " The Latin translators, therefore, if they were acquainted, as is possible, with the documents omitted in both collections (i.e. in their Anglo-Saxon laws, and in Bromton's), but classed by more modern compilers among the public acts of King Ethelred's reign, did not regard them as possessing that character in any such sense as to make it fit that they should find a place in a code of Anglo-Saxon laws ; and it may be inferred that they found no such place in any records of a public nature to which those translators had access. 1 Here, again, his lordship resorts to his stereotyped formula, when laws are omitted by writers that "They did not regard them as possessing the character of laws." I have already shown the several omissions made by various writers in their collections of Anglo-Saxon laws, because they were unknown to them. If we adopt Lord Selborne's canon of criticism, we must not only sweep away the Church Grith law, but actually five of King Ethelred's laws, because they do not appear in the old Latin version ! I have carefully compared Thorpe's collection with the old Latin version, and the following is the result. There are fifteen Anglo-Saxon laws in Thorpe's collection which are omitted in the old Latin version ; viz., the Laws of the Kentish kings Ethel- bert, Lothere, Edric, and Withred. King Alfred's Scriptural Laws, King Athelstan's Decretum Cantianum and Decretum Sapientum Angliae, King Edmund's Concilium Culintonense, King Edgar's Supplemental Laws, King Ethelred's Liber Con- 1 "Facts and Fictions," 269-270. Laws of Ethelred II. 113 stitutionum, Council of Enham, Church and Mund, Church Grith, and Council at Habam ; King Cnute's Forest Laws. Applying Lord Selborne's canon of criticism, we are bound to repudiate every one of these fifteen laws, because they are not in the old Latin version. He cannot draw the line at the Church Grith law, and not include the others. In the face of these facts, Lord Selborne adds : " The Ancient Latin Version of the Anglo-Saxon laws was evidently meant to be complete^ and which does contain all the legislature properly so called of Ethelred's predecessors from Alfred downwards (why not also before Alfred?), and also of Canute." * Lord Selborne does not tell us who the Latin translators were, and what oppor- tunities they had, or what materials were at their command to make their code complete. What official position did they occupy? But we know, as an unquestionable fact, that the Latin version was not complete, and that up to 1840 we have not had a complete code of Anglo-Saxon laws from extant manuscripts until Mr. Thorpe's was published under the direc- tion and authority of the Commission of Public Records. "The undoubted legislation Acts," he further adds, " cf King Ethelred's reign (viz., the Ordinances of Woodstock and Wantage), and also that to which the Latin date A.D. 1008 is prefixed, have general titles in the Anglo-Saxon text, signifying that they were passed by the king in the national Witenagemot. But the title of the document numbered IX. 2 by Mr. Thorpe, is very different." 3 This is not correct, for the law numbered IX. in Thorpe's, has this title, " This is one of the Ordinances which the King of the English composed with the counsel of his 1 " Church Defence," Appendix, p. 361, ed. 1888. 2 "Church Grith." Idem, Appendix, p. 362. 114 A History of Tithes. Witan." l Now, let us compare this title with those of (i) Woodstock, (2) Wantage, and (3) the Law of A.D. 1008, which Lord Selborne admits to be genuine, (i) " This is the Ordinance which King Ethelred and his Witan ordained." 2 (2) " These are the laws which King Ethelred and his Witan have decreed at Wantage." 3 (3) "This is the Ordinance that the King of the English and both the ecclesiastical and lay Witan have chosen and advised." 4 These facts completely refute Lord Selborne's statements. The general title to the Church Grith law, with the name of the King and Witan, is as strong as that of any of the admitted legal Acts stated by Lord Selborne. Again, if we com- pare the title of the Church Grith with that of Athelstan's law, it is even stronger and in much better legal form. Here it is : " I, Athelstan, King, with the counsel of Wulfhelm, archbishop, and of my other bishops, make known to the reeves," etc. 5 Selden, Kemble, and Bishop Stubbs admit, but Lord Selborne denies, the above to be a genuine law of King Athelstan. Lord Selborne criticises the titles of Anglo-Saxon laws made nearly 1,000 years ago in the same critical and technical manner as he would one passed at the present time. Here is an example. The Church Grith law begins thus : " This is one of the ordinances which the King of the English composed with the counsel of his Witan." Here is Lord Selborne's note : " This form of expression is singular. I do not think that anything exactly like it is to be found else, where." 6 The usual style is, " This is the ordinance," etc., or, " These are the ordinances," etc. But there is really no practical difference. VI. The next witness is John Bromton, abbot of Jervaulx in 1 Thorpe, i. 341. 2 Idem, i. 281. 8 Idem, p. 293. 4 Idem, p. 305. 5 Idem, i. 195. 6 " Facts and Fictions," 278, note 2. Laws of E their ed II. 1 15 Yorkshire, who lived towards the end of the fourteenth century. His history comprises the period from A.D. 588 to A.D. 1198. Brompton copied his collection of Anglo-Saxon laws * from the Latin version. But he alone has the text of the Ordinances passed at Habam. He has four of the nine laws of Ethelred. Lord Selborne says : " Bromton knew no laws of the reign of King Ethelred, except those of Woodstock and Wantage, the Treaty with the Norwegian kings Anlaf, Justin, and Guthmund (all purely secular), and the Ordinances of Habam, which he only preserved." 2 The Ordinances of Habam are found only in Bromton's history, and they contain one important provision as to tithes and other Church dues. Art. 4 : " And we char-ge that every man, for the love of God and all His saints, give church-scot, and his rightful tithe as it stood in the days of our ancestors, when it stood best ; that is, as the plough shall pass through the tenth acre, and let every customary due be paid for the love of God to our mother-church to which it is near. And let no one take away from God what belongs to God, and our ancestors have granted." 3 This Ordinance would indicate a spirit of revolt against the payment of tithes, and that the provisions made by previous kings for their payment were set at defiance. I do not agree with Lord Selborne that this Ordinance grants all the tithes and dues to the nearest mother-church^ and thereby cancels or dis- regards Edgar's law as to the payment of one-third of the tithes to the manorial church with burial ground. 4 The revolt about paying the customary dues or tithes was against payment to the mother-churches and not to the manorial churches. This is a 1 Twysden's " Scriptores," x. p. 898, ed. 1652. 2 "Facts and Fictions," 269. 3 Thorpe, i. 338. _^jp. 270. Ii6 A History of Tithes. vital distinction as indicating an early revolt against the spiritual parochial endowments having been given to churches which did no spiritual duties in the manorial parishes for them. Owing to the same spirit of setting the tithe-law at defiance, we find a re-enactment of Edgar's stern law to enforce the payment of tithes in the 6th article of the Church Grith, and a second re-enactment by Cnute. It would be most unreasonable, and indeed absurd, to assume that the Habam Ordinances ignored the claims of the manorial churches to a third of the parochial tithes. The manorial churches in the beginning of the nth century were too numerous to be deprived of their portions of the tithes, espe- cially in 1014, when Ethelred, after returning from exile, tried to conciliate the clergy. Dr. Lingard's opinion is valuable upon this point. " It was probably thought," he says, " that a law so precise (as Edgar's), and so severe a forfeiture of eight-tenths of the crop would insure for the future the exact payment of the tithe ; but its sub- sequent re-enactment in the reign of Ethelred, 1 and again in the reign of Canute, will justify a suspicion that in many places its provisions were set at defiance, and in many but imperfectly enforced." 2 Mr. Fuller, in "Our Title-Deeds," regards Dr. Lingard's silence about the Church Grith law as "inexplicable in every way." The above quotation, as regards this law, clearly proves the charge to be groundless. As Bromton had copied his Anglo-Saxon laws from the old Latin version, he has not fourteen of the fifteen laws which were omitted in that version. 3 " It may be asserted," says Lord Selborne, " without risk of 1 Lingard thus accepts the Grith law as genuine. 2 "Anglo-Saxon Church," i. 187. 8 See p. 112. Laws of E their ed IL 117 error, that no part of the Worcester volume, Nero, A. i of the Cottonian collection was written before the end of Cnute's reign, who died in 1035, for the volume begins with Cnute's laws, which are followed by those of Edgar, Alfred, Athelstan, Ed- mund, Ethelred ; and after them Grith and Mund, and Church Grith : all in Anglo-Saxon, without break^ and in that order." 1 Every reader of " Facts and Fictions " cannot consult the Wor- cester volume to judge for himself whether this statement is correct or not. Readers generally accept as true what men of position and education publish, without investigating for they have not time the truth of the subject-matter. Mr. Fuller makes the following candid admission : " In Thorpe's * Anglo-Saxon Laws/ i. 342, the tripartite division seems expressly sanctioned by law ; it will be therefore necessary for us to investigate this im- portant fact, and see if // is not possible to shake its authority and bearing on the case" 2 This is exactly the spirit with which certain writers attack the law. Let us test the above quotation from "Facts and Fictions." The volume contains 184 folios quarto. Folios i to 39 form the first tract in the volume ; 42 to 56 the second; 57 to 68$ the third ; 71 to 97$ the fourth, etc. There was a good deal of guess work in arranging the tracts in this order. They were not written by the same hand; some were written early in the eleventh century, and others in the third quarter of the same century. The laws of Canute, Edgar, and part of Alfred's, were written in the Conqueror's reign. A large portion of Alfred's laws is written in Josseline's hand, in the i6th century, then a common practice to complete im- perfect manuscripts, and the manuscript of Alfred's laws in the Worcester volume is very imperfect. Then the laws of Athelstan 1 " Facts and Fictions," p. 280. 2 " Our Title-Deeds," p. 119. n8 A History of Tithes. and Edmund may be seen at once to be a much earlier hand, of the first quarter of the nth century the period assigned by Thorpe. There is a fragment of Edgar's laws at folio 89, placed between Edmund's and Ethelred's, and in the same handwriting, and fully sixty years earlier than Edgar's laws, which are at folios 15 to 41. -These facts as to dates of handwriting can easily be verified by comparing them with charters of certain dates. I have compared the handwriting in the several tracts with the charters written towards the end of the loth century, and begin- ning, middle, and end, of the nth. The Church Grith law was certainly written before Canute's death in 1035. There are several breaks in the volume between the laws of the five kings, although Lord Selborne says, "All in Anglo-Saxon, without break" The first break is of six folios between the first and second parts of Alfred's laws. Then a second break of no less than twenty- eight folios between the last part of Alfred's and the beginning of Athelstan's. Here, then, are two breaks of thirty-four folios, and there are seven heads of other manuscripts on different subjects which are bound up in these breaks of thirty-four folios. It is quite evident that in the Worcester volume, Nero, A. i, we have two incomplete sets of Anglo-Saxon laws, picked up by Sir Robert Cotton and thus preserved from destruction, which Lord Selborne would lead one to think were one complete, continuous set of laws of these five kings. The other parts are lost. I have already given a brief sketch how our antiquarians collected, as best they could, the tons of manuscripts which belonged to the libraries of the dissolved monasteries scattered throughout the country. Here is one specimen out of many from " Our Title-Deeds," p. 119, by which Mr. Fuller attempts "to shake the authority" of the Church Grith Law. " A document," he says, " which Selden casts a slur upon, is surely not one upon which to rest a fact of Laws of E their ed II. 119 English history." Then in a footnote Mr. Fuller adds, "Selden calls it only a sort of document, and passed in a Council in a kind of Parliament, and tells us it remains only a manuscript of or about the time of the Roman Conquest. The preface of it shall be here first noted, that the authority of it may be better understood, i.e. appraised at its real value." Mr. Fuller's book is dedicated to Lord Selborne, who truly states that Mr. Selden, in his " History of Tithes," made no mention of the Church Grith document}- Of course, Mr. Fuller is romancing as usual. Miserable efforts " to shake the authority " of a law. There is not one word of truth in the whole of the above quotations. " Roman Conquest ! " Utter nonsense. MR. J. S. BREWER. Mr. J. S. Brewer in " The Endowment and Establishment of the Church of England," supported the tripartite division of tithes. But after his demise, Mr. L. T. Dibdin 2 has edited a new edition in which he opposes Brewer's views. He adopts the views of Archdeacon Hale and Lord Selborne. He states that the supporters of the tripartite division can bring forward only spurious canons and laws to prove their case, and then instances (i) a spurious passage in the "Penitential" of Archbishop Theo- dore, for proof of which he refers to " Haddan and Stubbs, 1 Councils,' iii. 173, note 203"; (2) An alleged law of Ethelred (1013), and adds in reference to Ethelred's law, "But the better opinion [he actually blends together the opinions of Price, Stubbs and Selborne] appears to be that the code, of which it is a part, is a private compilation or collection of points of Canon Law gathered indifferently from foreign and home sources, pub- lished tentatively, and not recognised as possessing any legislative 1 " Facts and Fictions," p. 281. 2 See p. 17, Note 2. 120 A History of Tithes. force. With this exception (if it be one), no English law as distinguished from Ecclesiastical ordinance or opinion, directs the division of tithe into thirds or fourths, or refers to the supposed right of the poor to a share.* 1 As regards the quotation from the well-known writings of Haddan and Stubbs, they actually held the opposite opinion to that attributed to them by Dibdin. They state that Theodore's "Penitential" is genuine. Here are their words, which may be contrasted with Dibdin's : "In 1851, at Halle, Dr. F. W. Wasserschleben, Professor of Law in the University of Halle, published from a comparison of several continental manuscripts, the work of the ' Discipulus Umbrensium,' which is to be found in our text." They then enumerate nine editions of works pub- lished under Theodore's name. They reject all as spurious except the "Discipulus Umbrensium," which they printed from the Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS. 320. The three eminent scholars, Mr. Haddan, Bishop Stubbs and Professor Wasserschleben, pronounce distinctly and emphatically in favour of the genuineness of the treatise of the " Discipulus Umbrensium " as being the genuine " Penitential " of Theodore. The Cambridge manuscript, they assert, was written not later than the eighth century, although the reference to another copy found in lib. ii. c. xii. s. 5 seems to preclude the idea that it is the original. 2 Bishop Stubbs, in his history, remarks that in this very " Peni- tential," viz., lib. ii. c. xiv. s. 10, commencing, " Decimas non est legitimum dare," the clergy had not the sole use of the tithes? I refer the reader to pp. 20-23 ' m tms book for a full discussion on this point. 1 "The Endowment and Establishment of the Church of England," pp 156, 157, ed. 1885. 8 Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils," iii. 191, 203. 3 "Const. Hist.," ed. 1880; i. 261, note I. Laws of Ethelred II. 121 In the second place, as regards Mr. Price's opinion, I must also refer the reader to p. 107. CNUTE'S LAWS. These laws are divided into three branches, (i) Ecclesiastical, (2) Secular, (3) Constitutiones de Foresta. The text from which Mr. Thorpe prints (i) and (2), is Cott. Nero., A. i, which was written in the middle of the eleventh century. The text of (3) is from Spelman's " Glossarium Archseo- logicum." There are twenty-six laws in (i); eighty-five in (2) ; thirty-four in (3). 1 In A.D. 1018 at a Witenagemot at Oxford, Cnute confirmed the laws of Edgar. " The laws of Edgar," says Lappenberg, 2 " had shown particular regard to the Danes dwelling in England, while in those of Ethelred, as far as we are acquainted with them, similar provisions do not appear." This was the true reason for Edgar's laws having been adopted as a model by Cnute. He also made use, however, of Ethelred's laws, especially those on Ecclesiastical subjects. It is remarkable to find very many of the articles of "Grith and Mund" and of " Church Grith" embodied in Cnute's laws, although much pains have been taken to prove that these laws were spurious and unauthentic. And yet we find that no less than thirty-six of the forty-four articles in the Church Grith law are incorporated in Cnute's laws ! It is interesting to notice how Lord Selborne disposes of the remaining eight. Five (articles 36 to 39 and 43), he says, are of that historical, rhetorical, expostulatory and didactic character as are not proper for laws which could in that or any similar form be enacted by 1 Thorpe's " Ancient Laws," i. 359-430. 2 Thorpe's translation, ii. 201, ed. 1845. 122 A History of Tithes. any legislature. One was omitted apparently as superfluous (i.e. 41 : " If a monk or mass-priest become altogether an apostate, let him be for ever excommunicated, unless he the more readily submit to his duty.") Two remain which were evidently, on consideration, disallowed. One is for the tripartite division of tithes, of which there is no trace in any later collection of Anglo- Saxon laws, and one is rejected (art. 32) which gave extraordinary aid and protection to abbots and their stewards. 1 Now by re- jecting article 32, are we to suppose that the abbots and their stewards were not to be protected by the king's reeves ? for the article states, " And the King commands all his reeves in every place that ye protect the abbots on all secular occasions as ye best may ; as ye desire to have God's or my friendship, that ye aid their stewards everywhere to right, that they themselves may the more uninterruptedly dwell closely in their minsters, and live according to rule." 2 It has escaped Lord Selborne's notice that Cnute's confirma- tion of Edgar's law, which grants one-third of the tithes to the manorial priests, comes to the same thing as the threefold division of tithes in the Church Grith law. The principle is the same in both, namely, that the manorial priest, or the priest of the mother church, was legally entitled to no more than one-third part of the tithes, and that the modern use of taking all the tithes was con- trary to all rules, laws, and customs. They were never originally given, and would never be given to the priests on any such con- dition, namely, to convert them all to their own personal use in fact, to be their own private property or income, as is the case now. Now the great and important question is, " When and in what way did the manorial priest acquire the other two parts ? How did the third, asks Lord Selborne, pass into the whole ? His 1 " Facts and Fictions," 286, 287. 2 Thorpe, i. 348. Laws of Ethel red II. 123 answer is, " There is not, as far as I know, so much even as a canon of any council, or a decree of any Pope in the nature of a legislative act, enlarging the right, or appropriating tithes generally, to parish churches in England or elsewhere." * His conclusion is, that as the laity were at liberty to give their tithes to whatever church they wished, " they might with equal right and reason endow parish churches on their own estates with the predial tithes of their lands within the parishes \ and the probability was that they would do so. No more likely explanation of the general prevalence of such parochial endowments, where churches were not appropriated to monasteries, has yet been suggested." 2 Lord Selborne's statement is very plausible, but will not stand investigation. The incumbents were only trustees, and as such received all the tithes. They had a common law right to a usufructuary part .only, so had the poor and strangers and the church fabric. But in the various changes which took place in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the trustees gave what they liked of the tithes to the poor, and also placed the expenses of repairing the church fabric upon the parishioners. It is too much to assume that the poor and strangers were in a pecuniary position to appeal, as Lord Selborne and others assert, to the superior courts and claim their share of the tithes. A body representing the poor with funds at their disposal might have done so, but it is really too much to expect that the individual poor person had his or her " legal remedy," as they assert, against the parson for his or her part of the tithes. The fact is, that the incumbents began in the thirteenth century to consider themselves not as trustees but actual owners of all the tithes of their parishes, and doled out to the poor some alms, and therefore kept up a 1 "Facts and Fictions," 305, 306. a Ibid., 309, 310. 124 A History of Tithes. semblance of assisting the poor. It is remarkable that lay and clerical rectors in receipt of the rectorial tithes are bound, up to the present time, to keep the chancel of the church in proper repair, and if blown down, to rebuild it. This is a remnant of the original claim on the tithes to repair the fabric of the church. The monastic rectors set the example of totally neglecting to repair the churches appropriated to them, and the parishioners, for their own comfort and convenience, collected funds among themselves to keep the churches in repair, although it is a fact that the owner of the rectorial tithes was bound by common and canon law to keep in repair the whole church fabric, including not only the chancel but also the body of the church. 1 The secular rectors were not slow in following the example of the religious rectors, and in course of time they saddled the parishioners with the expenses of repairing the body of the church. The present trustees have therefore misappropriated all the tithes to their own use. Again, it is stated by Lord Selborne and others that when the poor laws were enacted, Parliament would have made the tithe- owners contribute to the support of the poor, if it thought they were bound to set apart a portion of the tithes for this purpose. But who were then the law-makers ? The majority of them were then in possession of the extensive monastic tithes, and landed properties. It is well known that the properties were handed over to them subject to the same burdens which had been attached to the same properties when they were in possession of the monastic bodies ; but the new owners ignored these burdens. 1 John de Athon, who wrote commentaries in the middle of the fourteenth century on the " Constitutions of Otho," a papal legate that held a council in London in 1237, informs us that the canon law imposed on the rector the reparation of his church, meaning the nave as well as the chancel. Folio ed. 1504. CHAPTER XI. THE FIRST POOR LAW ACT. THE first Act for the relief of the poor was passed in 1535 (27 Henry VIII., c. xxv.). " All governors of shires, cities, towns, etc., shall find and keep every aged poor and impotent person which was born or dwelt three years within the same limit, by way of voluntary and charit- able alms, etc., with such convenient alms as shall be thought meet by their discretion," etc. It was in this year (1535) that the lesser monasteries were dis- solved. So the first poor law was enacted, to provide for the poor and impotent, in the same year in which the dissolution occurred. The total annual revenue of all the monastic and chantry estates, together with the episcopal and chapter estates surrendered to the Crown, was about ^300,000, which, if carefully managed say by a Board of Commissioners to provide for the poor, would now realize an annual revenue of eight and a half millions sterling, sufficiently adequate to defray all the expenses of the poor of England and Wales, without a penny expense to the ratepayers. All the vast properties were disgracefully granted away to unprincipled, poor, avaricious favourites and courtiers of Henry VIII., and his children. It was Cromwell who, in his desire to promote the Reformation, advised the King to divide the abbey lands among the nobles and gentry, either by grant or sale on easy terms ; and that by being 126 A History of Tithes. thus bound by the sureties of private interest, they might always oppose any return towards the dominion of Rome. 1 Cromwell's views turned out to be correct, as we know from the conduct of members of Parliament who were in possession of monastic property. In Mary's reign her Parliament, which was so obsequious in all matters of religion, adhered with a firm grasp to their Church lands. Nor could the papal supremacy be re-estab- lished by Mary until her sanction was given that they should be allowed the full enjoyment of their Abbey lands, and we may ascribe the zeal of the same class, in bringing back and preserving the reformed Church under Elizabeth, to a similar motive ; that, according, to the general laws of human nature, they gave a readier reception to truth, which made their estates more secure. 2 They would be any religion, provided they retained their church lands. 3 The 31 Henry VIII., c. xiii., expressly states that the laity in possession of the lands of the dissolved monasteries were to maintain hospitality. But they never did any such thing, nor were they required to do so. They increased the rentals of the monastic, episcopal and capitular lands fourfold more than had previously been paid, for ecclesiastical lands were let at about one-fourth of their rack-rental value. A good deal of the land was tithe-free, and therefore higher rentals were demanded than for lands which paid tithes. These men made the poor laws ; their increased rentals increased pauperism, but they had only a small fractional part to pay themselves towards the maintenance of the poor ; the bulk of the rates for the relief of the poor (in- 1 Burnet, i. 223. 2 Hallam's " Const. Hist.," i. 78. 3 Queen Mary was for bringing in a Bill to restore the monastic lands, " But the noble lords in Parliament clapped their hands upon their swords, declaring that so long as they were able to wear a sword by their side, with their Abbey lands they would never part" (Hook's "Archbishops," vol. viii. P- 399). The First Poor Law Act. 127 creased in number by the conduct of these new landlords) was paid by people unconnected with the land. " The poor of England," says Blackstone, " till the time of Henry VIII., subsisted entirely upon private benevolence, and the charity of well-disposed Christians. For though it appears by the ' Mirror ' that by the Common Law the poor were to be Sustained by par -sons ', rectors of the church, and the parishioners, so that none of them die for default of sustenance;' and though by the statutes 12 Rich. II., c. vii. and 19 Henry VII., c. xii. the poor are directed to be sustained in the cities or towns wherein they were born or where they had dwelt for three years (which seem to be the first rudiments of parish settlements), yet till the statute of 27 Henry VIII., c. xxvi., I find no compulsory method chalked out for this purpose ; but the poor seem to have been left to such relief as the humanity of their neighbours would afford them. The monasteries were, in particular, their principal resource." 1 Here the " Mirror " distinctly states that by Common Law the parson and his parishioners sustained the poor, and by the same Common Law the parson, as trustee, received all the tithes, and by the same law the poor had a claim to a part of those tithes. It is a favourite argument with Lord Selbourne, and others who follow him, that the part allotted out of the tithes for the poor would be insufficient for their support. But he omits the impor- tant fact that in one of Edgar's canons it was enacted that the people should also distribute alms to the poor, so that the part allotted out of the tithes was not intended to be the whole main- tenance which the poor should receive. 2 1 Blackstone's "Commentaries," bk. i. 348, ed. 1/65. "The Mirror of Justice," by Andrew Home, p. 14, ed. 1646. 2 Burn's "Hist, of the Poor Laws," p. 3, ed. 1764. See p. 86 for Edgar's canon. 128 A History of Tithes. In A.D, 960, when Edgar's laws and canons were enacted, the population of England was about 800,000, with about 1,000,000 acres under cultivation. The provision for the poor was more than sufficient. Mr. Blunt, in his " History of the Reformation," tells us that "A large body of almost starving people was formed by the ruined monks, and those who had been maintained by them, either in labour or charity. Rents were enormously raised by those to whom the monastic grants fell by grants or purchase, the new landlords exacting three or four times more than had been re- quired by the old church landlords. The poverty of the poor and the wealth of the rich drew away class from class and introduced that disintegration of society, which caused so much trouble in the i yth century." 5 Sir Simon Degge, in his " Parson's Counsellor," says " That there are many pluralists in England that hardly see either of their livings in a year ; that all the greatest and best livings in the king- dom are now (1676) held by pluralists, and served by mean curates ; that thereby many poor souls are neglected in danger to perish ; that in many places two great parishes are left to the care of two boys, who came but the other day from school, and perhaps fitter to be there still, while the shepherd that takes the fleece either feasts it out in his lord's family or takes his ease upon a prebend or deanery ; that it is no other than hiring out the sacred trust to pitiful mercenaries at the cheapest rate ; that it is a thing of high scandal for one to receive the fees and commit the work to some inferior or raw practitioners ; that one end of the law of residence (21 Henry VIII.) was to maintain hospitality ; that the best livings in the kingdom are served with poor curates and no hospitality ; that we are now in a far worse condition than before 5 Blunt's " History of the Reformation," i. 389. The First Poor Law Act. 129 making the Act, for that dispensations from Rome were slow and costly, and that there are ten dispensations for pluralities now to one then." He further added that the revenues of the Church were divided into four parts, and referred to Pope Sylvester as having originated this division ; and then used these words : "And I would wish every clergyman io remember that the poor have a share in the tithes with him" l Referring to this author's words, Lord Selborne says, " Sir Simon Degge was a (not particularly distinguished) lawyer of Charles the Second's time. For his citation of Pope Sylvester, etc., he was called to account in his own day, and in a later edition he defended it lamely enough, maintaining on the authority of some Roman canonists the genuineness of the extracts from synodical Acts of Pope Sylvester published by Isidore, and it must there- fore be supposed, of the forgeries in the same collection also." 2 He carefully avoids giving us the name of the writer who called Degge to account. It was the Rev. Henry Wharton, the author of the " Anglia Sacra." In 1693 this boy pluralist the author of " A Defence of Plurali- ties " published, under the name of Anthony Harmer, " A Speci- men of some Errors and Defects," in Bishop Burnet's " History of the Reformation." For an account of the malicious spirit in which this book was written, see Burnet's Preface to the third volume of his " History of the Reformation." " Here is a writer," says the Bishop, " who is wanting in Christian temper and in decency, and I regret to see such facts and industry soured and spoiled with so ill a temper." 3 Dr. Cave, author of " Historia Literaria," who employed 1 " Parson's Counsellor," p. 79, 6th ed. 1703. 2 "Church Defence," etc., pp. 154, 155. 3 See Burnet's letter to Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. K 130 A History of Tithes. Wharton as his amanuensis, in a letter to Archbishop Tillotson, fully corroborates Bishop Burnet's character of Wharton. The bishop knew who Anthony Harmer was, and his caustic remarks on Wharton's " Anglia Sacra " were well deserved. 1 While Lord Selborne traduced the character of Degge, " as a not particularly distinguished lawyer," he has not a word to say against Henry Wharton's legion of blunders. I shall prove that Sir Simon Degge does not deserve the above character. Sir Simon Degge was a judge of West Wales in 1660 ; recorder of Derby in 1661 ; Knighted in 1669; a bencher of the Inner Temple; in 1673 was high sheriff of Derbyshire. His "Parson's Counsellor and Law of Tithes " was a leading text book for many years. He dedicated it to a bishop, and in his sixth and last edition in his lifetime, he writes : " To the parsons, vicars, and the rest of the reverend clergy of the Church of England. Your kind acceptance of the former impressions of the book has en- couraged me this sixth time to appear in public." He died in 1 704. In this edition he says, " Nor is there any doubt but that by the Canon Law the poor ought to have a share in the revenues of the church, which was all I endeavoured to prove." 2 Lord Selborne quotes his closing admonition from the seventh revised edition of 1820, i.e. 116 years after Degge's death : "By all which it appears that originally the poor had a share of the tithe." 3 Degge never wrote these words, and it is not fair nor just to a dead author to publish a garbled edition of his work, and to quote against him from this garbled edition. I have 1 " He had in his hands a whole treatise which contained only the faults of ten leaves of the ' Anglia Sacra.' . . . The errors are so many and so gross that often the faults are as many as the lines, sometimes they are two to one." Bishop Burnet's Reflections on Atterbury's " Convocation." 2 " Parson's Counsellor," p. 83, ed. 1703. 8 4< Church Defence," etc., ed. 1888, p. 154. The First Poor Laiv Act. 131 given above his own words from his last edition published in 1703. The 13 Eliz. c. xx. enacts that the lessor absent above eighty days in a year should lose one year's profits of the benefice, to be distributed by the Ordinary among the poor of the parish. A subsequent statute (18 Eliz. c. xi. s. 7) confirms the above ; and provides that the Ordinary shall grant sequestration of the profits, and in default that every parishioner may retain his tithes ; and the churchwarden will take the other profits of the benefice to distribute among the poor. The rights of the Poor to a portion of the tithes were given by (i) The Act of 1014; (2) 15 Rich. II. c. vi. ; (3) 1,3 Eliz, c. xx. ; (4) 1 8 Eliz. c. xi. s. 7. When we come to the Act for the relief of the Poor, (43 Eliz. c. ii.) it provides for the taxation of every occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, propriation of tithes, coal mines and under- woods. But it does not take any portion of the tithes for the support of the poor ; hence it is argued that the poor had no claim to any portion of the tithes. The fact is, that previously there was no machinery by which their claims could have been carried out. The parochial incumbents were trustees of their pro- perty, and as such had many claims on their incomes, the poor had to put up with whatever the trustees wished to give them. And finally the trustees closed upon all the tithes as their own. There is a remarkable instance on record, in which certain parochial rectors closed upon all the tithes of their parishes. Henry de Blois, Bishop of Winchester, founded the Hospital of St. Cross, near Winchester, by his charter dated A.D. 1137, in which he named sixteen churches, with their appurtenances and appendages, with which he endowed the Hospital. The commuted value of the tithes of these sixteen parish churches 132 A History of Tithes. is ;i2,oo6 per annum. Now, the Hospital has only the tithe- rent charges, amounting to ,3,462 per annum, of four out of the sixteen. The Hospital lost all the tithes of twelve parishes, and the twelve rectors are now in possession of them, giving in lieu the insignificant sum of ^44 per annum, in the aggregate, as pensions. Now, when did these twelve rectors close upon all the tithes ? It was before the Reformation, because in the reign of Henry VIII. the Hospital had only the four churches. It is highly probable that the twelve rectors closed upon all the tithes during the period of the protracted quarrels between the Bishops of Winchester and the Priors of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, as to who should have the appointment of the master of the Hospital. * The parochial incumbents commenced about the beginning of the fourteenth century to close upon all the tithes, and to ignore the claims of poor or church fabric upon these revenues. So at the period of the Reformation, the incumbents claimed to have a prescriptive right to all the tithes. 2 1 See a full history of this charity in the "3ist Report of the Charity Com- missioners," 1837-8, vol. xxiv., p. 843, etc. 2 Matth. Paris, under A.D. 1240, has these words : "Cum ex auctoritatibus sanctorum patrum fructus ecclesiarum in certos usus, puta ecclesise, ministro- rum et pauperum." Mr. Fuller quotes the passage and thus translates : "That since, by the authority of the Holy Fathers, the revenues of the church were appropriated to the definite use of the church," p. 139. There he stops, and omits, ministers and poor. The rectors of Reading referred to the tripartite division of their revenues, viz., to the church, ministers and poor. But it did not suit Fuller to give a fair, complete translation of the passage, because it referred to the tripartite division of the church revenues. CHAPTER XII. CANONS FOR PAYMENT OF TITHES. ALEXANDER III., who was Pope from 1159-1181, was very active in writing to archbishops and bishops of foreign churches, com- manding them to order the people to pay tithes. In 1170 he wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject. The former prelate held a pro- vincial synod in 1175, at Westminster, at which were present King Henry II., his crowned son, and all the bishops and abbots of the province. At this Synod the Pope's letter for the payment of tithes was read. In compliance with such orders from a foreign bishop, the Synod commanded all tithes to be paid on crops from the ground and from trees, of young animals, wool, lambs, butter, cheese, etc. Anathemas and excommunications were hurled against all and every one who would not pay tithes. The Archbishop of York, twenty years after (1195), held a similar synod in his province, which also commanded the pay- ment of tithes ; and this synod, like that of Westminster, wound up its proceedings with anathemas and excommunications the great bugbear of those days against all who would not pay tithes. These archbishops were only acting up to orders from Rome. They were tools in the hands of the Pope, to carry out the orders of a foreign bishop who usurped supremacy over all other Christian churches. The most important canon of the English canon law for the 134 A History of Tithes. payment of tithes, was that passed in A.D. 1295 ( 2 3 Edw. I.), at a provincial synod held in London by Robert Winchelsey, Arch- bishop of Canterbury (1294-1313). The canon sets forth that on account of the various quarrels, contentions, and scandal, arising between rectors and their parishioners, as regards several customs then in use of paying tithes, some uniform claim was necessary to be set forth. It then ordains that tithes were to be paid on the gross value of all crops from the ground, from trees, herbs, and hay. It also sets forth how tithes were to be paid on the produce of animals, lambs, and wool. If sheep were fed in one place in winter and in a different place in summer, the tithe was to be divided. Similarly, if any one should buy or sell sheep in the middle of the time, and it was known from which parish they came, the tithe of these sheep must be divided, as it fol- lowed the two residences. But if it were not known, then that church should have the whole tithe within whose limits at the time of shearing they were found. It further states how milk was to be tithed, and that tithes were to be paid for the pasture of animals, according to their number, and the number of days. Tithes were to be paid on mills, fisheries, bees, etc., etc., which were yearly renewed. There was nothing in this canon about paying tithes on timber wood, because it was part of the in- heritance of the land. The canon then passed from predial to personal tithes. Arti- ficers and merchants were to pay tithes of the profits of their business ; and carpenters, blacksmiths, weavers, and all other workmen working for wages, were to pay tithes of their wages. This meant that after deducting all reasonable and necessary expenses, they were to pay the tenth part of the profits. The rector was also to receive his mortuary fees, viz., the clothes worn by the person before dying, also a horse and cow. Canons for Payment of Tithes. 135 These fees were to be paid as a satisfaction to the Church for the personal tithes which he had forgotten, or wilfully neglected to pay in his lifetime. 1 Henry VIII. fixed a money payment in lieu of the mortuary fees. This was the origin of burial fees. If parishioners would not pay their tithes, they were to be excluded from the Church until they did so ; and if they continued con- tumacious, other ecclesiastical censures would follow. An Act was passed, 2 and 3 Edward VI. c. xiii. s. 9, that modified and limited the payments of personal tithes. " That in all such places where handicraftsmen have used to pay their tithes within these forty years, the same custom of payment of tithes to be observed and to continue ; and if any person refuse to pay his personal tithes, etc., it shall be lawful for the Ordinary of the same diocese to call the same party before him, and by his discretion to examine him by all lawful and reasonable means, other than by the party's own corporal oath, concerning the true payment of the said tithes." The main diffculty in collecting personal tithes arises in the want of any method of discovery. In A.D. 1343, a canon was passed at a provincial synod of Canterbury, held at St. Paul's, London, that all manner of timber was tithable. 2 This canon led to bitter strife, because wood had not been previously tithable ; for, like mines and quarries, it was thought to be a part of the inheritance of the land. Timber was not tithable in the important canon of 1295. It does not yield annual profits; yet the tithe of wood is due by common law right. In reference to making canons at synodical meetings, it was both profitable and pleasant work for ecclesiastics. The laymen who had to pay were not permitted to be present to express an 1 See canon in Latin in Selden, c. viii. s. 26, pp. 233, etc. 2 See Johnson, "Laws and Canons," ii. 387, ed. 1851. 136 A History of Tithes. opinion in the matter. The tithe system was a very elastic band. It was stretched as population and agriculture increased. We have the principle of development exhibited in a remarkable degree in the tithe question. As the power and influence of the bishops of Rome increased in the dark and middle ages, so did tithes. Yet we are unblushingly told that tithes were the free voluntary offerings of private individuals. I admit this to a limited extent. The question is, Did all the landowners freely and voluntarily grant tithes of the produce of their lands to the rectors of parishes ? The synodical meetings to which I have referred, prove that they were not so given, but were arbitrarily exacted by the anathemas of the Church, and by ecclesiastical and civil courts. Things became tithable by the canons of 1295 and 1343, which were not thought of in the days of Kings Offa and Ethelwulf. Provincial synodical canons of the dark and middle ages had a pretending binding force upon the people. But those eccle- siastics had put the last straw upon the donkey's (people's) back in their synod of 1343. The young British House of Commons, then only seventy-eight years old, was roused to opposition. In 1343, 1344, 1347, and 1351, the House petitioned Edward III. against the canon of 1343, but the petitions led to no satisfactory result. 1 The Commons succeeded, however, in 1371, in limiting the power of the canon. It was enacted 2 that trees of twenty years' growth and upward should not be tithable, and that if a suit should be commenced in any spiritual court for the pay- ment of such tithes, a prohibition should issue. This was the first victory gained by the House of Commons as regards tithes. 1 45 Ed. III. c. iii. 2 See Selden, pp. 237-240; also Rot. Parlt., 17 Ed. III., art. 28; 18 Ed. III., art. 9; 21 Ed. III., art. 48; 25 Ed. III., art. 37. Canons for Payment of Tithes. 137 The failures in the above years were caused by ecclesiastical influence exercised over the King. There had been previous Acts on Church questions, such as the Mortmain Act of 1297, which was a much bolder step than that of 1372, but it was rather the production of King Edward I. himself than any action of the House of Commons, owing to the nervous state of feeling among the lay nobility to check the extensive alienation of property to the monasteries which deprived the King of help towards the defence of the country. The nobility were also be- coming extremely jealous of the growing power and luxurious living of the monastic bodies, and also of the Church dignitaries. The Statute of Mortmain had forbidden the King's subjects from bequeathing lands and tenements to the religiosi without the King's license. But the shrewd, cunning monks eluded the Act by licenses of alienation. Here we have another instance of ecclesiastical ingenuity in devising plans to evade the law. Tes- tators left property in perpetuity to support priests to pray for their souls. Hence originated thousands of chantries throughout the country, but they followed the same fate as the monasteries. Much landed property had thus indirectly passed into the hands of ecclesiastics. In 1531, an Act was passed that all such wills would not in future hold good for more than twenty years. The Legislature thought that twenty years' prayers were sufficient to get a testator's soul out of purgatory, and that twenty years' revenue amply remunerated the priest for his services. 1 The House of Commons was not a century old when a Bill was brought in, " That no statute or ordinance of the clergy be granted without the assent of the Commons, and that the Commons be not subjected to any constitutions which the clergy make for their own advantage, without the assent of the Commons, 1 23 Henry VIII. c. x. 138 A History of Tithes. for the clergy do not wish to be subjected to any statute or ordinances made by the Commons without the consent of the clergy. From the angry tone of the Commons on the canon of 1343, may we not naturally infer that if the House existed in 1175 or 1195, or at an earlier date, or was a little older in 1295, when the most important canon was passed, that they would have made a similar energetic protest that " They would not be sub- jected to any canons which the clergy made for their own advan- tage without the assent of the Commons " ? I have already fully explained that the popes, archbishops, bishops, chapters, secular clergy and monks, took advantage of their position in the dark and middle ages in imposing on the credulity of the simple and innocent laypeople, by pretending that the Christian priesthood were the successors of the Mosaic priesthood, and therefore were entitled by Divine right to the tithes enacted by the Mosaic laws, and even a great deal more of the tithes which those cunning and crafty ecclesiastics added thereto by their numerous canons passed by them at councils and synods where no layman dare appear. In the " Englishman's Brief for his National Church," to which I have before referred, it is asked (Q. 21), " Is it not hard on the cultivators of land that they should have to pay tithes on its produce ? " The answer given is, that there is really no hardship in the matter. " If a person rents land which in every respect is tithe-free, he pays so much more rent for it ; if it be subject to tithes, he pays so much less. In any case he pays the same amount," etc. This answer was written for the purpose of mis- leading the reader. The landlord will try to get as high a rent for his land which is not tithe-free as the landlord who has his land tithe-free. But another important question arises. Why should the whole burden of paying tithes fall upon land ? There Canons for Payment of Tithes. 139 was a time when personal tithes were also paid. Scripture was quoted in support of these tithes. But they are all now abolished, and only land and not all the land has to pay tithes. The Earl of Selborne makes the following remarks in his pamphlet: " The Endowment and Establishment of the Church of England." " The rectorial tithes of Selborne, which belong to a college at Oxford, 1 were in 1882, ^447 ; the vicarial tithes, which alone belong of right to the Vicar of Selborne, were ^336. The rectorial or lay tithes of two parishes in Basingstoke also belong Magdalen, Oxford, were in the same year ; 1,617. A lady received the rectorial tithes of Bishop's Sutton, amounting to ^1,431 ; and one of the London Companies, those of Chertsey, amounting to ;i,ii2." I have placed in the Appendix a statement as to the recipients of the clerical appropriations ; also the impropriations of colleges, schools, hospitals and charities, ; as they appear in the Tithe Commutation Return of 1887. In the " Brief," it is asked (Q. 28) : " Were not many of the Endowments which the Church of England now holds given to the Church of Rome?" No, is the answer, and it adds, "Not a single endowment was given to the Church of Rome." Both question and answer are misleading. The Church of England was never the Church of Rome. The correct way to put the question, but which would not suit the misleading object the author of the " Brief" had in view, is, " Were not almost all the endowments, which the Church of England now holds, given to her when she held the same doctrines as the Church of Rome ? " Yes. The main object of the grants and endowments of land, churches, tithes, etc. was that perpetual prayers should be offered up by the recipients and their successors for the souls of the 1 Alienated priory property given to Magdalen by Henry VI. 140 A History of Tithes. benefactors, of their families and relatives. The benefactors be- lieved in the doctrine of purgatory, and in the efficacy of prayers to bring their souls out of it. The Church of England in pre- Reformation days believed and taught the same lucrative doctrine. It also taught that works of charity and not faith were stepping- stones to heaven. Two churches, E and R, held the same doc- trines, and both received large endowments in tithes, lands, etc., in support of such doctrines. For centuries E was in possession of such endowments, but in the sixteenth century E repudiated the doctrines by the teaching of which E had obtained the endow- ments from certain benefactors who otherwise would not have given them. Parliament permitted E to hold the ancient endow- ments on certain conditions specified in Acts of Parliament, and E now dishonestly ignores the conditions, holds the doctrines repudiated, but keeps a firm grip on the ancient endowments. E has but a parliamentary title to the ancient endowments. And as such, Parliament has the right to change and convert the endow- ments, if it should think proper, to other purposes. At the period of the Reformation there was no physical transfer of the endow- ments from the old to the new trustees ; from incumbents who would not conform to the Acts of Parliament, to those who did con- form. The incumbents who were in possession of the endowments before the Acts were passed, and who conformed to the Acts when passed, were left in possession of them, and as their suc- cessors similarly conformed to the Acts, they peaceably entered into possession ; so there was no physical transfer of the property, but there was a change of trustees when the old trustees declined to conform to the Acts of Parliament, but no change when they did conform. It is therefore very clear that the Church of England holds her ancient endowments by a parliamentary title, just as the Sovereign does the throne. And the logical sequence Canons for Payment of Tithes. 141 is that Parliament has the right, if it should think proper, to con- vert the endowments to any other use, especially when the present holders are frequently ignoring the conditions upon which they were granted at the Reformation. It is not quite correct to say at page 52, in the "Brief," that all the monastic endowments have been swept away and con- fiscated to the Crown. The properties of the alien priories are now enjoyed by some of our wealthy colleges and public schools. Henry VIII. had endowed, out of the monastic pro- perties, six bishoprics and chapters, of which five bishoprics exist at the present day. Again, Christ Church, Oxford, the aristocratic college for the sons of our nobility, was built and en- dowed out of the property of over twenty monasteries which were confiscated, with the full sanction of both King and Pope, in order to supply Cardinal Wolsey with funds to build and endow " Cardinal College," Oxford. This college receives at present ^40,000 per annum gross from tithe-rent charges. Again, the eight conventual chapters were not only left in possession of all their monastic endowments, but also received in augmentation of their incomes a great deal of the properties of some of the dis- solved monasteries. For example, Canterbury received almost all the endowments of St. Augustine's monastery. The year 1836 was a turning-point in the episcopal and capi- tular endowments ; the 6 & 7 William IV. c. Ixxvii. created the Ecclesiastical Commission. The commissioners utilized the en- dowments in order to provide for the spiritual destitution of large parishes. Up to 1890, upwards of 5,700 benefices have received ^971,700 per annum in perpetuity towards augmenting the in- cumbent's incomes. We must add to this the enormous capital sums which have been expended out of the Common Fund of the Commissioners, in erecting some thousands of new parsonages, 142 A History of Tithes. repairing and clearing off mortgages of others. The average net income of the " Common Fund " is more than one million a year. The gross income of the " Common Fund " of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on the 3ist August, 1890, was ,1,722, 709; it disbursed that year ,1,140,334, leaving a balance of ^582, 374. 1 Fully four-fifths of the properties in the hands of the Ecclesi- astical Commissioners has come, partly from the ancient public landed endowments granted to archbishops, bishops, and chapters by Anglo-Saxon kings with the consent of their respective witenagemdts ; and partly from the monastic rectorial tithes which were transferred by the Crown to the above corporations in lieu or exchange of landed estates surrendered to the Crown at the period of the Reformation. The duties performed by the parochial priests for the tithes were their regular duties, including (i) saying mass, (2) praying for the dead, and (3) invoking the saints. But by Acts of Par- liament the mass has been suppressed, the dead by some are not prayed for, and the saints are no longer invoked by some who now enjoy the tithe-rent charges. It is stated in the " Brief" that "when the principal parochial endowments were given, papal supremacy was not admitted by the Church of England, and Roman doctrines were not held." I have already explained the active part the popes and legates of Rome had taken to introduce the payment of tithes in England. There is not a shadow of doubt that the supremacy of the popes of Rome was admitted by the Church of England when tithes, the principal endowment, commenced to be paid first by custom and afterwards by compulsion in the Anglo-Saxon Church. The Roman doctrines followed the supremacy. The archbishops from the time of Augustine received their palls from the Pope, 1 See 43rd Report, 1891. Canons for Payment of Tithes. 143 and Pope Boniface V., in a letter dated A.D. 624, conferred the primacy of all Britain on Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury. The letter contained these remarkable words, " Hanc autem ecclesiam utpote specialiter consistentem sub potestate et tuitione sanctse Romanae ecclesiae." l Again in 634 Pope Honorius I. conferred the primacy to Canterbury, and again in 668 Pope Vitalian gave the supremacy over all England to Archbishop Theodore. 2 It must be noted that the endowments of the Church were not all given at once, but were spread over a period of about six hundred years. The period will be longer if we take the time in which the waste and barren lands of Edward VI.'s Act were brought into cultivation ; and again the lands and corn-rents awarded by the Inclosure Acts of last and present centuries in lieu of tithes. So the above quotation from the " Brief," like a great deal more of the book, is nothing but twaddle. The parochial endowments commenced on a small scale in the latter part of the seventh century, when landowners commenced to build churches upon their own estates, and they increased in the eighth and ninth. First the endowments consisted of church, parsonage and glebe ; then tithes were added first as free-will offerings. The Norman Conquest made great changes in the Church of England. The Norman monks, who looked on the Pope and obeyed him as the supreme head of the Church, introduced a new plan by inducing landowners to appropriate their churches with their glebe and tithe endowments to them. To give an idea of the enormous impetus which had been given to the erection of monasteries from 1066 to 1215, or 150 years, there were 427 erected in England, possessing extensive endowments in lands and tithes. Add 1 " Cartularium Saxonicum," edited by Birch. Vol. i. No. 14, p. 21. 2 Idem. 144 A History of Tithes. 130 up to A.D. 1066, and we get 557, as the total number in 1215. I have selected 1215, for by the Council of Lateran tithes were henceforth to be paid to the parochial clergy, thus abolishing from 1215 the system of appropriating parochial tithes to monasteries and other bodies. The decadence of building and endowing monasteries commenced with the reign of Richard I. (1189). Tithes were not given to monasteries until after 1066, and from this year to 1215 they had received the tithes of some thousands of parishes. Of course they put vicars in the parishes to perform the religious duties, and allowed them at first certain stipends, but afterwards the small tithes. The question now is, In what respect did the Church of England differ in doctrines and discipline from the Church of Rome from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries, and from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries ? The parochial system continued in course of formation for 600 years. During this time the Church received the principal parochial endow- ments. It cannot be stated with truth that the " Roman doc- trines were not held by the Church of England " during this period of 600 years. Neither can it be said with truth that " papal supremacy was not admitted by the Church of England " during the same period. There is no doubt whatever that the original donors of Church endowments would never have given them to men who not only ignored but utterly detested their most dearly cherished doctrinal views, viz: (i) the mass, (2) prayers for the dead, and (3) praying to the saints. To support this statement, I shall give a quotation from a speech delivered in the House of Lords by Archbishop Howley, in 1840, when speaking on the Cathedral Bill. "They must consider," he says, "in what times many of the donations of property were made. The persons who have made them might, and probably would, if living in the present day, wish to Canons for Payment of Tithes. 145 see them applied in a very different manner." These remarks were made in reply to the following observations delivered in the same debate by Dr. Sumner, Bishop of Winchester. " What right " he asked, " had the Legislature so to deal with property given for certain specific purposes^ not by the State, but by indi- viduals, for ever ? " The Archbishop pointedly stated in the speech quoted above, that the " certain specific purposes " existed no longer. l It is again stated in the "Brief" that tithes are not endow- ments (!) and that they were given " without any specific con- ditions being attached to their payment." Is it reasonable to think that tithes were given to the parish priest without a "quid pro quo"? Is not the " quid pro quo" implied in his office? The " Brief" further observes at p. 52: "It is an interesting work for all zealous people concerned in such matters to see, as a matter of public trust, that those who now possess such property l shall fulfil the conditions attached to its original grant or be- quest." I cannot defend for one moment the enrichment of the nobility and gentry of this country with Church spoliation. But I ask myself the question : " Do the Bishops of Chester, Gloucester and Bristol, Oxford and Peterborough and their respective chapters, ' fulfil the conditions attached to the original grant or bequest of the property which they possess?'" We must not forget that the King who endowed them with monastic property, passed the Act commonly called " The Whip with its Six Strings," and, further, that he died in the full belief of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, then the doctrines of the Church of England, of which he was the supreme head. 1 " Hansard's Debates," House of Lords, 1840. 1 The confiscated mo'nastic property. CHAPTER XIII. APPROPRIATION OF TITHES TO MONASTERIES. FROM A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1215 is a remarkable period in the history of the English Church and English monasteries. The monasteries were built and richly endowed with lands, churches, and tithes. All these were conveyed by deeds of gifts to their perpetual use. The benefactions were given for the special pur- pose of prayers being perpetually said by the monks in their re- spective churches for the repose of the souls of the donors and their relatives. In some cases the monasteries received the tithes without any churches ; but when they received churches with the cure of souls, then the monastic corporations became rectors by virtue of which they were in possession of all the tithes of each parish. For many centuries the benefactions were conveyed by lay owners, without any reference to the king or bishop, for they were considered as private property, which the owner may dispose of to whom he pleased. Subsequently it was necessary, before such .grants could be given, to obtain the licence of the king and bishop in order to complete the scheme. After the Conquest, the Norman monks invented the system of having churches with their tithes appropriated to them. Previous to the Conquest there were no appropriation of churches, but patrons granted to monasteries, bishops or chapters the advowsons of the churches. As religious services had to be performed in the church appro- priated, the monastic body had either to depute one of their Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. 147 own fraternity in Holy Orders to do the duty, or to appoint a deputy or vicar to act for them and to whom they gave most miserable stipends. This latter alternative became the general rule. But the abbot or prior took care to get the lion's share of both parochial tithes and offerings. The capitular bodies, nuns and religious military orders imitated the practice of the monks and received similar licences for appropriating churches from the king and bishop. The same system was adopted by single persons, such as deans, chancellors, treasurers, precentors, and archdeacons. Even parochial incumbents had nominated vicars to do their work, and they themselves became sinecure rectors. The pretext which the monks had given to gain appropriations was to obtain two parts of the tithes and profits, leaving a third to the parish. These two parts were for the relief of the poor and the repair of the church ; but in course of time they neglected both poor and fabric, and the parishioners, for their own comfort, had actually subscribed towards a fabric fund and hence originated church rates which were, like tithes, at first purely voluntary, but subsequently became compulsory. When the practice of appropriating churches, with their glebe and tithe endowments, was first introduced by the Norman monks in England, the patrons or owners considered that they were transferring a freehold property, and therefore thought the con- veyance did not require the bishop's confirmation. The patron conveyed his gift by placing the deed of conveyance and a knife or cup upon the altar of the church of the monastery, as this was then the usual mode of livery of seisin. In the deeds of conveyances some are given " Canonicis ibidem Deo servienti- bus," etc. ; others, " Canonicis regularibus ibidem Deo servienti- bus," etc. ; and, " Monachis ibidem Deo servientibus," etc. The lay patrons sometimes exercised the power of discharging 148 A History of Tithes. the incumbent of his church and appointing another in his place. The church was not as now, the incumbent's freehold property. He then held his position according to the will of the patron. We have sufficient evidence on this point. It is stated in the Acts of the Third Lateran Council of A.D. 1179-80, "So far has the boldness of laymen been carried, that they collate clerks to churches without institution from the bishops, and remove them at their will ; and, besides this, they commonly dispose as they please of the possessions and goods of churches." This council condemned " arbitrary consecrations," as Selden calls them, of laymen, " Before the Council of Lateran (evidently the third), any man might give his tithes to what spiritual person he would." 1 Four English bishops sat at this council. The Council gave the death-blow to arbitrary appropriations of tithes by lay- men, without the consent of the bishop, to whatever church or monastery they pleased. It was ordained by this Council that no religious orders should receive any appropriations of churches or tithes without the assent of the bishop. In Anglo-Saxon times the tithes were given to the parish churches, but from A.D. 1066 to A.D. 1200, they were also given to monasteries, bishops, and capitular corporations. " Arbitrary consecrations of tithes," says Blackstone, " were in general use till the time of King John, which was probably owing to the intrigues of the regular clergy or monks of the Benedictine and other rules, under Archbishop Dunstan and his successors, who en- deavoured to wean the people from paying their dues to the secular or parochial clergy. A layman, who was obliged to pay his tithes somewhere, might think it good policy to erect an abbey, and there pay them to his own monks, or grant them to some abbey already erected, and thus have masses for ever sung 1 Coke's " Reports," part ii. p. 44 (b) Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. 149 for his soul." 1 Not only had laymen appropriated tithes to episcopal, capitular, and monastic corporations, but, in Lord Sel- bourne's opinion, they may also have given them to parish churches. Hence, he thinks, the true origin of the endowment of parish churches with tithes. The decree of the Third Lateran Council, making void arbitrary appropriations of tithes, was at first opposed by the laymen of England, and so the practice continued. But the English hierarchy from that time opposed the practice, and by degrees it gradually ceased. Pope Innocent III., in a decretal epistle which he addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury about A.D. 1200, owing to the continued arbitrary appropriation of tithes by laymen in face ot the decrees of the Third Lateran Council, enjoined the payment of tithes to the parsons of the respective parishes. But the epistle had no binding force on the lay subjects of this kingdom. The arbitrary appropriation of tithes by landowners to monas- teries, although according to their rights, was contrary to canon law. 2 At a national synod held at Westminster in 1125 (25 Henry I.) it was constituted that no abbot, prior, monk, or clergy- man should accept a church or tithe or any other ecclesiastical benefice from a layman without the authority and assent of his own bishop. The lay patrons paid no attention to this canon, because they thought it was an ecclesiastical encroachment upon the rights of property. It was a part of the supremacy over the civil power which the Church was then usurping wherever she found weak instruments. In the reigns of Richard I. and John, however, laymen's investitures gradually ceased. The Church be- 1 " Com nentaries," bk. ii. c. iii. p. 27, ed. 1765* 2 See chap. xi. p. 297 in Selden's "History of Tithes," ed. 1618, for a full explanation of " arbitrary consecrations," as he called them, 150 A History of Tithes. came supreme. Archbishop Anselm was a very strong supporter cf papal canons which inhibited the custom of lay investiture. The struggle continued after his death. The practice at the present time is, the patron nominates or presents, the bishop institutes, and the archdeacon inducts. But before the reigns of Richard I. and John, the lay patrons nominated, instituted, and inducted. The bishop had no voice in the matter. The practice, as I have already stated, was condemned and made void by the Third Lateran Council held in 1180. At the General Council of Lateran, held in 1215, the arbitrary appropriation of tithes to monasteries or other ecclesiastical corporations which were not parochial, was strongly condemned, and the tithes were commanded to be paid in future to the parish churches. This council therefore gave the parsons the parochial right to tithes. It was certainly very wrong to hand over the parochial tithes to outsiders who did no parochial work and took no interest whatever in the parishes from which they drew large incomes, while the parochial clergy who did the work were most miserably remunerated. But we find that when the parsons received the tithes they became wealthy, indolent, and vicious. We have the trustworthy testimony of Wickliffe himself for this statement. No man could possibly write or speak stronger than he did against the conduct of the monks and secular clergy of his time. In King John's reign the papal power was supreme in England, and therefore the canon law gained strength as England became weak, particularly after Pope Innocent III. issued his interdict against the kingdom. The decrees of the Council of Lateran, A.D. 1215, had not disturbed the then existing appropriations of tithes to monasteries, but were directed towards the future, and made void all new Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. 151 grants of tithes to monasteries after the date of this council. The council is a landmark for the following arrangements : (i) The tithes of parishes, which before A.D. 1215 could have been given by the owners of the property to any church they pleased, either in or out of the kingdom, were henceforth to be given only to the parsons of the parishes from which they arose. (2) The tithes which had been appropriated to corporations outside of the parishes, continued to be given to them. (3) The tithes which the parsons possessed before A.D. 1215 could not be appro- priated afterwards to any other person. Therefore the tithes which rectors received were those which they possessed at the date of this council, and all tithes created after A.D. 1215. The parish system which commenced in its germ about A.D. 686 was completed about A.D. 1200, thus covering a period of over five hundred years in its development. From the beginning of the i3th century, tithes became payable to the parsons of the parishes by common right. But monasteries and chapters had to show their title to them either by grants or by prescriptions. We may thus trace tithes in England from their origin, (i) as free-will offerings ; (2) compulsory payment to some religious body, and (3) compulsory payment only to the incumbents of parishes. It is an error to state that all the tithes of England were paid freely. I have stated enough to show that it was not so. Tithes appropriated to monasteries were of two kinds (i) Monastical, (2) Parochial. With reference to (i), the monastic bodies performed no spiritual functions for the tithes which the benefactors had granted them out of demesnes which had no churches annexed. For these tithes they had distributed alms to the sick, the poor, and stranger who called at their gates ; and said masses perpetually in their own churches for the souls of their founders and benefactors, and those of their heirs and relatives. 152 A History of Tithes. As regards the second case, they received churches, with the tithes and glebe lands annexed thereto, as a free gift from the owners, and had therefore the cure of souls. They purchased the advowsons of other churches, and even built churches them- selves, of which as owners they possessed the advowsons. At first if the churches were near the monasteries, they sent members of their community, who were in holy orders, to perform the religious duties. But when the churches were situated at a con- siderable distance, and became numerous, the monastic bodies employed curates or vicars to perform the religious duties. These at first received no part of the tithes as their salaries, but only a small sum of money, just what the monks liked to give, and the miserable sum they allowed varied from year to year as it suited the caprices of the monks, who received all the tithes, offerings, and oblations. In the king's licence, permitting the appropriation, there was the usual condition which the monks ignored, " that an adequate portion be allowed the vicar out of the profits of the church." The wretched salaries of the curates or vicars produced great scandal and complaints. As the curate or vicar was liable to be dismissed at any moment by the appropriator, he was not likely to insist too rigidly on the sufficiency of his stipend, and so the miserable salary was continued after the passing of Richard II.'s Act. The bishops were much to blame in this matter. Some of them had been monks themselves from their youth ; others were auxious to be buried among the monks, or their anniversaries kept by them. These considerations induced some, but not all of the bishops, to favour the appropriation of churches to monasteries. Again, the rich monasteries were able to bribe the bishops, and even the papal curia, and they did so ; they allowed the bishops pensions out of the tithes, and even appro- priated some of their churches, i.e. the rectorial tithes of their Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. 153 churches, to the bishop's table, on condition that he, as bishop, allowed them to receive churches with all their endowments from the lay owners. 1 The preaching friars and John Wickliffe opened the people's eyes as to the monastic luxuries, and the poverty of the vicars whom they employed to do their work. The age of building monasteries and granting extravagant endowments had passed, never again to be revived, but there was a growing tendency to sweep all the monasteries away. The scandalous manner in which the monastic bodies had paid the vicars induced Parlia- ment to pass the following Act in 139 2. 2 " IN APPROPRIATION OF BENEFICES THERE SHALL BE PROVISION MADE FOR THE POOR AND THE VICAR." " In every licence from henceforth to be made in the chancery of the appropriation of any parish church, it shall be expressly contained and comprised that the diocesan of the place, upon the appropriation of such churches, shall ordain, according to the value of such churches, a convenient sum of money to be paid and distributed yearly of the fruits and profits of the same churches, by those that shall have the said churches in proper use, and by their successors, to the poor parishioners of the said churches in aid of their living and sustenance for ever ; and also that the vicar shall be well and sufficiently endowed." Lord Selborne remarks on this statute : " This law had nothing to do with tithes in particular, or with fruits and profits of any churches not appropriated to monasteries. If there had been then (i.e. in 1391) a law for a partition of tithes, as against all rectors, giving the poor one-third, or any other definite share, no 1 Kennett, p. 65. 2 15 Rich. II. c. vi. 154 A History of Tithes. such legislation could have been necessary ; nothing would have been wanting, except simply to enforce that existing law? 1 These remarks are open to grave objections. The law refers to a provision being made for the vicar as well as for the poor. When a church was appropriated to a monastery, it simply meant that the monastic corporation appropriated all the endowments, lands and tithes of that church together with all oblations. The monastic corporation placed a deputy, called a vicar, in the parish to perform the ecclesiastical duties, and allowed him such a wretchedly poor stipend, insufficient to keep soul and body to- gether. As for the poor of the parish, it is too much to expect, as Lord Selborne remarks above, that the poor of 1391, or 500 years ago, had their legal remedy against the powerful and rich monastic corporation in order to enforce their common law and legal rights to one-third of the tithes. Why, in this enlightened and advanced age, as compared with 1391, the poor are coerced and defrauded of their rights by the wealthy, who know that they have not the means " to enforce their rights " in the superior courts a luxury which can only be enjoyed by those who have a good banking account. Lord Selborne says the law had nothing to do with tithes in particular, and yet the provision for the vicar, namely the small tithes, formed his main endowments. This law, no doubt, re- ferred to all the endowments of the vicar. The statute did not move the monastic bodies, who had still the power of removing at pleasure the vicar of the parish, until the Act 4 Henry IV. c. xii. (1402) was passed. "That from henceforth in every church appropriated, or to be appropriated, a secular person be ordained perpetual vicar, canonically instituted and inducted to the same, and convenably endowed by the discretion of the Ordinary ', to do 1 " Defence of the Church," etc., 4th ed. 1888, p. 155. Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. 1 55 divine service, to inform the people and to keep hospitality there." What is meant by keeping hospitality ? To provide for the poor out of the endowments. Here is a list of the small tithes : Sir John de Cobham, appropriated Horton Kirby Church to Cobham Chantry. The Bishop of Rochester, when confirming this appropriation in 1378, assigned the vicar all the oblations, obventions, the tithe of flax, hemp, milk, butter, cheese, cattle, calves, wool, lambs, geese, ducks, pigs, eggs, wax, honey, apples, peas, pigeons, fisheries of ponds, rivers and lakes, fowling, merchandizing, trade, herbage, pasture, feedings, mills ; all the herbage of the churchyard, and all other small tithes arising within the said parish. The bishop taxed all at seven marks = 4 i$s. ^d. per annum. The chantry was to repair the chancel and parsonage house, but the vicar was to pay the procurations of the archdeacon. At the dissolution of monasteries, the parsonage and advowson were given to the Crown, who granted them away by sale. At the present time the impropriators receive ^848, and Queen's College, Oxford, 200 i2s. tithe-rent charge per annum from Horton parish, whilst the vicar receives 266 I2S. from the small tithes above stated, and has thirty-four acres of glebe. The present patron is H. B. Rashleigh, who is also the vicar, and his curate is C. Rashleigh. This is a good specimen parish as regards the distribution of tithes, and also the patronage, for ^1,050 of the rent charge is in lay hands, and the advowson or patronage is a marketable commodity, and now in possession of the present vicar. It is also important to note that the vicarage has been augmented by Queen Anne's bounty by the purchase of an estate at Brockhull in the same parish. We note that J. K. Rashleigh is vicar of Luxulyan, diocese of Truro ; patron, Sir C. Rashleigh, Bart. There is an immense number of livings in 156 A History of Tithes. possession of incumbents, obtained either by purchase or by family patronage. The appropriator gave the vicar the small tithes because he found them more difficult to collect than the great tithes. It is unreasonable to state that an unmarried parish priest with a free parsonage house would be allowed to enjoy all these tithes as his own income. No, for he was to keep hospitality. The rectors or monastic bodies, who had the great tithes, kept the chancel of the church in repair. And up to the present time, the owners of the great or rectorial tithes, and not the owners of any other church endowment, are legally bound to keep the chancels in good repair, and if they fall down, to build them up again. What is this but a compliance with the original division of tithes by which a portion was set apart for the repairs of the church. And, as I shall show, these repairs included the whole building, but in course of time the rectors kept the tithes and shifted this responsibility on the shoulders of the parishioners, which led to church rates. They did the same as regards the portion for the poor, who were pecuniarily unable to maintain their claims in the higher courts, to which legal remedy Lord Selborne refers. In King Edmund's law l the bishops were ordered to keep the churches in repair, as the whole tithes of the parish went to them; but in Canute's laws of 1018, all the parishioners were ordered to keep their churches in repair. Canute's change from the bishops to the parishioners can only be explained from the fact that the dilapidated condition of the churches, the result of the Danish invasions, and a general destruction of property throughout the country, made the funds at the bishops' disposal insufficient for the purpose, and so the burden was thrown generally upon the inhabitants. But when the country increased 1 See p. 43. Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. 157 in riches and prosperity, the liability for the repairs of the chancel was again, and is still, placed on the owners of the great or rectorial tithes. The following canon 4 is taken from the provincial consti- tutions of John Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, made in a provincial council in London, loth of October, 1342. " Whereas ecclesiastical men are entrusted with dispensing of tithes and other things belonging to the church, that the pocr by their prudent management may not be defrauded ; yet the reli- gious of our province having churches appropriate, do so apply the fruits of them to their own use, as to give nothing in charity to the poor parishioners, being regenerate sons of the churches, to whom they are bound to do this more than to strangers ; by which means such as owe tithes and ecclesiastical dues become not only in devout, but invaders, destroyers and disturbers, to the danger of their own souls and theirs, and to the scandal of many ; there- fore with the approbation of this sacred council, we ordain that the said religious, having ecclesiastical benefices appropriate, be compelled by the bishops every year to distribute to the poor parishioners a certain portion of their benefices, in alms to be moderated at the discretion of the bishops in proportion to the value of such benefices, under pain of sequestration of the fruits and profits thereof, till they yield a reasonable obedience in the premisses." l The inference to be drawn from this canon, and from the sub- sequent statute of 15 Richard II. c. vi. (1391), is that the poor had a claim on the tithes and other endowments ; and this claim is admitted by Bishop Stubbs. But Lord Selborne, Fuller, and others, stoutly deny this claim. No doubt, the canon and Act refer to appropriated churches, when the avaricious monks re- 1 Johnson's " Laws and Canons," ii. 364. 158 A History of Tithes. tained all the tithes to their own use. But the inference above is generally applicable to all tithes. If not, what right had a pro- vincial synod to make a canon, compelling appropriators who had neglected the poor to distribute to the poor, under the severe penalty of sequestration, a portion of the appropriated property ? and almost all this property, unquestionably, consisted of tithes. The vicar-perpetual of Henry IV. 's Act must not be con- founded with the later " perpetual curate," who by a recent Act is now styled " vicar." The former is endowed with the small or vicarial tithes ; the latter is not so endowed. The most important parts of Henry IV.'s Act are, (i) per- manently endowing the vicar, which, as regards tithes, equalled one-third part; and (2) giving the vicar as permanent a position in the parish as the rector. 1 But the autocratic freehold tenure has been grossly abused. This abuse, within the past thirty years, has much increased, owing to the lack of discipline and inability of the bishops to correct insubordinate and law-breaking parsons. There is no parochial council to check the conduct and actions of the autocratic endowed incumbent. He snaps his fingers at the parishioners, bishop, archdeacon, rural dean, or any other episcopal officer. He is the bishop of his own parish. His freehold tenure and endowments make him independent and absolute master for life within his parochial limits. 1 It is important to note (i) that Edgar's law gave the manorial priests a legal right to one-third part of the tithes ; (2) that the bishops in apportioning the permanent endowment of the vicar-perpetual, by 4 Hen. IV., ch. xii. (1402), were guided by Edgar's law in appropriating one-third part and selecting the small tithes, to which, if insufficient, they added a portion of the great tithes ; (3) that the vicar, who previously held his position at the will of the patron, had by this Act obtained a freehold permanent position for life ; (4) that 8, 500 vicars now beneficed have been so circumstanced by Acts of Parliament. CHAPTER XIV. IN FEU DA TIONS -EXEMPTIONS FROM PAYMENT OF TITHES. INFEUDATIONS are the conveyances of the pepetual right of tithes to laymen. The Third Council of Lateran, held in A.D. 1180, was the first to forbid infeudations. Such conveyances, although frequent on the Continent, were not so in England until the general disso- lution of monasteries," Very little of the lands, tenements, and tithes in possession of the alien priories was given away or sold to laymen when Parliament had at various times alienated the same. The properties were bestowed on other monasteries and on colleges for religious and educational purposes. In the latter case, the owners were clergymen. This was not so with the enormous properties of the dissolved monasteries and chantries which Parliament had given to Henry VIII. and Edward VI. The amount of confiscated property was about ^250,000 per annum. If this vast property had been placed under the management of Commissioners, it would realize an annual in- come at the present time, of eight and a half millions, quite sufficient to defray all the expenses which are now paid by the ratepayers for the maintenance of the poor in England and Wales. I shall deal here only with the tithes, which form but a small part of the immense properties which were then confiscated, and which Henry VIIL, Edward VI., and Elizabeth lavishly bestowed on the numerous poor hungry court favourites and court flunkeys, who were the ancestors of many who are now high in the peerage. 160 A History of Tithes. The War of the Roses had swept away the ancient nobility of England, and in their places sprang up a crowd of poor hungry men who surrounded Henry VIII. and his children. Nothing could possibly turn out more opportune for them than the con- fiscation of the vast monastic properties which Parliament handed over to Henry VIII. and Edward VI. to do with them as they thought proper. What could possibly be better for these poor court sycophants ? We have only to open out the county histories of the country, and there we shall find very sad accounts of the manner in which the vast monastic estates had been given away to the ancestors of some of the aristocracy. Archbishops, bishops, and chapters had to surrender to the Crown numerous manors which had been given by Anglo-Saxon kings to their predecessors out of folcland which was the national pro- perty of the Anglo-Saxons. These manors were afterwards given away by the Crown to these poor hungry court favourites, and thus formed the title-deeds of many aristocratic families who now carry high heads in the country. The 32 Henry VIII. c. viii. gave the king power (i) to grant the properties to whom he wished ; (2) that such persons should be free from the payment of tithes if such lands had been exempted previous to the dissolution ; and (3) that the lay- owners of monastic lands could claim tithes from them. So, then, laymen who claimed tithes were called impropriators^ be- cause they were improper persons to receive them. But the same may have been said of the lay-monks, nuns, military orders, etc., who had at one time been in the receipt of tithes. The total tithe-rent charge gross is ,4,053,985 ; of this, lay impropriators receive ^962,290, or a little less than one-fourth. Therefore we may take it as a general statement that laymen receive about one-fourth of the tithes. To this must be added Exemption from Payment of Tithes. 161 the large estates which are tithe-free, and from which enhanced rents are received. EXEMPTION FROM PAYING TITHES BY RELIGIOUS HOUSES. All abbots, priors, and other heads of monasteries had ori- ginally paid tithes. But Pope Paschal II. exempted generally all the religiosi from tithes on lands which were under their own management. About A.D. 1160, Pope Adrian IV. limited this exemption to the Templars, Hospitallers, and Cistercians, who alone were exempted from paying tithes for lands which were then, but not afterwards, acquired under their own immediate management. The privilege did not extend to lands let to farmers, but only to those which they occupied before the Council of Lateran A.D. 1215, which confirmed the above ex- emptions. A fourth order the Premonstratensian was added by Pope Innocent III. These were called the four privileged orders. After the passing of the Mortmain Act, which gave a terrible blow to the monastic bodies, the privileged order of Cistercians purchased bulls of exemption from paying tithes for their lands, tenements, and possessions let to farmers, and also for the lands which they acquired since 1215. These bulls had the force of law in the English canon law, and were allowed in actions for tithes. /This objectionable mode of purchasing bulls of exemption was put a stop to in 1400 by 2 Henry IV. c. iv. which subjected the purchaser to premunire. 1 The Statute of Premunire was passed in 1393 (16 Richard II. c. v.) against *' Procuring at Rome or elsewhere, any translations, processes, excommunications, bulls, instruments, or other things which touch the king, against him, his crown and realm, and all persons 1 Selden, " History of Tithes," pp. 406, 407 ; Philimore, 493. M 1 62 A History of Tithes. aiding or assisting therein shall be put out of the king's pro- tection, their lands and goods forfeited to the king's use, and they shall be attached by their bodies to answer to the king and his council, or process pramUnirt facias shall be made out against them, as in any other cases of provisors." The lands of the four privileged orders which were thus exempted from paying tithes, are exempted up to the present day, because at the dissolution of the monasteries, the 31 Henry VIII. c. xiii., provided that all lands held by the monas- teries, and exempted from tithes, should also be exempted when vested in the Crown, and the same Act extended the exemption to all those who should become possessors of such Crown pro- perty. There is also 2 Edward VI. c. xiii. This explains the fact that some of the present holders of monastic property pay no tithes ; some do ; and others are tithe-owners. CHAPTER XV. MONASTERIES. IN giving a history of tithes, it is absolutely necessary to give a brief account of the monasteries and monastic property in England. Immediately after Augustine came to England, the age of build- ing monasteries commenced. Before his arrival there were about twenty-one monastic establishments in the island not of the Bene- dictine order. The first British monastery, properly so-called, was established at Glastonbury, by St. Patrick, about A.D. 433. Previous to his arrival there was a sort of hermitage there, but when he came he formed the hermits into a society, framed monastic rules for their guidance, and made himself their abbot. A monastery was a place where people of both sexes lived alone, secluded from the common employment of the world for sacred duties and devotion. Monk, A.-S. munuc, through the Latin monachus, Greek /^ova^cs = solitary. Nun, Latin nonna. The British monks and nuns married until the Bene- dictine rule was rigidly enforced by King Edgar and Archbishop Dunstan in the tenth century. The religious houses may be classified thus cathedral churches, abbeys, and priories. There were four chief officers in the abbeys and priories (i) the chamberlain, who provided the monks' clothing; (2) the cellarer catered for them ; (3) the treasurer or bursar collected their rents and other revenue, and paid all their expenses ; and (4) 163 1 64 A History of Tithes. the sacrista or sexton took charge of the buildings and church, and all the utensils, books, pictures, etc., in them. The Benedictine monks were originally laymen, working in a very praiseworthy manner with their hands to support them- selves. Some were ordained as the needs of the monastery required, and although ordained, they were still monks, and resided within the walls of their convent. The monastic life had taken a great hold as early as the seventh century upon the Anglo- Saxon kings and nobles. But we must look to the Norman period for the full development of monastic institutions in this country. The mode of life and dress of the monks and nuns fascinated the Anglo-Saxons, and struck them with awe. The monasteries were richly endowed with estates. They also monopolized the rich mortuary fees. The treasures of the Anglo-Saxon kings, of their families, and of wealthy laymen, were poured into the monasteries. But the time was fast approaching when all those costly buildings, rich treasures, and priceless libraries, were to be swept away and destroyed by foreign savage hordes. The Danes made their first appearance in England A.D. 787. They were implacable enemies of the Christian religion. Between A.D. 858 and 878 they rifled and burnt the British monasteries. Plunder was always their game, and therefore they first attacked the monasteries because they were defenceless, and contained immense wealth. This vandalism was disastrous to the nation, because it dried up the only channel of learning and education in the land, and destroyed the only existing libraries. The monasteries were the treasure-houses for charters and privileges granted by kings and nobles from time to time, which wera deposited for safety in these sanctuaries. A carefully-written history of the country was also kept in many of the monastic libraries. The destruction of the monasteries by the Danes, Monasteries. 165 and the dispersion of their inmates among the villages, gave a powerful impetus to the erection of more parish churches ; for, after the departure of the Vandals, it was much cheaper to build a wooden church than to rebuild a monastery. The monastic churches served, up to the time of their destruction, as the parochial churches in many places. When these were destroyed, the nobility, wealthy landowners and bishops, exerted themselves to supply not only the deficiencies, but to increase the number of parish churches. The inmates of the monasteries scattered through 'the villages took, no doubt, an active part in church- building. The monasteries remained in ruins until the reign of King Edgar, who was a great supporter of the Church, and seemed to be under the complete control of Archbishop Dunstan the first episcopal pluralist the originator of a practice, contrary to the primitive custom of the Church, which, in subsequent centuries, was carried to a most scandalous extent. Wolsey, in more modern times, held several bishoprics at the same time, and yet one of his great objects was the reformation of the Church. But he should have commenced at home. The ostensible reason assigned in Dunstan's time for his conduct, was that there was a dearth of suitable men for the episcopal appointments ; but the real cause was, as in the case of Bishop Oswald, to carry out the scheme for removing the seculars and bringing the monks into the cathedral churches. In Wolsey's time the same ostensible reason could not be urged. But the revenues of a multiplicity of bishoprics were necessary to main- tain his pride and extravagant living, and to build palaces, which he presented to an ungrateful king. The leading church ideas of King Edgar during his reign were, (T) to rebuild the monasteries which lay in ruins, and 1 66 A History of Tithes. (2) to drive the married clergy out of the convents, replacing them by monks. Dunstan, Athelwold of Winchester, and Oswald of Worcester (afterwards of York), were the king's chief agents in carrying out his schemes. It does not appear that any of the other bishops had taken an active share in the work. Before King Edgar's reign, the monasteries were filled with secular clergymen, who did duty outside their monasteries. The English monks passed through three reformations : (i) At the Council of Cloveshoe, A.D. 747, where no reference was made to Benedict's rule, although it had been framed in 529 and approved of by the Pope in 595. (2) At the Council of Win- chester, A.D. 965, where Benedict's rule was prominently set forth for general adoption. The monks were henceforth to confine themselves to their cloisters, to have no parochial cure of souls, and to adopt celibacy. These facts alone prove that the discip- line of the Roman Church on the Continent, was imported into the English Church long before the Norman Conquest. Some writers, in treating of tithes and other church endowments, strive to show that the Church of England, before the Conquest, had not the same doctrines as the Roman Church. The object of this line of erroneous argument is to show that the endowments of the Church of England were given to her when her doctrines were different from those of the Church of Rome. The system of doctrinal development which was going on in the Roman Church on the Continent, was introduced and adopted in the Church of England by her hierarchy and priests. (3) At the Council of London, A.D. 1075, where monks were enjoined to adhere more strictly to the rule of Benedict. As I have stated above, before King Edgar's reign the monas- teries were convents of secular married clergy, whose children kept up a monopoly of all the valuable appointments in the Monasteries. 167 establishments. The result was certainly most pernicious to church and people. The clergy grew more and more indolent and illiterate, and their thoughts were entirely absorbed in the worldly affairs of their families, to the neglect of their spiritual duties. Although the monks had many faults, yet the English nation owes them a large debt of gratitude. They were better educated than the secular clergy ; were more refined, and were therefore better able to raise the standard of civilization in the country. That is what the married clergy could not then have done. The monasteries were the only schools where the children of the kings, nobility and gentry could be educated. King Edward the Confessor received his early training in the monas- tery of Ely, Their schools formed models for our most ancient universities. The monasteries were like so many burning torches in the midst of darkness and ignorance, and were the only sources which could then supply men intellectually capable of occupying episcopal positions. Some of the noblest benefactors to the Church were bishops taken from the cloisters. THE NORMAN CONQUEST. At the time of the Conquest, there were in England about 130 monasteries and cathedral churches, possessing about one-twelfth of the land. There were then nineteen bishoprics in England and Wales exclusive of the Isle of Man. Most of the Saxon bishops and abbots were replaced by Normans. The change was good. Some writers censure the Norman rulers for the change. But a better educated and more refined class of men had taken their places. A careful study of their lives and acts, as recorded in the " Monasticon," will corroborate my statement. All the property given to the religious houses in Anglo-Saxon 1 68 A' History of Tithes. times, was held in common. But the Norman bishops changed this arrangement in the cathedral churches. They divided the property and assigned to the canons what revenues they thought fit, and kept the rest of the church lands for their own personal use. These bishops had also initiated another innovation in the distribution of the cathedral revenues, which continued until 1840. They gave separate endowments of lands or tithes or both to the deans, priors, chancellors, treasurers, precentors, vicars choral, archdeacons, and prebendaries, for their own personal use, and quite separate from the common fund, of which the four princi- pal officers had also their shares. Some of the Norman bishops purchased landed estates out of their own episcopal revenues, which they divided into prebends, and endowed prebendaries with them ; other bishops divided some of the episcopal estates into prebends. Landed estates were also given by private donors which formed new prebendal endowments. These kind of en- dowments ceased about the thirteenth century. By the Cathedral Act of 1840, all the separate estates, amounting to about ^"60,000 per annum, were vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the Common Fund. At the time of the Conquest, the nineteen cathedral churches were composed of secular canons, except two, viz., Winchester and Worcester, which were composed of Benedictine monks. These two were subsequently increased to eight, viz., Canter- bury, Durham, Carlisle, Ely, Norwich, and Rochester, and so continued until the general dissolution of monasteries, when they were formed into secular chapters by changing the priors into deans, and chapters into canons. The fact that there were only two conventual chapters at the time of the Conquest, indicates that the seculars more than held their own in face of the power- ful patronage and protection of King Edgar and Archbishop Monasteries. 169 Dtinstan. It is doubtful whether this had been an improvement. The ranks of the episcopal order, as I have hitherto stated, were generally recruited from the monks, because competent men could not be found elsewhere. The magnificent and artistic cathedrals of this country, had been designed and built by men connected with the monkish order. There is Durham, by William de Carilepho, formerly a Norman abbot \ Ely, by its last abbots ; Gloucester, by its abbots ; Rochester, by Bishop Gun- dulf, a monk; Bishop Wacelin, in 1070, commenced to rebuild Winchester, and William of Wickham finished it ; Bishop Wol- stan laid the foundation of Worcester in 1084, etc. The following table of monasteries, taken from Bishop Tan- ner's " Notitia Monastica," published in 1695, will give an idea of the powerful impetus which the Norman Conquest had given to their erection in this country. Benedictines. Austin Order. Cluniacs. q a 'o u 4 bJO * q O 4 1 K< Alien Priories Premonstrat- ensians. Gilbertines. Carthusians. l| .g><5 w 13 sS William I 16 6 6 A.2. William II 7 2 4" 22 Henry I 1O A.O c 10 A 2 1 1 IO4 Stephen TC 2C 4 5C I 2 l o 6 5 Q7 Henry II ... 22 -?o 6 20 3 6 g j 1 08 Richard I 6 4 I I 2 18 lohn . 7 1 1 7 j 2 2 5 16 Henry III A Itf i Q ** 5 U 32 Edward I 2 j TO Edward II 2 2 A y Edward III 1 6 I 17 27 Richard II Henry IV 4 j 5" Henry V I 6 j J Henry VI 8 3 "5 144 26 86 52 12 51 21 20 3 I 531 To 531, add 130 before the Conquest; total, 66 1. 1 70 A History of Tithes. ALIEN MONASTERIES. The governing bodies of the foreign or alien monasteries, to which landed estates, tenements, tithes, churches, etc., in Eng- land were granted, had built priories in convenient parts of England on their manors, and sent monks from their own monas- teries to occupy them. The principal duties which these monks performed, were to collect the revenues from the properties, and transmit the money to the heads of the foreign monasteries. In fact they were their resident agents in this country. It is stated that not less than ^2,000 a year, a sum equal to ^"60,000 at the present time, was forwarded, in the reign of Edward III., to Cluny, in France, by the twenty-six Cluniac priories in England. King Edward L, in his wars with France, was the first to put a stop to the transmission of money from the alien priories in England to the heads of the foreign monasteries in France. They were dissolved by Henry V. and Henry VI. Owing to the pomp and luxuries of the hierarchy and monastic bodies, a religious revolutionary wave passed over this country in the thirteenth century, The main indications were, (i) the Lateran Council in 1215 ; (2) the appearance in England in 1217 of the Dominican, and in 1224 of the Franciscan preaching friars ; (3) the Mortmain Act of 1279. The religious mania for building and richly endowing monasteries commenced to decline in Edward I.'s reign. The Franciscan order was founded in A.D. 1208, and the Dominican in 1215. Pope Innocent III. approved of both orders in 1215. The ruling idea of these mendicant friars was the elevation of poverty to a virtue; but, strange to say, that before they were in existence many years they became the richest orders in Christendom. Wherever they were located they became the strongest supporters of the papacy, and for two Monasteries. 1 7 1 hundred years members of these orders occupied the papal throne. The friars in England, by their powerful and zealous preaching, had become very popular, to the great loss of the parochial clergy, who were steeped in ignorance and indolence. In their sermons and pamphlets, the friars strongly advised the people to pay no tithes to the parsons ; that tithes were but alms, and may be given to any charitable use, and that the parsons had no paro- chial rights to them. The result was that the people gave the tithes to the friars, both personal and predial, as alms. The parish priests seriously felt the diminution of their revenues. Convocation, of course, moved vigorously in the matter. 1 The begging friars knew how to draw water to their own fountains, and succeeded well. But " Holy Church " proved too powerful for them. They were pronounced heretics for preaching against the payment of tithes to the parsons, and for receiving the parsons' tithes themselves. But those cunning, crafty friars were only changing the course of the "alms "into their own channel. Apostolic poverty was written high on their banners, and yet they soon surpassed the parsons in luxury and indolence. A truly sincere and honest Englishman then appeared on the scene. John Wickliffe, rector of Lutterworth, who died A.D. 1384, preached the same views about tithes as the friars did. He strongly asserted that tithes were only alms, and may be given for any religious use, or retained, according to the will of the donor. The Church, of course, considered his statement rank heresy, and a council of ecclesiastics condemned his opinions as heretical. The cry, "the Church in danger," was then heard as loudly as in our own times whenever any salutary changes for her 1 Selden, p. 166. 172 A History of Tithes. improvement have been suggested, or when scandals and abuses are attempted to be removed. The most important and latest example occurred in 1840, when the so-called Cathedral Act was passed. 1 Oxford and Cambridge Universities petitioned Parlia- ment against this Act. Oxford took the lead and strongly protested against all church reforms and improvements originat- ing within the Church (which our leading statesmen then advo- cated) by means of a better and an equal distribution of church revenues. Oxford urged in 1840 that a large State grant should be made to the Church in order to supply the existing deficiencies of religious instruction. This was simply an impertinent applica- tion for State aid when the revenues of the Church were wasted in a disgraceful manner by her own officers. The twenty-six archbishops and bishops appointed before 1836, had received five and a half millions of money from their episcopal revenues alone. Counsel were actually engaged, who appeared at the bar of the House of Lords to oppose the Cathedral Act of 1840, which has turned out one of the most beneficial acts for the amelioration of the Church which our leading statesmen could then devise. Sir R. Inglis, M.P. for Oxford, called the Bishops Act of 1836 and the Cathedral Act of 1840, "Confiscations which were leading to the utter destruction of the Church of England." Let us compare this statement with that made in Parliament in 1882 by Sir John Mowbray, who now represents the same constituency. " The Ecclesiastical Commissioners," said Sir John, " augmented the value of livings in upwards of 4,700 out of 15,000 parishes into which England and Wales are divided. From 1836 to 1882 they added ^19,000,000 to the property of the Church, besides elicit- ing ^4,000,000 from private sources in the shape of contribu- 1 3 and 4 Viet., c. cxiii. Monasteries. 173 tions, making a total of ^23,000,000, which represents an annual income of ^690,000." * In the 43rd Report (1891) of the Commissioners, the following statement appears: " During a period of fifty years, from 1840 (when the Common Fund was first created) to 3ist October, 1890, the Commissioners have augmented and endowed upwards of 5,700 benefices with annual payments charged on the fund, or by the annexations of lands, tithes, etc., or by the grant of capital sums for the erection of parsonage houses, etc., to the value of about ^781,400 per annum, in perpetuity, equivalent to a capital sum of about ^23,469,000. The value of benefactions from private sources, of lands, tithes, stock, cash, etc., secured to various benefices, and met for the most part by grants from the Commissioners, exceeds ^164,340 per annum in perpetuity, equi- valent to a permanent increase of endowment of say ^4,930,000, apart from a sum of about ^26,000 per annum, contributed by benefactors to meet the Commissioners' grants for curates in mining districts. Thus the total increase in the incomes of bene- fices made by the Commissioners or resulting from the benefactions accepted, and met by them, exceeds ^971,700 per annum, and may be taken to represent a capital sum of about ^29,i79,ooo." 2 The foregoing statement is the best proof as to the absurd and short-sighted remarks of Sir. R. Inglis and his followers in 1840. The net income of the Common Fund is now over one million per annum. It has taken more than 125 Acts of Parliament directly and indirectly relating to the Church, and some thousands of Orders in Council to drag the State Church out of the sink of abuses in which it was found in 1832 when the first Reform Act was passed. 1 "Hansard's Debates," House of Commons, 3ist March, 1882. 2 43rd Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (1891), p. vii. 174 A History of Tithes. There were also grave and serious abuses in the Church in Wickliffe's days. He was as hostile to the Pope's supremacy as he was to the compulsory payment of tithes. He held that kings were superior to popes, and therefore that appeals from spiritual to temporal tribunals were just, right, and lawful. Time proved that his opinion on this point was correct. He must have been a man of great boldness to question in those days the supremacy of the popes. We, living in the end of the nineteenth century, can take a historical survey of the various changes and struggles which occurred, as regards the popes' supremacy, since Wickliffe's time. He utterly detested the monks for their luxurious and worldly habits. The parochial clergy also did not escape his lash. He preferred the good old custom of one paying one's tithes, according to one's own free-will, to good and godly men, who were able to preach the gospel ; and he condemned in his complaint to King Richard II. and his Parliament, the practice of compelling people to pay tithes. 1 If we examine the charters which appropriated tithes to monas- teries, we shall find that the tithes are stated therein to be given as alms in perpetuity. As regards tithes given to rectors and vicars of parishes, the usual style of the grant ran thus : " The tithes were granted as free, pure, and perpetual alms for ever" The words in italics are most remarkable. Richard de Clare, Earl of Herts, gave the rectorial tithes of Brenchley and Yalding, in Kent, to Tunbridge Priory in pure and perpetual alms. Robert de Crevequer, founder of Leeds Abbey about 1137, gave the canons there in free and perpetual alms, all the churches on his estates, with their glebe lands, tithes, and advowsons. King John had appropriated the rectory of Bapchild, in Kent, to the Dean and Chapter of Chichester, on the recommendation of the Bishop 1 Selden : "History of Tithes," p. 291. Monasteries. 175 of Chichester, to be held in free, pure, and perpetual alms. The chapter received ^437 a year tithe-rent charge; vicar, 167. William de Auberville, in 1192, gave to the priory of West Lang- don the rectories of Oxney and of St. Mary's, Liddon, in pure and perpetual alms. 1 I have given here only a few examples to show how the tithes had been granted by the owners to parishes and monasteries. Yet in the face of these grants, episcopal, cathedral and parochial, incumbents claim the tithes as their own exclusive property. But Wickliffe and the friars were much better judges of the facts than church defenders at the present time. They truly asserted that the tithes were by custom originally given as alms or free-will offerings without any compulsion whatsoever; and Wickliffe gave some additional information, viz., that they were given only to good and godly men who were able to preach the gospel. The fact that the landowners had given their tithes for any religious use to monks who were mostly laymen, to nuns, to the religious military orders, to foreign monasteries, I say that this proves to demonstration that tithes were not due by divine or legal right to the evangelical priesthood ; that tithes were property which could have been and were disposed of, like any other kind of property, to whatever use the benefactor or owner wished. But by clerical pressure at home, by threats of anathemas and excommunications, by the power of the confessional box, and by ecclesiastical pressure from Rome, the English landowners, and also those who paid personal tithes, had slowly come round to the practice of paying them to the parochial clergy not as their exclusive income, but as trustees reserving an adequate portion of the tithes for their own personal use, and dividing the remainder among the poor and stranger, and for repairing the church. But the trustees appropriated all the tithes to their own personal use, 1 See Hasted's " History of Kent," ed. 1778, under the above parishes. 176 A History of Tithes. and relieved the poor and repaired the church out of alms and contributions of the parishioners. These are the real facts of this disgraceful case of clerical trustees misappropriating the tithes to their own personal use, and this misappropriation has been going on at least 500 years, which gives them a prescriptive right to all the tithes. I have already sketched out how this misappro- priation commenced, and the inability of the poor to obtain redress. The following extract, taken from one of the charters granting tithes to monasteries, indicates how tithes were given : CHARTER OF EARL RANDULPH GERNONS OF CHESTER TO THE MONASTERY OF CHESTER. " Universitati vestrae notum facio me dedisse in elemosina in perpetuum Deo et S. Mariae ecclesiae S. Werburgae et Rudulpho abbati et conventui dictae ecclesiae pro salute animae Hugonis comitis, praedictae ecclesiae fundatoris ac pro salute animae Ran- dulphi comitis patris mei, et antecessorum meorum, et pro salute animae meae, et Christianorum omnium, omnem decimam integriter et plenarie omnium reddituum meorum civitatis Cestriae," etc. 1 This earl died in A.D. 1153. Earl Hugh Lupus, the refounder, who died in 1101, granted many manors, churches, and tithes, as alms in perpetuity. All the early parochial records are lost, and therefore in dealing with the old parishes we are at a great dis- advantage. It is not so with the monasteries. The monastic bodies, free from Danish invasions, had carefully preserved all their charters of grants, because they had often to produce their title deeds when claims were made by others to some of the pro- perty which they possessed, and also when some of their pro- perty had been lost or taken from them by force or by kings. It was not so with regard to lands and tithes held by parochial incumbents. 1 " Monasticon," vol. i. CHAPTER XVI. THE DISSOLUTION OF MONASTERIES* WHAT precedents had Henry VIII. to guide him in dissolving the monasteries ? (1) Edward I., in A.D. 1295, seized the property of the alien priories. (2) In 1324 (17 Edward II.) the lands and tenements held in England by the Templars were, by Act of Parliament, seized and transferred to the Knights Hospitallers, when the services of the former were no longer required for purposes for which the property had been assigned to them. (3) Edward III., in 1337, seized the alien priories, and let out the lands and tenements, until there was peace with France in 1361. The most valuable of them were naturalized, and thus became free from the yoke of any foreign monastery, and could elect their own priors. (4) Richard II. bestowed on the Carthusians several of the smaller alien priories which Edward III. had seized. (5) In the reign of Henry IV. the House of Commons sug- gested, in 1404, that the clergy, including the religiosi, should be deprived of all their temporalities, in order to furnish funds for the defence of the kingdom and for the maintenance of a large army. A similar proposal was made in 1410, but the king, directly influenced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, would not listen to the suggestions. These facts indicate the growing '77 N 1/3 A History of Tithes. unpopularity of the Church even at that early period of the life of the House of Commons. The Statute of Mortmain in 1279, the Statutes of Pro visors in 1351 (25 Edward III. c. vi.), and of 1353 (27 Edward III.), the Statute of Premunire in 1393, are all so many previous illustrations of the growing hostile feeling of Parliament towards the Church, monastic establishments, and the pope of Rome. (6) In the reign of Henry V. another attack was made upon the property of the Church by the Parliament which met in 1415, but the tact of the Archhishop of Canterbury on this occasion, as well as in 1404 and 1410, saved the property. The Parliament granted the King, however, all the property of the alien priories, except those which were free and could elect their own priors. Henry V. built and endowed six colleges and three religious houses, principally out of the property of the suppressed priories. (7) Henry VI. founded and endowed Eton College and King's College, Cambridge, out of the same suppressed property. (8) Cardinal Wolsey, with the approval of King Henry VIII. and the Pope, suppressed over twenty small religious houses in A.D. 1523, in order to furnish funds to build and endow his college Cardinal College, now Christ Church, Oxford the richest in that University. These are instructive and interesting facts. Large monastic en- dowments were devoted to building and richly endowing colleges and schools for the sons of the wealthy men of the country. In the Appendices will be found a complete account of the gross amounts of tithe-rent charges which the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, and some of the public schools receive. I should also gladly give the monastic manors and glebe lands, quite separate from the vicarial glebe lands, which these colleges and schools also received, but I have not the information. But I supply The Dissolution of Monasteries. 179 the large patronage they have at their disposal. And I may state that of all Church patronage, the most objectionable is collegiate and public school patronage. Broken-down old dons, fellows, and teachers of schools, men full of eccentricities, totally unfit for parish work, are pensioned off with college livings, which are generally well endowed with glebe lands and tithe?, and each with a rural population of a few hundreds. Here they end their days in ease and quietness, after giving the best and most active part of their lives to tutorial work in their respective colleges and schools. The wealthy parochial endowments of the collegiate and scholastic livings are out of all proportion to the population and parish work, which in their cases is nil. In purchasing advowsons, the colleges select country parishes with large endowments, small areas, and small populations. I have stated eight cases for Henry VIII.'s guidance in dis- solving the monasteries. I shall now state his own action in the matter. In 1533 (24 Henry VIII. c. xii.) the Statute for the Restraint of Appeals to Rome was passed. In 1534 Parliament made him " Supreme head of the Church of England." He therefore took the Pope's place, and received the firstfruits and tenths. In 1535 Commissioners were appointed to take the value of all ecclesiastical benefices, in order to settle the firstfruits and tenths. In 1536 the valuation was completed. In 1535, by 27 Henry VIII. c. xx., for tithes to be paid throughout the realm. In 1536 (28 Henry VIII. c. xvi.), the power of the Pope over tithes in England was finally extinguished. The monks viewed the King's conduct in taking the Pope's place with the most bitter hostility. They constantly used their influence to excite the feelings of the people against the King. Henry knew all this, and that he could never alienate them from the Pope. The sub- I So A History of Tithes. sequent conduct of the King and his ministers was guided more by political expediency than on religious or moral grounds. There was but one course open to the King, and that was to dissolve all the religious houses. It was a bold, arduous, and dangerous step. The morality of these houses was the only vulnerable. point in which he thought he could successfully carry out his plan. He first obtained an Act of Parliament empowering him " to visit, order, and reform all errors and abuses in religion." This was the lever which Henry's agents used to expose every real and imaginary immoral act, and thus create hostility in th$ minds of the people against them. A Royal Commission was issued in 1535 with unlimited power to visit the monasteries. In 1536 the report was finished. But the original was destroyed in Queen Mary's reign, We must be careful as to what credence should be given to evidence taken down and reported upon by such Commissioners as Leigh and Leyton, who had not scrupled to suborn witnesses. An Act was passed in 1536 (27 Henry VIII. c. xxviii.), which dissolved every monastery with a revenue of less than 200 per annum, and transferred to the King all the monas- teries, priories, and other religious houses, all the sites, circuits, churches, chapels, advowsons, patronage, manors, granges, lands, hereditaments, tithes, pensions, annuities, rights, etc., which belonged to such monasteries; and that "The king shall have them in as large and ample a manner as the governors of those houses possessed them. That he was to have and to hold them, his heirs and assigns, to do and use therewith his and their own wills, to the pleasure of God and to the honour and profit of this realm/' And the Act further states that " Those who take the above property from the king shall have, hold, and enjoy the same in like manner, form, and condition as before the Act of Dissolution" Those who took the property were therefore sub- The Dissolution of Monasteries. 1 8 1 ject to the same limitations, privileges, and burdens as the religiosi were. By this Act, 376 houses were dissolved and their properties vested in the Crown. The King received ^3 2,000 per annum from the estates, and also he received jewels and personal effects valued at ^100,000. He gave small pensions to some abbots, priors, and monks ; others he transferred to larger monasteries. The houses were stripped of their lead, bells, glass, and materials, which were sold to the neigbouring gentry. The conditions upon which all the vast monastic property was given by Parliament to the King were, " That they were to be used to the pleasure of God and to the honour and profit of this realm." Did Henry VIII. or his successors carry out these conditions? They certainly did not. The property of the alien priories was insignificantly small as compared with the enormous properties which Parliament granted to Henry VIII. But there was this distinction between them. Almost all the former properties were devoted to religious and educational purposes. Laymen received little or nothing. But the case was very different with Henry VIII.'s confiscations. The courtiers and favourites were most eager to share, and did obtain, monastic estates and tithes, and also episcopal and capitular landed estates, which some of their successors still hold, others sold them, and thus much of the property has been handed down to the present time through a long line of purchasers. Henry VIII. intended to create twenty-one new bishoprics, and out of the proceeds of the monastic properties to suitably endow them. But he created and endowed only six. The courtiers and favourites of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, who received inferior monastic lands, induced these sovereigns to make certain of the archbishops, bishops, and chapters exchange their good lands for the inferior lands of the courtiers and favour- 1 82 A History of Tithes. ites, and also to exchange impropriated tithes for lands of equal value belonging to episcopal and capitular corporations. These exchanges were very numerous in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth. Hasted, in his " History of Kent," makes the follow- ing remark, " Cranmer observing that his stately palaces excited the envy of the courtiers, passed them away with their estates to the King. 11 For example, Otford Palace and its beautiful parks. Archbishop Warham spent ^33,000, an enormous sum in those days, in rebuilding the palace. Cranmer, in 1538, was ordered to surrender the palace and the manor of Otford and Sergeants Otford to Henry VIII. Edward VI. granted the Little Park of Otford on lease to Sir Henry Sidney. Elizabeth granted Sergeants Otford and the Little Park on lease to Sir Robert Sidney. James I. granted the palace and Greater Park to Sir Thomas Smith. Edward VI. granted the parsonage and advowson of Shoreham with the Chapel of Otford to Sir Anthony Denny, who exchanged them with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for the advow- son of Cheshunt in Herts. The Chapter had ^702, tithe rent charge from Otford; there was no vicar; and ^806 los. from Shoreham ; total ^1,508 i6s. Hasted says of Knole manor and manor house: "Cranmer observing murmurings among the hungry courtiers of the arch- bishop's palaces, compounded with Henry VIII. to give up the best and richest manors ; therefore, in 1538, Cranmer gave to the King the manors of Otford, Wrotham, Bexley, North flete, Maidstone, Knole, Sergeants Otford, Sevenoke, Shoreham, Chevening, Panters, and Brytains, with their appurtenances." Here were twelve manors given in one swoop to satisfy Henry VIII.'s " hungry courtiers," who were " murmuring " for the spoils. The reader will have to consult Hasted's " Kent," to know the courtiers and favourities to whom these manors were granted. The Dissolution of Monasteries. 183 An Act was passed, i Elizabeth c. xix., which authorized the Queen to take in her hands, on the voidance of any bishopric, so much of the lands belonging to it as should be equal in value to the monastic confiscated rectorial tithes belonging to the Crown in that diocese, and to exchange such tithes for lands. Some of these lands were then given to her ministers and favourites, some were kept by the Crown, and others sold to furnish funds for national purposes, so as to prevent application to Parliament for money. It was in this manner that bishops and cathedral chapters lost so much landed property which the Crown granted as above stated, and the court favourites, soon after they received the grants, sold the estates and parsonages to the highest purchaser. Here then were landed estates, with endowments and advowsons of the churches belonging to such estates FREELY granted away. Lord Cobham's to the Cecils, for instance, who almost immediately sold the properties which they freely received from the Crown, and applied the proceeds to their own personal use. Now, as regards the suppression of the larger monasteries, they were to be carried out, if possible, by voluntary surrender. I shall show that this was purely a sham. The Commissioners, no doubt, tried in every way to persuade them to surrender by promising the abbots and priors good pensions during life, because no charges of immorality could have been preferred against them. In 1536-7, there were but three surrenders. In 1537-8 there were twenty-four. The Commissioners induced those who surrendered to persuade others to follow their example, for it was the King's policy to let the public see that the surrenders were voluntarily made. When persuasion failed, the Com- missioners used threats, and so we read that the monks of the Charterhouse were committed like common felons to Newgate, 1 84 A History of Tithes. where five of them died, and five more were on the point of death from the cruel and barbarous treatment they received within the walls of that prison. But the most revolting act of pure despotism on the part of Henry VIII. was the execution of Whiting, abbot of Glastonbury, Coke, abbot of Reading, and Beche, abbot of St. John's,. Colchester. These despotic acts drove terror into those who had not yet surrendered. In 1538-9, one hundred and seventy-four surrendered, and in 1539-40, seventy-six. In April, 1539, a slavish Parliament ratified the surrenders up to that time, and allowed the King to extend the Act to all the other monasteries which had not yet surrendered, by 31 Henry VIII. c. xiii., " An Act for the dissolution of monasteries and abbeys," by which about 277 monasteries of the value of ^200 a year or upwards, were dissolved ; and what makes their dissolution more remarkable and important, is that all the property of 193 of them was and is discharged of tithes up to the present time. Over 653 monasteries were dissolved by the Acts of 1536 and 1540, with properties equal to ,250,000 per annum. In the preamble of the above Act we do not find those grave charges hurled against monks which appear in the Act which suppressed the smaller monasteries in 1535. In order to pass the above Acts, some of the nobility were pro- mised estates by free gifts from the King, others obtained them by easy purchase. The members of the House of Commons were also promised large shares, and of course Henry's agents dangled before the people : " No more subsidies, no fifteenths, no loans, no common aids," as the wealth of the dissolved monasteries was considered ample to maintain an army of 40,000 men, and so all taxation may in future be dispensed with ! The Church was also to be conciliated. There were to be twenty-one bishoprics created, with cathedrals, deans, and chapters all endowed out of the pro- The Dissolution of Monasteries. 185 party. This number was, however, reduced to six. Westminster existed only for about nine years. Five now exist. Gloucester and Bristol were united in 1836 ; but when sufficient funds are collected to endow the Bristol bishopric, they are to be separated. In 1540, there were 653 monasteries suppressed. In 1546, 90 colleges, no hospitals, and 2,347 chantries, with all their properties, were handed over to the King by i Edward VI. c. xiv., the preamble of which runs thus : " To convert to good and godly uses the chantries, or in erecting grammar schools to the educa- tion of youth in virtue and godliness, and in further augmenting of universities and better provision for the poor and needy" This provision for the use of the chantry estates lamentably failed. Neither the universities nor the poor were benefited. Like the monastic estates, the hungry and avaricious courtiers who sur- rounded the young king, had received the property for their own personal use. The capital value of all the property handed over to Henry VIII., Edward VI. and Elizabeth would equal ^200,000,000 at the present time. The 27 Henry VIII. c. xx. (1536) provides that "all tithes should be paid according to the ecclesiastical laws and ordinances of the Church of England, and after the laudable usages of the parish or place where the party dwelt." The 32 Henry VIIL, c. vii. s. 5 (1541) : " No tithes are to be paid for lands discharged from paying tithes, or are not chargeable in the payment of tithes." , : CHAPTER XVII. TITHES IN THE CITY AND LIBERTIES OF LONDON. IN the early history of the Christian Church, the citizens of London made oblations or offerings at every mass on Sundays and holidays, and such oblations were applied to the relief of the poor, the repairs of the church and the support of the clergy. From these purely voluntary oblations grew up a custom in the City of London, that every person paying 2os. a year rental should give to God and the Church, \d. for every Sunday or Apostle's day, the vigil of which was a fast. If he paid only los. a year rental, he was to give \d. This amounted in the former case to 2$. 6d. in .the pound, and is. $d. in the latter, per annum. These were customary payments, and were applied for the same three purposes poor, fabric and clergy. As these customary payments were found to decrease, it was deemed necessary to promulgate an order to permanently fix the customary payments. Bishop Roger took up the subject immediately after his consecration as Bishop of London. The following are the facts of the case : (i) In A.D. 1228, in the reign of Henry III., Bishop Roger, surnamed Niger, or Le Noir, of London, made a constitution or modus, that every occupier of a house should offer as his tithe to his parish church, \d. for 20^. a year rental, and \d. for los. a year rental, for every Sunday and every Apostle's day, whereof the evening was fasted. There were fifty-two Sundays and eight Apostles' days in the year that were fasted. Two shillings and Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 187 sixpence a year was then the amount of the modus dedmandi which the former occupier had to pay, and one shilling and three pence a year the latter. The amounts would be less when any of the Apostles' days fell upon Sundays. The above particulars appear in the Records in the Town Clerk's office, London. It is a well-known point in law that a house qua house is not liable for the payment of tithes. Tithes were paid for what issued or grew out of the ground. Enormous house properties have been erected in and around all our cities and towns, for which one penny as tithe-money has never been paid, and yet the house property in the City and Liberties of London, and landed property throughout the country, have to pay a modus and tithe-rent charges. (2) Bishop Roger's modus was paid for 160 years, viz., from 1229 to 1389, when Archbishop Arundel, of Canterbury, interfered with the arrangement in the latter year. He was not satisfied with the interpretation put upon Bishop Roger's Constitution as regards the number of Apostles' days, and so he added twenty- two more saints' days, thus increasing the payments from 2S. 6d. to $s. $d. a year, and this he did without consulting the payers. The citizens of London were quite indignant at the additional number of saints' days, and placed on record their protest against the same for the information of future generations. There were constant quarrels between the citizens and their clergy in the ecclesiastical courts, and at the Pope's court at Rome, with regard to the payment of the extra nd. The Archbishop appealed to the Pope as to the soundness of his interpretation, and as a matter of course, Pope Innocent VII., in 1403, confirmed the interpre- tation. But the Pope's bull did not pacify the citizens of London. They considered the additional \\d. a cheat a fraud. Besides, the Pope's bull could not compel them to pay the additional 1 88 A History of Tithes. amount. In 1453, however, it appears, by a record in the Town Clerk's office, 1 that Archbishop ArundePs order is declared by the Common Council to be " destructory rather than declaratory, and that it was obtained surreptitiously and deceptiously, without assent on the part of the citizens, or summoning them." I should imagine that the Church, with its terrible ecclesiastical courts made them pay the 35-. 5^., for we find no change in the payment until 1535, when the whole subject was considered by the Privy Council, who made an order for the payment of 2s. gd. in the pound. Therefore in the same year an Act was passed, 2 authoriz- ing the citizens of London to pay their tithes at the rate of 2$. qd. in the pound. Ten years later another Act was passed, 3 " That the citizens and inhabitants of the City of London and Liberties of the same shall yearly, without fraud or covin, for ever pay their tithes to the parsons, vicars, and curates of the said City, and their successors for the time being, after the following rate : For every los. rent by the year of all houses, shops, warehouses, cellars, tables, etc., within the City and Liberty, i6\d.} and for every 205-. rent by the year, 2s. yd. ; and so above the rent of 2os. by the year, ascending from los. to icxr., according to the rate aforesaid." (3) The next account of tithes in London was after the great fire in 1666. An Act which I call the first Fire Act was passed in i67o, 4 for the better settlement of the maintenance of the parsons, vicars and curates in the parishes of the city of London burnt by the great fire. The preamble runs thus : " Whereas the tithes in the city of London were levied and paid with great inequality, and are, since the late dreadful fire there, in the rebuilding of the same, by taking away some houses, alter- 1 Letter Book K., 32 Henry VI. 2 27 Henry VI IL c. xxi. 8 37 Henry VIII. c. xii. 4 22 & 23 Charles II., c. xv. Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 189 ing the foundations of many, and the new erecting of others, so disordered, that in case they should not for the time to come be reduced to a certainty, many contrivances and suits of law might arise, be it enacted that the annual certain tithes of every parish in the City of London and its Liberties, whose churches have been demolished or in part consumed by the late fire, be paid accord- ing to the sum opposite each." Sec. 3. " Which respective sums of money to be paid in lieu of tithes within the said respective parishes, and assessed as here- inafter is directed, shall be and continue to be esteemed, deemed and taken to all intents and purposes, to be the respective annual maintenance (over and above glebes and perquisites, gifts and bequests to the respective parson, vicar and curate of any parish for the time being, or to their successors respectively, or to others for their use) of the said respective parsons, vicars and curates, who shall be legally instituted, inducted and admitted in the respective parishes." In subsequent sections assessments were ordered to be made before the 24th July, 1671, upon all houses, shops, warehouses, cellars, and other hereditaments, except parsonage and vicarage houses. Three transcripts were to be made by the assessors, containing the respective sums to be payable out of all the premises within each parish ; one was for the Lord Mayor, the second for the Bishop of London's registry, and the third was to remain in the vestry. The payments were to be made in four quarterly pay- ments. If any inhabitant should refuse payment the Lord Mayor should issue his warrant of distress on his goods. If the Lord Mayor should refuse to issue his warrant, then it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, or Keeper of the Gr^aJL^aL or any 1 90 A History of Tithes. two or more of the barons of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer to issue warrants of distress. The payments made by 22 & 23 Car. II. c. xv. (1670) were increased by 44 George III. c. Ixxxix. (1804). As the City and Liberties of London are converted into offices, banks, warehouses, etc., and are almost depopulated, it is im- portant and instructive to give the names of the parishes which appear in the Fire Act of 1670, with trie respective annual sums, allowed in 1670 and the modified annual sums allowed in 1804. The first sum is for 1670, the second for 1804, and the third shows net income in 1890, with population from Clergy List, 1891. H = house. A.D. 1670. A. D. 1804. * ' <*. 1. All Hallows, Lombard Street ... 100 o 200 o o 2. S. Bartholomew, Exchange ... 100 o 200 o o 3. S. Bridget, alias Brides ... 120 o 200 o o 4. S. Bennet Fink 100 o 200 o o 5. S. Michael, Crooked Lane ... 100 o 200 o o 6. S. Dionis Backchurch 120 o 200 o o 7. S. Dimstan-in-the-East ... 200 o 333 6 8 536 442 8. S. James', Garlickhithe ... loo o 200 o o 9. S. Michael, Cornhill 140 o 233 6 8now935 H 227 10. S. Michael Bassishaw 132 u 220 18 4 250 215 11. S. Mary, Aldermanbury ... 150 o 250 o o 250 168 12. S. Martin, Ludgate 1600 266 13 4 13. S. Peter, Cornhill no o 200 o o 2,150 H 196 14. S. Stephen, Coleman Street ... no o 200 o o 750 1,800 15. S. Sepulchre ... ... ... 200 o 333 6 8 536114,570 1 6. All Hallows, Bread Street, and S. John Evangelist .;. ... 140 o 233 6 8 17. All Hallows the Great, and All Hallows the Less 200 o 333 6 8 618 92 18. S. Albans, Wood Street, and S. Olaves, Silver Street ... 170 o 283 6 8 680 258 19. S. Anne and Agnes, and S. John Zachary 140 o 233 68 400 H 273 20. S. Augustin and S. Faith ... 172 o 286 13 4 638 554 Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 191 s. s. d. Pop. 21. S. Andrew Wardrobe, and S. Anne, Blackfriars ... ... 140 O 233 6 8 320 Hi,n8 22. St. Antholin and St. John Bap- tist 120 o 200 oo * 23. S. Bennet, Gracechurch, and S. Leonard, Eastcheap 140 o 233 6 8 24. S. Bennet, Paul's Wharf, and S. Peter's, Paul's Wharf ... 100 o 200 o o * 25. Christ Church, Newgate Street, and S. Leonard, Foster Lane 200 o 333 68 461 H 1,386 26. S. Edmund the King and S. Nicholas Aeons 180 o 300 o o 1,150 H 222 27. S. George, Botolph Lane, and S. Botolph, Billingsgate ... 180 o 300 o o 380 H 195 28. S.Lawrence, Jewry, and S. Mag- dalen, Milk Street 120 o 200 o o 683 216 29. S. Margaret, Lothbury, ^100 ; and S. Christopher ;i 20 ... 220 o 366 13 4 * 30. S. Magnus and S. Margaret, New Fish Street 170 o 283 6 8 * 31. S. Michael Royal and S. Martin Vintry 140 o 233 6 8 235 208 32. S. Matthew, Friday Street, and S. Peter, Westcheap ... 150 o 250 o o * 33. S. Margaret Pattens, and S. Gabriel, Fenchurch 120 o 200 o o now 830 H 178 34. S. Mary-at-Hill and S. Andrew Hubbard 200 o 333 6 8 400 H 295 35. S. Mary Woolnoth, and S. Mary Woolchurch 160 o 266 13 4now8oo H 319 36. S. Clement, Eastcheap, and S. Martin Orgar 140 o 233 6 8 350 H 238 37. S. Mary Abchurch, and S. Law- rence Pountney 120 o 200 o o 590 H 236 38. S. Mary, Aldermary, and S. Thomas the Apostle ... 150 o 250 o o * 39. S. Mary-le-Bow ; S. Pancras, Soper Lane, and All Hallows, Honey Lane 200 o 333 68 * 40. S. Mildred, Poultry, and S. Mary Colechurch 170 o 283 6 8 192 A History of Tit/ies. S. S. d. Pop. 41. S. Michael, Wood Street, and S. Mary Staining 100 O 20O O 255 172 42. S. Mildred, Bread Street, and S. Margaret Moyses 130 216 13 4 280 76 43- S. Michael, Queenhithe, and Trinity 1 60 266 13 4 * 44- s. Mary Magdalene, Old Fish Street, and S. Gregory by S. Paul 1 20 o 2OO o o 45- s. Mary Somerset, and S. Mary Mounthaw IIO 20O o * 4 6. s. Nicholas Cole Abbey, and S. Nicholas, Olave 130 216 13 4 * 47- s. Olave, Old Jewry, and S. Martin Pomroy 1 20 o 2OO o o * 4 8. s. Stephen, Walbrook, and S. Benet Sherehog IOO o 200 o 774 H 127 49- s. S within and S. Mary, Bot- haw ... ... ... ... I4.O o 211 6 8 4^1 24.1 5 o. s. Vedast, Foster Lane, and S. Michael-le-Querne 1 6O 266 13 4 * Total ...: ',164 11^12,240 18 4 [5,702 14,024 * These parishes are united to other parishes. 41 parishes out of the 86 are united thus (1) Numbers I, 6, and 23=4 parishes, aic united under one rector, whose net aggregate annual income =^"800 ; total population, 481. (2) Numbers 2, 29, 40, and 47=7 ditto ; rector's ditto=^i,o6o and house; population, 66 1. (3) Number 3 and Bridewell=2 ditto ; rector's ditto=^45o H ; pop., 2, 163 . (4) Number 4 and S. Peter-le-Poer=2 ditto ; rector's ditto=^ 1,000; pop., 1, 200. (5) Numbers 5 and 30=3 ditto ; rector's ditto =^582 and house ; pop., 432. (6) Numbers 8 and 43=3 ditto ; rector's ditto=^68o H ; pop., 474. (7) Numbers 12 and 44=3 ditto ; rector's ditto=^568 ; pop., 1,200. (8) Numbers 16 and 39=5 ditto ; rector's ditto=;8io ; pop., 272. (9) Numbers 22 and 38=4 ditto ; rector's ditto=;84O H ; pop., 285. (10) Numbers 24, 45 and 466 ditto ; rector's ditto =^"660 and house ; pop., 297. (u) Numbers 32 and 50=4 ditto ; rector's ditto=^6oo H ; pop., 360. n incumbents=43 parishes=^8,o5o=7,i63 population. Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 193 S. Peter-le-Poer and Bridewell included above are not in the Fire Acts. The total incomes of the 37 incumbents from the 86 Fire parishes were in 1890,^22,852; aggregate population, 12,000. By the revised Fire Act of 1804, ^12,241 of the ^22,852, comes from the Fire rates paid by the ratepayers of these parishes; the balance, ^"10^611, comes from ground-rents and house-rents of properties which belong to the incumbents of the respective parishes. The average NET annual income of each of the 37 incumbents, was,, in 1890, ^"642, for an average population of 572, or i 2s. per head, including children. (a) S. Michael, Cornhill, has over ^"700 a year from house rentals ; (b) the present rector of S. Peter's, Cornhill, has ,2,500 a year from rentals of two houses on glebe estate, out of which he pays 300 a year net to S. James, Duke's Place; he has also 200 from Fire Act; i.e.) 2,400 a year for 196 parishioners including children. On next avoidance the ,2,200 will be divided into five shares ; he gets one ; and four other benefices get 440 each. His income will then be 440 +200 by Fire Act =640. (c) The rector, of S. Edmund the King and S. Nicholas Aeons has a net income of 1,150, for 222 parishioners ; viz. , 300 by Fire Act and 850 from ground-rents and interest on 18,000, the price of a house sold belonging to the. benefice [see 26th Report, p. 86, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners}. With respect to other parishes in the City and Liberties of London which are not included in the Fire Act, the incumbents received the tithes specified in the Acts 27 Henry VIII., c. xxi. and 37 Henry VIII. c. xii., viz., 2s. yd. in the pound upon the rentals of the houses. The whole sum was paid into the common treasury of the parish, and was applied to three purposes, viz. (i) the support of the clergy ; (2) the relief of the poor ; and (3) the repairs of the church. Here is the tripartite division. 1 By the London (City) Tithes Act, 27, 28 Viet. c. cclxviii. (1864), annual fixed sums are paid in lieu of tithes, but subject to a revision on the first avoidance of the benefice that happens after the expiration of a period of 28 years from the passing of the Act. 1 Report of the Special Committee in relation to tithes, submitted to the Court of Common Council, May, 1812, City Records. O 194 A History of Tithes. These are the benefices : Pop. S. Andrew Undershaft ... Fixed sum per annum ... 2,500 ... 315 S. Katherine Colman ... ,, ,, ... 1,550 ... 277 S. Olave, Hart Street ... ,, ,, ... 2,600 ... 255 All Hallows, London Wall ... ,, ,, ... 1,700 ... 535 All Hallows, Barking ... ,, ,, ... 2,000 ... 350 S. Ethelburga ... ,, ,, ... 950 ... 199 Total ^11,300 ...2,106 Sec. 17 of this Act made legal the prospective agreements between the incumbent and vestry as regards the fixed annual sums in lieu of tithes, viz. : Pop. S. Alphege, London Wall, as appeared in London Gazette, 31 Aug., 1869 I J 35 3 1 St. Martin Outwich, Threadneedle Street, as appeared in London Gazette ', 24 Feb., 1871 ... ... 2,250 ... St. Peter-le-Poer, Broad Street, as appeared in London Gazette, 27 Sept., 1864 ... 1,725 ... 530 By Sec. 18, All Hallows Staining, Mark Lane. Population, 175- Agreement published in the London Gazette, 21 March, 1865, Tithes commuted for fixed annual sum of ^"1,600. Out of the proceeds of this tithe-rate, two new churches All Hallows, Bromley, and S. Anthony, Stepney have been built, and their vicars endowed each with ^500 per annum, and the balance is accumulating for the erection of a third church and the endow- ment of its vicar. The tithes of the following parishes have been commuted by local Acts. Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 195 S. Andrew, Holborn. 4 George IV. c. cxviii. Fixed annual net sum 700 S. Giles, Cripplegate. 7 George IV. c. liv. ,, ... ijSoo 1 S. Botolph without, Bishopsgate. 6 George IV. c. clxxvi. ... 2,5oo 2 The rector of S. Giles-in-the-Fields has a charge of ^"300 net a year on next avoidance of S. Botolph without, Bishopsgate. Under the London (City) Tithes Act, 1879, portions of the sums payable as above have been redeemed, the consideration being such sum as will, if invested in 3 per cent, consols., pro- duce an annual sum equal as near as may be to the annual amount of such rent-charge. The consideration is paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who pay the dividends on the stock to the incumbents. It is important to give seriatim some further particulars about the above benefices. (1) Of the ^2,500 of S. Andrew Undershaft^ w. S. Mary-at- Axe^ eight parishes receive in the aggregate ^500 a year. 3 The Bishop of London is patron ; the rector is Bishop Billing, his suffragan ; his net income is ^2,057, with ^375 a year for house rented; total, ^2,432. Church accommodation, 210; popula- tion, 315. (2) The fixed tithe of S. Catherine Colman is ^1,550, out of which six parishes at Bethnal Green receive in the aggregate ^"400, S. Thomas Charterhouse ^150, the rectors of S. Giles-in- the-Fields ;ioo, and S. Mary, Whitechapel, ^"500 per annum. 4 Bishop of London, patron ; rector, Bishop Wilkinson ; income, 1 Subject to revision every ten years. In 1890 the value=;i,ioo per annum. 2 Revised every ten years. In 1890 the value=^"l,5oo per annum. 3 See Orders in Council, dated 8th August, 1853, and 8th June, 1854. 4 Ibid., 20th May, 1847 ; 7th May, 1877 ; and 5th January, 1851. 1 96 A History of Tithes. ^1,500 per annum, including 1, roo a year from rentals. Church accommodation, 290; population, 277. Here are two rich London benefices in the gift of the Bishop, who gave them to his two suffragan bishops ; the Bishop of London sticks fast to his own ; 10,000 a year, and gives nothing to his suffragans from this immense income. (3) S. Olave, Hart Street, w. All Hallows Staining. Rector's gross income, ^"2,050,! of which S. Olave's, Mile End, has ^600 per annum, and house. Church accommodation, 250 ; popula- tion, 430. (4) All Hallows, London Wall ; fixed tithe ; 1,700; church accommodation, 250 ; population, 535 ; patron, Lord Chancellor ; present rector was appointed in 1834; on next vacancy ^1,400 will be divided into four parts ; the rector will take one part ;35 + x3 00== x 6 5; Holy Trinity, Barking Road, ^350 ; S. Gabriel, Canning Town, ^350 ; St. Luke, Victoria Dock, ^350. (5) All Hallows Barking; fixed tithe, ^2,000; church ac- commodation, 600 ; population, 350 ; the incumbent has 4 curates for a population of 350 (!); they are all well looked after. (6) S. Ethelburga ; fixed tithe, ^950; income, ^1,050; church accommodation, 300; population, 199. On next avoid- ance, ^400 a year will be given to S. Botolph without, Aldgate. (7) S. Alphege, London Wall ; fixed tithe, ^1,350 ; church accommodation, 200; population, 31 ; on which S. George-in- the-East has a charge of ^500 per annum. The rector has ^925 for 31 of population ! (8) S. Martin Outwich, Threadneedle Street, was pulled down and sold; fixed tithe, ^2,250. Three churches erected out of proceeds, and vicars endowed, thus. The charges on 1 See 23rd Report, p. 429, of Ecclesiastical Commissioners for 1871. Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 197 this tithe are ;6oo Holy Trinity, Dalston ; ^300 Christ Church, Stepney; ^592 S. Peter's, Limehouse; rector of S. Helen, Bishopsgate with S. Martin Outwich, receives ^858 per annum, with house. Population, 541. (9) S. Peter-le-Poer w. S. Benet-Fink ; fixed tithe, ^1,725; church accommodation, 690; population, 530. The charges on this tithe are ^125, S. Mary Charterhouse; ^200 a year each to Holy Trinity, Haverstock-hill ; Old Saint Pancras ; St. Peter's, Regent Square; S. Mary, Somers Town; and ;ioo to Holy Cross, S. Pancras. The rector has a gross income of ^1,000 a year. (10) S. Giles 1 , Cripp legate ; commuted tithe, ^"1,800; subject to revision every ten years; in 1890 the value = ;i,ioo, with house ; population, 2,473 '> S. Luke's, Old Street, has a charge of ^200 a year net. (n) S. Martin, Ludgate, w. S. Mary Magdalene and S. Gregory by S. Paul. The tithes of S. Gregory were commuted under sect. 12 of S. Paul's Cathedral Minor Canons Act, 1875, by agreement published in the London Gazette of i9th March, 1878, for & fixed annual sum of ^4,000, receivable by the holder of the beneficial lease granted by the minor canons. When the lease will lapse, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will receive the ^4,000 per annum. What does the vicar get who has to look after the 1,200 parishioners? ^468, plus ;ioo from the E.C., arising out of local claim. The minor canons must have received ;i 0,000 at least for that lease. (12) S. Mary Abchurch w. S. Laurence ; income, ^590, with house; population, 236. (13) S. Catherine Cree w. S. James, Duke's Place ; income, ^583; population, 1,480. The latter was united to former by Order in Council, Gazette, 6th May, 1873, taking ^300 net a year, which it had from 1867, from S. Peter's, Cornhill. 198 A History of Tithes. (14) S. Dunstan-in-the-East ; income, ^536, from house pro- perty chiefly ; population, 442. (15) S. Bartholomew the Great w. Smithfield ; income, ^650 ; population, 2,373. (16) S. Botolph without, Aldersgate. By 7 Geo. IV. c. cxvi., the tithes were "commuted for a fixed sum of ^1,150 per annum pay- able to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster as rectors. This sum, less ^300 a year payable to the vicar, they leased, and the lessee retains ^850 a year. Income of vicar, ^390 ; population, 3,330. (17) S. Botolph without, Bishop sgate, has been given. Has a house. (18) S. Dunstan-in-the- West, Fleet Street. By i Geo. IV. c. lix., the tithes were commuted to an annual payment by the rate- payers of ^359, of which ^5 went to the Crown. By an order in Council dated i6th April, 1886, S. Thomas in the Liberty of the Rolls was united to the above parish, but the church of S. Thomas was taken down and the site and materials sold. The proceeds are to go towards building another church elsewhere, erecting a new parsonage for the rector of S. Dunstan and aug- menting his income, which is ^500 per annum ; population, 2,300. These eighteen incumbents receive ^18,632, or average of over ^1,000 each per annum. But it must be noted that the lessees of three parishes receive ;i 1,350 per annum, in lieu of tithes, from the ratepayers, viz. : S. Botolph without, Aldgate, ^6,500 ; S. Gregory-by-S.-Paul, ^4,000; and S. Botolph without, Aldersgate, ^850. This ,11,350 is not included here in any of the incumbent's incomes. But here arises the public scandal. Eleven of these eighteen incumbents receive ^13,341 per annum for an aggregate popula- tion including children, of 3,886, or 3 95-. per head. The populations are taken from the census of 1881; and it Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 199 is probable that a considerable reduction in population will appear from the census returns of 1891. But the clerical incomes are not reduced. Again, twenty-six incumbents of Fire parishes receive ^15,702 for a population of 14,000. If we compare the income of ^350 for the incumbent of only one of the parishes in Bethnal Green, with a population of close on 14,000, with the ^15,702 for a similar population in the aggregate, we at once perceive the public scandal. Again, eleven incumbents of the Fire parishes have ,8,050 for an aggregate population of 7,000. If we take a single parish outside of the City and Liberties of London, we shall find it with a population much larger than 7,000, and yet the incumbent would consider himself fortunate to receive a net income of "300 per annum. I have now given sufficient data to prove that there exists reasonable grounds for the public scandal as regards the parishes in the City and Liberties of London. It is not my province to suggest remedies, but to indicate facts and figures. But eleven incumbents to receive ;i 3.341 for an aggregate population of 3,886 forms the coping-stone not to a public scandal, but to a public disgrace, in this Christian country. But the greatest public disgrace of all is to see the Bishop of London himself receiving ^10,000 net per annum, with three suffragan bishops not paid by him, but paid out of parochial revenues. Then, on the top of the hill, is S. Paul's Cathedral, with a net income of ^25,000 per annum, and with palatial residences, which recently cost ^20,000, close to the cathedral, for the canons. Truly it may be said of them, Lac et lanas ovium Christi suscipiunt) sed curam gregis Domini deponunt 2 CO A History of Tithes. The City of London Tithes Act of 1879 (42 & 43 Viet. c. clxxvi.) provides for the commutation of tithes and payments in lieu of tithes arising or growing due in certain parishes in the City of London, and for the redemption of rent-charges charged upon lands under the above Act. By the. Christ Church (City) Tithe Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Viet, c. xciii.), S. Bartholomew's Hospital receives in lieu of tithes the annual sum of ^1,800, which is levied and collected as tithe rates by the hospital from persons rateable to poor rates in that parish. Tithes in arrears are recoverable by distress in the same manner as stated in the Commutation Act of 1836. The vicar of Christ Church, Newgate Street, with S. Leonard, Foster Lane, has ^456 per annum ; population, 1,380. This is a Fire parish. Mr. Edward Jeffries Esdaile and his successors are the owners by purchase, ^20,000, of the tithes of the parish of S. Botolph without, Aldgate. Disputes arose after the Act of 1879 as to payments to be made to Mr. Esdaile in respect of tithes. An Act was therefore passed in 1881, called, "The City of London Tithes, S. Botolph without, Aldgate/' (42 & 43 Viet. c. cxcvii. ) to commute the tithes. By sec. 3 of this Act, the tithe-owner is to receive ^6,500 a year in lieu of tithes, which was to be levied and collected by the churchwardens from the persons by law rateable to poor rates, and shall be assessed on the annual rateable value of the houses assessed for poor rates. The ^6,500 a year was to be paid by the churchwardens to the tithe-owner after the 29th September, 1881, by two half-yearly payments. The cost of making and collecting the tithe-rates is to be paid by the rate- payers, and is to be exclusive of the ^6,500. The owners of houses can redeem the tithes as if they were rent-charge under the Tithes Commutation Act of 1836. CHAPTER XVIII. THE COMMUTATION ACT OF 1 836.* UP to the time that this Act was passed, the tithe-owner claimed in kind the tenth part of the gross produce of the land, without contributing anything towards cultivation or improvement. In fact, the claim retarded both, and the object of the Act was to advance and not to keep back the cultivation and improvement of the land. The tithe was a tax upon labour and capital. The collection of tithes became both unpopular and obnoxious. " Tithes are a tax," says Archdeacon Paley, " not only upon industry, but upon that industry /which feeds mankind. They operate as a bounty upon pasture. The burden of the whole tax falls upon tillage, that is, upon that precise mode of cultivation which it is the business of the State to relieve and remunerate in preference to every other." 2 " The tithe," says Adam Smith, " is always a great discourage- ment both to the improvement of the landlords and to the cultivation of the farmers. The one cannot venture to make the most important, which are generally the most expensive, improve- ments, nor the other to raise the most valuable, which are generally, too, the most expensive, crops, when the Church, which lays out no part of the expense, is to share so very largely in the profit." 3 1 6 & 7 William IV. c. Ixxi. 2 Paley's " Moral and Political Philosophy," ii. 406. 8 Smith's " Wealth of Nations," iii. 274. 202 A History of Tithes. Agricultural depression, during the four years previous to 1836, and the growing discontent of agricultural tithe-payers, demanded a speedy solution of this problem. Statesmen tried to solve it before Lord Russell attempted the task. Lord Althorp tried it in 1833, and again in 1834, but failed on both occasions. His three principal propositions were: (i) To substitute a money payment in lieu of tithes in kind ; (2) The rent-charge to bear a fixed proportion to the rent payable on the land; and (3) To redeem the tithe by twenty-five years' purchase, or the creation of a rent-charge of equal value. The second proposition was the weakest. Any attempt to establish a proportion between the tithe and rent would end in failure, for the two had no similar foundation. Tithe was founded upon produce, but rent was not. Lord Althorp would make tithe to fluctuate with rent, retaining a fixed proportion of rent-charge. In principle it was a tax on capital, and therefore failed. In 1835, Sir Robert Peel, when Prime Minister, introduced a Bill on the same subject. The principle contained in his Bill was that there should be a fixed money payment in the shape of a corn-rent in lieu of tithes, varying yearly according to the price' of the three corns wheat, barley, and oats ; that it should be a voluntary arrangement between the tithe-owner and tithe-payer. The machinery to carry out this Bill was to appoint three Com- missioners, viz., two by the Crown, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury. These Commissioners should appoint Assistant Commissioners. Within a month after he had introduced this Bill, his Government went out of office, on the 8th of April, 1835- Lord John Russell, a member of Lord Melbourne's Government which succeeded Sir Robert Peel's, took up the subject of tithes by introducing a Bill on the 9th of February, 1836. "Tithe," The Commutation Act of 1836. 203 said his lordship, " was a discouragement to industry, a penalty on skill, a heavy mulct on those who expended the most capital and displayed the greatest skill jn the cultivation of the land. These were true words ; and it gives one pleasure to observe that he had the courage to boldly express his opinions. But his boldest statement was that "tithes were the property of the nation." This remark has again and again been quoted by the opponents of tithes, and it has as often been contradicted by the defenders of tithes. Lord Russell rejected Lord Althorp's plan which related to the establishment of a proportion between tithe and rent. He adopted the machinery and some other parts of Sir Robert Peel's Bill. The principles contained in Lord Russell's Bill were that the landowner or tenant might agree with the tithe- owner to commute the tithe, whether paid by modus or composition or otherwise, into a corn-rent payable in money and permanent in quantity ', but fluctuating yearly in value, so that in future any improved value given to land would not increase the amount of the rent-charge. The corns were to be wheat, oats, and barley. The base of calculation was to be the average tithe paid for the seven years previous to Christmas, 1835. The arrangement .was to be voluntary up to the ist October, 1838, then compulsory. The Bill was at first but tentative, and was materially changed in its progress through the House. The Commutation Act made a great change. The tithes were no longer to be paid on the produce or increase of the land, as stated in the Mosaic Law, upon which law the payment of tithes in the Christian Church was founded. Before the passing of the Act, the tithe-owner had to sue the tithe-payer for arrears, but after the Act was passed, he had the power to distrain on the land for arrears, and the Act further empowers the tithe-owner 2O4 A History of Tithes. to go on any other land belonging to the same land-owner which may be in the same parish to recover the arrears of rent-charge, should the land from which the tithe was due be unable to satisfy his claim and costs. The tithe-owner has a prior claim to the landlord's. The following statement will serve as an illustration of Lord Russell's Act. A money payment was fixed by the Tithe Com- missioners on an average of seven years 7 payment of tithes. Let this be ;ioo ; the third of which, or ^33 6s. 8*/., is for wheat, a similar sum for barley, and oats. The average prices of the three corns per bushel for the seven years' previous to 1835 was for wheat, *js. o\d. ; for barley, 3^. i\\d. ; for oats, 2S. ^d. The tithe-payer has to pay in respect of his ;ioo rent-charge the price of 94*95 bushels of wheat, 168*42 bushels of barley, and 242*42 bushels of oats. Early in January of every year a duly authorized advertisement is inserted in the London Gazette by order of the Comptroller of Corn, stating the average prices of wheat, barley, and oats for the seven years then next preceding. The serious objection to this plan is that the average prices of the three cereals are calculated on the prices sold to the millers, which included the cost of freight of one or more middle- men, instead of calculating on the prices sold by the farmers. This false system enhances the value of the rent-charge. Supposing that for any year, say 1885, wheat was advertised in the London Gazette at $s. \\d. per bushel ; barley, 35- iif*/. ; oats, 2s. 8^/., what has the tithe-owner to receive for ;ioo tithe-rent charge ? He receives (94*95 x 6i|^f. + 168*42 x 47f*/. + 242*42 x 32^.) = ^90 i os. $\d. The 8oth section of the Act says that " any tenant who shall pay any such rent-charge shall be entitled to deduct the amount The Commutation Act of 1836. 205 thereof from the rent payable by him to his landlord, and shall be allowed the same in account with his landlord." There are few instances in which the tenants deduct the tithes from their rents according to this section. The general practice is that the farmer, in his lease or agreement, agrees to pay the tithes him- self to the tithe-owner, and the rent is computed accordingly. The tenant therefore pays the rent-charge for the landlord. If a tenant should take a farm without making any such agree- ment, then the 8oth section comes into force. But in the other case the landlord contracts himself out of the 8oth section. There is no doubt that the Legislature in 1836 intended that the landlords should pay the rent-charges, and thus prevent any friction which may occur in the collection between the clergyman and his parishioners. To remove this friction, the Government brought in a Bill in 1890. In the Commutation Act, although the rent-charge is to be paid by the landlord, yet the tithe-owner cannot bring an action against him for any arrears, but is bound by the act to distrain on the land. The tenant has therefore two landlords. Hence we find in years of agricultural depression that tenants who receive a deduction in the half-year's rents from their landlord, seek also for a deduction from their second landlord, the tithe- owner. These applications are generally made to parochial incumbents, who prefer making the deduction asked for than run the odium resulting from distraints on the lands of their parishioners. Other tithe-owners, such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, impropriators, colleges, schools, etc., will make no deduction whatever, but sternly carry out the provisions of the Act by making distraints on the lands. Similar conduct was pursued before the passing of the Commutation Act. The parochial clergy, in the most sympathetic manner, accepted very 206 A History of Tithes. low tithes in years of agricultural depression, but the clerical appropriators and all the impropriators strictly exacted every part of their tithes. When the Commutation Bill was passing through Parliament, it was urged that many landlords were often absent from the country for a considerable time, and therefore if the rent-charges were not paid, the tithe-owners would find it very difficult to get payment from absent landlords, who had no agents in the country. The law was therefore framed to enable the tithe-owners to distrain on the lands for arrears, just in the same manner as the landlords could distrain for arrears of rent. This was the origin of dual landlordism as it appears in the Act. The rent-charges are liable to parliamentary, parochial, county, and other rates, charges, and assessments, to which the tithes were liable. The great injustice of tithe-rent ~ charges is that they are levied only upon agricultural produce, thus leaving free of such charges the extensive city and town lands. The lands in the vicinity of large cities and towns, which produced a rental of ^3 per acre, and tithe, ios. 9 when converted to building purposes produce enormous ground-rents, besides a reversion of the house property at' the expiration of the leases. In such cases the tithe-owner receives no tithe on the building value. Thus the value of the landlord's acre is increased one hun- dredfold, but the tithe is not increased, and thus the growing value of the land leaves no part of it for the support of religion. Let us take, for example, the enormous house properties in London held by three dukes, viz., Westminster, Portland, and Bedford. They pay but a small amount of rent-charge compared with their rentals. The Commutation Act of 1836. 207 When the Commutation Act was passed, there was much boasting by the supporters of the Church as to the humility of the clergy who had not petitioned Parliament, or held any meetings to protest against the Bill while passing through Parlia- ment. There was good reason for such silent acquiescence. The Church made a good bargain under the circumstances. The expenses of collecting the tithes in kind sometimes reached 50 per cent, of the gross value. The tithe-owner is now relieved of all this expense and trouble, and the Act has given him a firm security. Sir James Caird, in his book, entitled, " Landed Interest," says, "Since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, in 1836 to 1876, the rent of tithable land increased from thirty-three millions a year to fifty millions a year. The tithe-rent charge in 1836 was four millions, and is about the same still." He then asserts that the Church has lost two millions a year by the Act. In 1890, there is a considerable reduction in the rentals through- out the country, owing to agricultural depression. The repeal of the Corn Laws has led to the introduction of such large quantities of wheat from foreign countries, that our farmers, with their heavy rents, rates, taxes, and tithe-rent charges, are unable to compete with foreign producers. It is calculated that what is produced in England and Wales for the maintenance of the population, would only suffice for three months out of the twelve, and that nine months' provisions are imported from foreign countries and from Ireland and Scotland. It is therefore doubtful that if the Commutation Act were repealed, whether the tithe-owners would receive more from tithes in kind than the gross rent-charge of four millions per annum. But it would be utterly unreasonable, and practically impossible now, to repeal this Act, as Church defenders want, and have a re-valuation; 208 The Commutation Act of 1836. and even some go so far as to assert that the tithe in kind should again be collected. Now, one statement is sufficient to overthrow these assertions. The main object of the Commu- tation Act of 1836 was to prevent tithe-owners from receiving an increased quantity of tithes from increased agricultural im- provements. So long as this system continued, landlords and tenants were always unwilling to sink capital in agricultural im- provements, because a large part of the profits would be claimed by the tithe-owners who had not expended a shilling to realize these profits. But all this was changed by the Commutation Act; and, consequently, both landlords and tenants have ex- pended, since 1836, enormous sums of money in improvements. Therefore, if there were now a re- valuation, it would be estimated upon present improvements, which it was the main object of the Commutation Act to prevent. And the re-valuation would be a gross injustice on those who sank their money in improve- ments. On the other hand, I must admit, in justice to the tithe-owners, that the repeal of the Corn Laws had never been anticipated when the Act of 1836 was passed, and it is an unquestionable fact that the repeal of these laws has brought about the present diminution of rent-charges, which are based upon the prices of three cereals, the most important being wheat, which has been and will be the most important and extensive article of importation from foreign countries, and its growing diminution of cultivation in England and Wales. The tithe, or tithe-rent charge being national property, and no compen- sation being made when the Corn-Laws were repealed, which obviously would affect, in course of time, the prices of the cereals in England, it seems to me that an act of injustice to this class of property was perpetrated when the Corn-Laws were repealed, and when no counterbalancing compensation was given, or pro- The Commutation Act of 1836. 209 vision made in the Act to meet any future diminution of this property below par, which diminution may be traced to the operations of this Act. This national property should be care- fully safeguarded, especially against landlords, who, in the majority, are the law-makers. REDEMPTION OF TITHE-RENT CHARGE. The force of this observation is keenly felt when the property is put up for sale. It will be difficult to frame a Redemption Act, for one party will calculate the price at par value ; another party, at the current annual value, which is now so much below par. And it is uncertain when the upward turn in the average annual value will occur, and when it does occur, it will be very small and slow. This is what makes the redemption question so difficult to deal with. In the Tithe Act of 1891, the pro- vision for redeeming the tithe-rent charge is omitted and post- poned. In framing a Redemption Bill, everything will turn on the meaning attached to the word value. Two values will be the salient points for discussion : (i) Present market value of the tithe-rent charge ; and (2) a fair value. The most opposite opinions will be found to prevail on these two vital points. Let us take ;ioo of the "commuted value," and put it in the market for sale. The present value (1891) of the 100 is ;?3 3^- 3l^- Present purchaser will reason thus : Depre- ciation, ^24; rates and other charges, ^20=^100 44 = ^56. Having arrived at this amount, the next important question the purchaser will ask himself, How many years' purchase shall I give? Some will say twenty, but a reasonable man will say twenty-five, and will offer 56 x 25 = ,1,400 for the ;ioo of the " commuted value." Again, there is a powerful body, and p 210 A History of Tithes. among them the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would probably not sell at ; 1,400. They would start from par value and only allow a deduction for rates and other charges, i.e., ^100 20 = ;8o, and would not sell for less than twenty-five years' purchase on this value, i.e., ^80x25 = ^2,000. These are the salient facts with which the framers of any Redemption Bill will have to deal. There may be a modus vivendi arrived at by " splitting the difference," and selling ;ioo say for ^1,800, and other amounts in the same proportion. The Bill will never pass except both parties will agree to a modus vivendi, as above sketched out. But in my opinion, the price should not be less than ^2,000. The following statement is taken from the Tithe Commissioners' Report, dated 4th July, 1887. 1. Clerical Appropriates , 681,695 2. Parochial Incumbents 2,415,040 3. Lay Impropriators 766,334 4. Schools, Colleges, etc ... ... 196,055 ^4,059,124 The recipients of (i) and (4) are stated in the Appendix. In 1891, the depreciation is ^967,419, and the total gross value is ^3,061,705. Assuming ^2,000 to be the price by Act of Parliament of ^100 commuted value; the Government would advance to the landowners ^58,837,965 at 4 per cent., and would hand over stock at 2% per cent, to this amount to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in trust for the parochial incum- bents and clerical appropriators, They would pay the dividends, amounting to ,1,705,200 per annum, to the incumbents, etc., just as they do the dividends on other properties vested in them. Now, in 1891, the same tithe-owners receive about ^1,734,152 net. The depreciation in value of tithe is, we may say, at its The Commutation Act of 1836. 211 nadir. Therefore the income from stock should not be less than this nadir value, and hence the purchasing value should not be less than ^2,000. The property is national, and therefore care should be taken to maintain its value, and to prevent landowners, as in 1836, from getting another large slice of this national property. THE EXTRAORDINARY TITHE-RENT CHARGE. On one important point, Lord Russell had deviated from its leading principle in the second reading of the Bill. A deputation of Middlesex market-gardeners waited upon him after the Bill was introduced, who pointed out that they had expended a large amount of capital on improvements of their market-gardens during the past seven years, and that if they were to pay a rent- charge on the average of these seven years, they would continue liable to a very heavy charge, while the owners of arable land or common land in their neighbourhood, paying very low tithe com- position, would come into competition with them and thus ruin them. This argument had actually influenced his lordship even against his own will, and so he introduced an extraordinary rent- charge, calculated on each acre, in addition to the ordinary rent-charge on hop grounds, orchards, and market-gardens, brought into new cultivation. In introducing this Bill, and before the Middlesex market-gardeners influenced him, Lord Russell used these remarkable words : " Whatever might be done with orchards and gardens now existing, he felt considerable difficulty in rendering land that might be converted into orchards or gar- dens in future, liable to increased tithes. Orchards were a pre- carious and uncertain description of property, and frequently did not bear in certain years ; and in respect of garden lands, if 212 A History of Tithes. the Legislature allowed the question to be opened again from time to time, it would give rise to incessant disputes." 1 Although he thus modified his views in the second reading, yet he was thoroughly opposed to the principle. And his pro- phetic words stated above, were fully realized in the subsequent amendment Acts which were absolutely necessary as regards the modification of extraordinary rent-charges. No extraordinary charge was to be made the first year for .new cultivations, and only one-half of the charge for the second year, but the full charge was to be made in the third year. In thus deviating from the principle of his Bill, he made the following remark : " Tithes on extremely valuable crops, such as hops, orchards, and market- gardens, could not be allowed to enter into an average for a general commutation." From the passing of the Act in 1836, up to the present time, this extraordinary rent-charge has been a fruitful source of discontent, because it is a tax on capital and labour, against which the principle of the Commutation Act was framed. It kept almost stationary the cultivation of hops and market- gardens, instead of extending them. The hop proprietors were at the time in favour of the petition of the market-gardeners. When lands would go out of cultivation of hops, or of orchards, or of market-gardens, then they would be subject only to the ordinary rent-charge. But all new cultivations were to pay the extraordinary rent-charge, which in some cases reached as high as 30*. per acre. When this amount was added to the ordinary charge, the whole profit was absorbed, especially since the hop growers have now to compete with foreign countries, which pay no tithes nor duty on hops imported into this country. It may be said that the duty on hops, having been repealed 1 Hansard's Debates, vol. xxxi. Feb. 9, 1836. The Commutation Act of 1836. 213 since 1862, the reduction of about ^4 55. per acre must have benefited the hop growers. The fact is, that the landlords and not the tenants mainly derived the profits from the reduction. Before 1836, there were 56,300 acres of hops cultivated; in 1880 there were 66,703 acres. The Market-Gardens Act of 1873 was passed on account of a burst of popular indignation against the conduct of the Vicar of Gulval, in Cornwall, who endeavoured to enforce the payment of an extraordinary tithe-rent charge of is. 6d. per acre on 213 acres brought into new cultivation. It was enacted that the provisions relating to the extraordinary charge on market-gardens, newly cultivated as such, should only apply to parishes where such charge was distinguished at the time of commutation. In 1839 (2 & 3 Viet. c. Ixii. s. 27) an Act was passed in a quiet manner which placed orchards as regards the extraordinary tithe-rent charge on the same footing as the Act of 1873 (36 & 37 Viet. c. xlii.) placed the market-gardens. The Acts of 1839 and 1873 admit that extraordinary rent-charges are wrong in principle, and that those on hops should have been abolished. In 1886 an Act was passed (49 & 50 Viet. c. liv.) in the pre- amble of which it is stated that the extraordinary rent-charge levied under previous Acts, is an impediment to agriculture, and therefore the Act should have been limited, and power given to redeem the same. It is enacted that after the passing of this Act, no extraordinary charge shall be made or levied under the Tithe Commutation Acts on any hop ground, orchard, fruit plantation, or market-garden newly cultivated as such. The Land Commissioners are authorized to fix the capital value of the extraordinary charge payable on each farm or parcel of land at the date of the passing of the Act. The third section indicates the manner in which the capital value is to be ascertained. Such 214 A History of Tithes. land is to be charged with the payment of an annual rent-charge equal to four per centum on the capitalized value of the extra- ordinary charge, in lieu of the extraordinary charge. This rent- charge shall be payable half-yearly on the days on which the extraordinary charge was made payable. Arrears of rent-charge are to be recovered in one of the High Courts of Justice, or a County Court, " or in the same way that rent charge in lieu of ordinary tithe is recoverable, and subject to like conditions, or by entry upon and perception of the rents and profits of the land subject to such rent-charge." The rent-charge is not to be sub- ject to any parochial, county or other rate, charge, or assessment. The rent-charge may be redeemed by the owner or other person interested in any land, subject to an extraordinary charge or rent- charge substituted therefor. The redemption money is to be paid to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, to be applied for the benefit of the incumbent, if the owner be the incumbent of a benefice. Provision is made for the redemption of the rent- charge in other cases of ownership. If the tenant had contracted, before the passing of the Act, to pay the extraordinary rent- charge to the owner, he shall do so no longer, but pay to his landlord during his tenancy the rent-charge substituted for the extraordinary charge. The landlord is then made liable for the payment of the rent-charge to the owner, notwitstanding any agreement to the contrary which the tenant had made with his landlord. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are empowered to adjust the fixed charges made before the passing of the Act, on the income of benefices in receipt of extraordinary tithes in favour of other benefices, or of district churches or chapelries within the parishes of which the incumbents are in receipt of extraordinary tithes. Lord John Russell, when introducing the Tithe Commutation The Commutation Act of 1836. 215 Bill, said these words : " The income of the clergy will now flow from the landlord and not from the farmer, and the clergyman will be relieved from an alternative that too often exists, either of making personal enemies by pressing his demand, or of injur- ing himself by abandoning it. His lordship, in his " Recollections and Suggestions/' makes the following statement : " All the evils of the tithe system were the subject of fair compromise and permanent settlement by the Act of 1836. Three Commissioners, two of whom were appointed by the Crown and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, were empowered, after examination, to proceed by certain fixed rules to a final adjudication. In about seven years this process was completed, and a work from which Pitt had shrunk was accomplished." In reading this statement one may smile at the " permanent settlement." Ever since 1836 there has been a continuous struggle going on down to 1886 on the subject of " Extraordinary tithe-rent charge." CHAPTER XIX. TITHES OF CHURCH IN WALES. As the Church of England in Wales is becoming one of the burn- ing political questions of the day, I shall give a sketch of the value and appropriation of the tithe-rent charge of Wales, includ- ing the parishes in Monmouth and Salop, which are in Welsh dioceses. The figures are taken from the official Tithe Commu- tation Return of 1887. Bangor. Llandaff. St. Asaph. St. David's. Total. Per- centage. 4 Clerical Appropriators Parochial Incumbents... 9,559 27,939 12,297 31,306 31,047 42,618 26,831 47,307 79,734 149,170 26-9 5*4 Lay Impropriators 5,94i 9,748 21,732 23.389 60,810 20'5 Schools, Colleges, etc. 2,378 273 1,736 2,164 6,551 2 '2 45,8i7 53,624 97,133 100,488 296,265 lOO'O By the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when Parliament vested in them the tithe-rent charges of all the arch- bishops, bishops, chapters, etc., a large quantity of rent-charges was annexed to benefices. The following table indicates the ownerships in 1890 : 216 Tithes of Church in Wales. 217 Bangor. Llandaff. St. Asaph St. David's. Total. Per- centage. Ecclesiastical Commis- n T > ^ T Q f^i-r t T A-& Parochial Incumbents... Lay Impropriators Schools, Colleges, etc. 2, IO2 35,781 4,969 1,289 T T< 8,347 35 ? 376 9,646 255 I4,Il8 58,499 20,565 1,736 18,674 56,939 21,978 2,100 43>3 01 186,595 57,158 5,38o 63'0 I9'3 1,010 2,215 3,831 I '3 45,817 53,624 97,133 100,488 296,265 1 00*0 It is important to state who were the clerical appropriators, schools, colleges, etc., in receipt of tithes in 1836. As regards the lay impropriators, it would entail enormous work to get their names. The Tithe Commissioners have their names in each apportionment. But in very many cases the property has, since 1836, changed hands, either by sale, wills, etc. The endowments of the Welsh bishops and Cathedral churches were taken from the parochial tithes. This meant spiritual desti- tution in such Welsh parishes. The Norman conquerors seized and held the Welsh episcopal and Cathedral endowments ; then the bishops and chapters seized the parochial tithes, and at the time of the Reformation, the Crown annexed additional parochial tithes in augmentation of episcopal and capitular incomes. These tithes were not, as in England, monastic, but were actually taken from the parish clergy by virtue of the Crown's prerogative as head of the Church. DIOCESE OF BANGOR. Bishop of Bangor had from 16 parishes, ,5,560 ; viz., ,3,258 in his own diocese ; ,2,302 in the diocese of St. Asaph. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners (E. C), when this property was vested in them, annexed ,3,701 to parochial incumbents in the diocese, and retained to ,1,859. 218 A History of Tithes. Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry held ^1,456 105". from 4 parishes. The E. C. annexed to parishes ^863 is. yd., and re- tained to ,593 8^. $d. Jesus College, Oxford, ^1,089 ys. lod. This college annexed to the two parishes ^239 175. 8d. The principal of this college ^738 los. from three parishes. He annexed them to the parishes subject to the payment to him of ^270 per annum net. University College, Oxford, has ^37, which it still holds. The Dean and Chapter had no endowments collectively, but separately, thus : * d. Dean ... ... ... 1,020 o o from two parishes. Treasurer... ... ... 200 o o Archdeacon of Merioneth 227 15 n Prebendary of Penrynydd 434 14 o ;i,88 2 9 ii By an Act of i James II. (1685), the Dean and Chapter re- ceived the tithes of five parishes in Montgomeryshire for the service and repairs of church. They amount to ^"1,616, which they still possess. DIOCESE OF LLANDAFF. The Bishop received ^1,872 from 11 parishes. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol received ^430 from two parishes. The Chapter received ^4,487 from 28 parishes. And in addition to this enormous sum, the Chapter's separate estates amounted to ,1,922 from 16 parishes. Here, then, is a total of Tithes of Church in Wales. 219 6,409 per annum, taken from 44 parishes by the Chapter of Llandaff. But this is not the end of the depletion of parochial endow- ments. The Dean and Chapter of Gloucester received 2,618 from 12 parishes; and the Dean and Chapter of Bristol 966 from 5 parishes. Here, then, is a total of "12,297 per annum, taken from 76 parishes in this diocese alone by two bishops and three chapters. DIOCESE OF ST. ASAPH. This was the most lamentable diocese in Wales. The Bishop received ,8,1 21 per annum from 23 parishes. Bishop of St. David's, 800 from one. The Dean and Chapter received "1,649 fr m three parishes. By 29 and 30 Charles II., they received 1,370 from 4 parishes for " Domus and Fabric." The Chapter's eight separate estates amounted to 6,084 from 14 parishes, viz., Dean, 1,987 ; Precentor, ,1,585 ; Chancellor, 868; Treasurer, 350; four Prebendaries, "1,294. The Dean and Chapter of Oxford, 2,513 from 4 parishes. The Dean and Chapter of Winchester, "2,205 fr m two parishes. The Vicars-Choral received ,846 from three parishes. The total is 23,588 from 54 parishes ; add 2,302 received by the Bishop of Bangor from 4 parishes, which has already been stated under " Bangor Diocese," or "25,890 from 58 parishes in the Diocese of St. Asaph, was received per annum by three bishops and three chapters. There were 15 sinecure rectories in this diocese in 1836, with incomes amounting in the aggregate to 6,227 commuted value. 22O A History of Tithes. The rectors of these benefices had no duties whatever to perform. They received handsome incomes and nothing to do for them. Here was the rich harvest for the bishop's sons and other relatives. The benefices were all in the bishop's patronage. Bishop Luxmoore, who was bishop of St. Asaph from 1815 to 1830, had an income of ^12,000 per annum, and his two sons and two relatives had between them ;i 5,000 a year from the diocese, i.e. ^27,000 per annum received by the father, his two sons and two relatives, at a time when the total net receipts by all the working clergy of this diocese amounted to only ^18,000 per annum. 1 DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID'S. The Bishop received ... ,4,563 from 25 parishes in this diocese. Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol ... ... 845 ,, 4 parishes. Bishop of Chester ... 260 ,, i parish. Bishop of Lincoln ... 400 ,, 2 parishes. Total ;6,o68 for four bishops from 32 parishes. , Chanter and Chapter received ... 6,324 from 34 parishes. Dean and Canons of Windsor ... 1,824 5 Total ^8,148 1 For full particulars on this subject, see my book, " Past and Present Revenues of the Church of England in Wales. " 2 ;8oo from St. Asaph already given. Tithes of Church in Wales. 221 Chapter's separate estates : Precentor 384 from 2 parishes. Chancellor ... .. 327 2 Prebendaries 8,892 37 Vicars Choral ... ... ... ... 1,063 6 Archdeacon of Brecon ... ... 785 4 ,, Archdeacon of St. David's ... ... 364 i ,, Total Four sinecure rectories Summary of this Diocese. Four Bishops .. ... ... ... ... ... 6,068 Two Chapters .................. 8,148 Separate Estates and Prebends, etc. ... ... ... 11,815 .26,031 Four sinecure rectories ... ... ... ... ... 971 Total from 123 parishes ... ...^27,002 It is a very serious matter in reference to the prebendal estates. The Act of 1840 vested all these estates in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The prebendaries anticipated what was coming, and therefore granted leases on the lives of mere infants. The result was lamentable to the parishes. No help from the tithe- rent charges could be given them until the leases lapsed. It is 222 A History of Tithes. now 1891, i.e.) fifty-one years after the passing of the Act, and yet sixteen leases of the thirty-seven are still running. And so all the rent-charges of these parishes have for so many years been diverted from these parishes, and so parochial destitution has continued in this diocese. As the leases expire, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners come into possession of the property, and then, but not till then> are steps taken to annex to parishes certain portions of this property. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have often, in a very kind manner, granted to parishes in England and Wales annuities out of the common Fund, in regard to local claims, in anticipation of the lapse of the leases on tithes, lands, mines and house property. TITHE-RENT CHARGE NOW IN POSSESSION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION IN WALES. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are in possession (1889) of In Wales proper... ... ... ... ... ... ^29,169 In Monmouth ... ... ... ... ... ... 4>55 In Salop 207 Total amount commutation value in their possession in the four Welsh dioceses ... ... ... Of the ^29,169, I shall give the gross amount of tithe-rent charge in each county, and also the amount still outstanding on beneficial leases. Tithes of Church in Wales. 223 s. d. Anglesey 901 o o in possession of E. C. Brecon 2,387 14 o and ^"603 6 8 on lease, St. David's [Diocese. Cardigan 1,117 I o ,, 45 Carmarthen 3,821 44 ,, 1,123 6 O ,, ,, Carnarvon 777 n 8 ,, Denbigh 6,714 19 3 581 68,, St. Asaph's Flint 2,776 6 8 ,, Glamorgan 4,705 16 9 ,, Merioneth 611 17 9 ,, Montgomery 726 18 I ,, Pembroke 2,286 3 10 820 16 o St. David's Radnor 2,342 12 3 2,192 18 o ,, ,, ^29,169 5 8 in poss. of E.G. 5,772 13 4 on lease in 1891. In this statement we get the actual amount which was outstand- ing on beneficial leases in 1891, viz., in St. David's Diocese, 5,191 6s. 883i Ecclesiastical Commissioners 43>3oi Total 233,727 Impropriators S7> 1 5% Colleges, schools, hospitals, etc 5>38o 296,265 So, in 1891, the net amount of the 233,727 which goes to the Church is 130,872. This net amount varies annually. 757 incumbents in the twelve Welsh counties and Monmouth receive 186,595 gross tithe-rent charges from these thirteen counties. Average for each, gross "245, and in 1891, ^ This income is exclusively from tithes. CHAPTER XX, TITHE ACT, 1891. [54 VICT. CH. VIII.] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Section. 1 . Liability of owner to pay tithe rentcharge, and modification o( contracts- with tenants. 2. Recovery of tithe rentcharge through County Court. 3. Rules. 4. Lands occupied rent free, etc. 5. Restrictions as to costs. 6. Rating of owner of tithe rentcharge,, 7. Power of appeal. 8. Remission of tithe rentcharge when exceeding two-thirds annual value o-f land. 9. Definitions. 10. Commencement and application of Act and saving. 11. Repeal. 12. Extent of Act and short titles. SCHEDULE. CHAPTER VIII. An Act to make better provision for the Recovery of Tithe Rent- charge in England and Wales. [54 Viet. c. viii., 26th March, 1891.] BE it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : 225 Q 226 A History of Tithes. Liability of owner to pay tithe rente/large, and modification oj contracts ivith tenants. I. (i) Tithe rentcharge as defined by this Act issuing out of any lands shall be payable by the owner of the lands, notwith- standing any contract between him and the occupier of such lands, and any contract made between an occupier and owner of lands, after the passing of this Act, for the payment of the tithe rent- charge by the occupier shall be void. (2) Where the occupier is liable under any contract made before the passing of this Act to pay the tithe rentcharge, then he shall cease to be bound by that part of his contract, but he shall be liable to pay to the owner such sum as the owner has properly paid on account of the tithe rentcharge which such occupier is liable under his said contract to pay, exclusive of any costs incurred or paid by the owner in respect of such tithe rent- charge, and every receipt given for such sum shall state expressly that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rentcharge : Provided that where the lands, out of which any tithe rentcharge issues, are occupied by several occupiers who have contracted to pay the tithe rentcharge, any of such occupiers shall be liable only to pay such proportion of the sum paid by the owner of the lands on account of that tithe rentcharge as the rateable value of the lands occupied by him bears to the rateable value of the whole of the lands occupied by such occupiers. (3) Such sum shall be recoverable from the occupier by distress in like manner as is provided by sections eighty-one and eighty- five of the Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter seventy-one, and the enactments amending those sections, and not otherwise. Tithe Act, 1891. 227 Recovery of tithe rentcharge through County Court. II. (i) Where any sum due on account of tithe rentcharge issuing out of any lands is in arrearfor not less than three months,, the person entitled to such sum may, whatever is the amount, apply to the County Court of the district in which the lands or any part thereof are situate, and the County Court, after such service on the owner of the lands as may be prescribed, and after hearing such owner if he appears and desires to be heard, may order that the said sum, or such part thereof as appears to the Court to be due, be, together with the costs, recovered in manner provided by this Act, and tithe rentcharge as defined by this Act shall not be recovered in any other manner. (2) Where it is shown to the Court that the lands are occupied by the owner thereof, the order shall be executed by the appoint- ment by the Court of an officer who, subject to the direction of the Court, shall have the like powers of distraint for the recovery of the sum ordered to be paid as are conferred by the Tithe Acts on the owner of a tithe rentcharge for the recovery of arrears of tithe rentcharge, and no greater or other powers ; and if there is no sufficient distress the person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered may proceed to obtain possession of the lands under section eighty-two of the Tithe Act, I836. 1 (3) In any other case the order shall be executed by the appointment by the Court of a receiver of the rents and profits of the lands, and of any other lands which would be liable to be distrained upon for the tithe rentcharge to which the order refers under the provisions of section eighty-five of the Tithe Act, 1836, and where any of such lands are held at one rent together with other lands in another parish, the Court shall apportion the rent 1 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. Ixxi. 228 A History of Tithes. between the said lands and the lands in the other parish in proportion to their rateable value, in which case the payment of such apportioned rent by the occupier to the receiver shall in every respect, as between the occupier and the owner of the lands, be deemed to be a payment on account of the total rent payable to the owner of such lands. (4) Subject to the prescribed regulations, the County Court shall have the same powers over receivers as in any other case, and may confer on the person appointed receiver any powers which the Court can confer upon persons appointed receivers, but the court shall not have power to order the sale of lands. (5) Any sum ordered by the Court under this section to be recovered shall be payable by a trustee in bankruptcy, sheriff, or officer of a Court who is in possession of the lands, in like manner as if it were tithe rentcharge recoverable under the Tithe Acts. (6) Where the occupier of the lands out of which the tithe rentcharge issues is liable under any contract made before the passing of this Act to pay the tithe rentcharge, and is conse- quently liable by virtue of this Act to pay the amount thereof to the owner of the lands, the owner of such lands shall serve notice of such liability on the owner of the tithe rentcharge, and there- upon, before an order under this section is made ; there shall be such service on the occupier in addition to the owner as may be prescribed, and a hearing of such occupier if he appears and desires to be heard. Any owner of the lands who fails to serve such notice as aforesaid on the owner of the tithe rentcharge, shall not be entitled to recover from the occupier any sum which he has paid on account of the tithe rentcharge as aforesaid, unless and until he has, after notice to the occupier of his application for the same, obtained from the County Court a certificate that Tithe Act, 1891. 229 there was good and sufficient cause for the failure to give such notice, and that the occupier has not been prejudiced thereby. (7) Rules under this Act may regulate the procedure practice and costs under this Act in County Courts, and may direct what service shall be good service for the purposes of this Act on the owner or occupier of any lands or the owner of any tithe rent- charge, and may provide that, if the owner of any lands is not known, any proceeding under this Act may be taken against the owner of the lands without naming the person who is the owner. (8) The fees payable on the proceedings under this section shall not exceed those set forth in the schedule to this Act, and the fees, charges, and expenses in or incidental to any distress under this Act shall be the same as are for the time being payable under the Law of Distress Amendment Act, iSSS. 1 (9) Nothing in this Act shall impose or constitute any personal liability upon any occupier or owner of lands for the payment of any tithe rentcharge, or any other sum recoverable or payable under this Act, and the Court shall not, by virtue of this Act, or of the County Courts Act, i888, 2 have any power to imprison any such occupier or owner by reason only of the non-payment of such tithe rentcharge or other sum, and shall in any other case have no other or greater powers of fine or imprisonment than are conferred by the County Courts Act, 1888. Rules. III. (i) The Lord Chancellor may, after consultation with the Rule Committee of County Court Judges, make rules for carrying this Act into effect, and for regulating, providing, and prescribing any matter authorised by this Act to be regulated, provided, or 1 51 & 52 Viet. c. xxi. 2 51 & 52 Viet. c. xliii. 230 A History of Tithes. prescribed by rules under this Act. In framing such rules, regard shall be had to making the procedure as simple and inexpensive as is practicable. (2) Every rule under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament within forty days next after it is made, if Parlia- ment is then sitting, or, if not, within forty days after the com- mencemen of the then next ensuing session, and if an address is presented to Her Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which the said House shall have sat, praying that any such rule may be annulled, Her Majesty may thereupon, by Order in Council, annul the same ; and the rule so annulled shall thenceforth become void and of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under the same. Lands occupied rent free ', etc. IV. Where a receiver appointed under this Act of the rents and profits of any lands satisfies the County Court that the lands are let on such terms as not to reserve a rent sufficient to enable the receiver to recover from the owner thereof the sum ordered to be recovered, the Court, after such service on the owner and occupier of the lands as may be prescribed, and after hearing such owner and occupier if they appear and desire to be heard, may direct that the order for such recovery shall be executed as if the occupier were the owner of the lands : Provided that any such occupier shall be entitled in addition to any other remedy, unless he would have been liable to pay the tithe rentcharge under any contract made before the passing of this Act, to deduct from any sums at any time becoming due from him to the landlord under whom he holds, any amount which shall have been recovered from him under this section in respect of tithe rentcharge or costs, with Tithe Act, 1891. 231 interest thereon at the rate of four per centum per annum : Pro- vided further, that such occupier shall be entitled, notwithstanding anything in this Act, to recover from such landlord by action at law any such amount which shall have been recovered from him under this section as aforesaid as money paid on the account of such landlord. Restrictions as to costs. V. (i) An application to a County Court for an order under this Act may be made on behalf of the tithe-owner by his agent, although not a solicitor. (2) On any application to a County Court for an order under this Act, no costs either of a solicitor or of a witness shall be allowed in any case where the amount claimed is paid without further proceedings, nor where notice of intention to apply for time to pay the tithe - owner's claim has been given (except in cases where costs could be allowed by the Court on a judgment summons), and when notice of opposition has been given within the prescribed time, the costs of a solicitor shall only be allowed for work done subsequent to the notice. Rating of owner of tithe rent charge. VI. (i) Any rate to which tithe rentcharge is subject shall be assessed on and may be recovered from the owner of the tithe rentcharge, in the like manner and by the like process as on and from any occupying ratepayer ; and so much of any Act as authorises any rate on tithe rentcharge to be assessed on or recovered from the occupier of any lands out of which the tithe rentcharge issues is hereby repealed. (2) If the collector of the rate satisfies the County Court that he is unable to recover in manner aforesaid any rate assessed on 232 A History of Tithes. the owner of any tithe rentcharge, the Court may, after such service on the owners of the tithe rentcharge, and of the lands out of which the tithe rentcharge issues, as may be prescribed, and after hearing such owners, if they appear and desire to be heard, order the owner of the lands to pay such tithe rentcharge to the collector until the amount of the rate, and any costs allowed by the Court, are fully paid ; and the order may be executed as if it were an order under this Act for the payment of a sum due on account of the tithe rentcharge. (3) The Court may, if satisfied that the circumstances justify it, make such order as aforesaid in respect of any future rate, either generally or during the time limited by the order. (4) The expression "rate " in this section means a poor rate, highway rate, general district rate, borough rate, and every other rate assessed on an owner of tithe rentcharge by a public authority for public purposes; and the expression "collector" means the overseer, surveyor of highways, rate-collector, or other person authorised, for the time being, to collect the rate. Power of appeal. VII. If any party in any action or matter under this Act shall be dissatisfied with the determination or direction of the judge of the County Court in point of law or equity, or upon the admission or rejection of any evidence, the party aggrieved by the judgment, direction, decision, or order of the judge may appeal from the same to the High Court, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be for the time being provided by the rules of the Supreme Court regulating the procedure on appeals from inferior courts to the High Court. Tithe Act, 1891. 233 Remission of tithe rent 'charge when exceeding two-thirds annual value of land. VIII. (i) Where a sum is claimed on account of tithe rent- charge issuing out of any lands, and the County Court is satisfied that, if the sum claimed is paid, the total amount paid on account of the tithe rentcharge for the period of twelve months next pre- ceding the day on which the sum claimed became payable, will ex- ceed two-thirds of the annual value of the lands as ascertained and entered in the assessment for the purpose of Schedule B. to the Income Tax Act, I853, 1 or as certified as herein-after mentioned, the Court shall order the remission of so much, whether the whole or part of the sum claimed, as is equal to the excess, and the amount so ordered to be remitted shall not be recoverable : and if the Court is satisfied that neither such remission, nor the liability thereto, has been taken into account in estimating the rateable value of the tithe rentcharge, the Court may remit such amount of any then current rate assessed on the owner of the tithe rentcharge as appears to the Court to be proportionate to the amount of the remission of tithe rentcharge. (2) Where the lands out of which any tithe rentcharge issues are assessed for the purposes of the said Schedule B. together with other lands, the surveyor of taxes for the parish in which the lands are so assessed, on the application of the owner or occupier of the lands, shall divide the annual value in such assessment between the lands out of which any tithe rentcharge issues and the other lands, and give notice of the annual value of the lands as deter- mined on such division to the applicant and to the owner of the tithe rentcharge ; and if either of them is dissatisfied with the annual value so determined, he may appeal to the general com- 1 16 & 17 Viet. c. xxxiv. 234 A History of Tithes. missioners of income tax for the division in which the lands are assessed, and those commissioners, after due notice to and hearing the parties or their agents if any of them wishes to be so heard, shall finally determine the proper division of the annual value ; and the annual value of lands so determined as aforesaid shall, for the purposes of this section, be the annual value of the lands as ascertained for the purpose of the said Schedule B. (3) For the purposes of this section the owner of tithe rent- charge shall have the same right of appeal as the owner of lands, whether under the enactments relating to the said assessment or under this section. (4) If in any case the annual value of any lands is not ascer- tained and entered in the assessment for the purpose of the said Schedule B., the general commissioners of income tax for the division in which the lands are situate shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of the lands, ascertain the annual value of the lands for the purpose of the said Schedule B., and inform the applicant of the same. (5) The commissioners of taxes shall on demand and payment of one shilling give a certificate of the amount of the annual value of any lands under this section. (6) Where it appears from any award that a special appor- tionment has been made in pursuance of section fifty-eight of the Tithe Act, I836, 1 whereby tithe rentcharge has been charged specially upon certain closes of land in different proportions, and to the exclusion of certain of them, the Court shall not grant a remission under this section unless satisfied that the applicant would have been entitled to such remission if no such special apportionment had been made. (7) Where two or more tithe rentcharges issue out of the same 1 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. Ixxi. Tithe Act, 1891. 235 lands, and a remission of tithe rentcharge has been made by a County Court under this section, the amount paid by the owner of the lands on account of tithe rentcharge shall be divided between the owners of such tithe rentcharges in proportion to the amount thereof as fixed by the apportionment or any altered apportion- ment. (8) This section shall not apply to any lands other than those used solely for agricultural or pastoral purposes or for the growth of timber or underwood. Definitions. IX. (i) A reference in this Act to the "owner" of lands or tithe rentcharge, (a) if the ownership of the lands or rentcharge is vested in the Queen in right of Her Crown, means the Commissioners of Woods, in substitution for the Queen ; and (b) if the ownership of the lands or rentcharge is vested in the Duke of Cornwall, means the keeper of the records of the Duchy of Cornwall, in substitution for the Duke of Corn- wall ; and (c) in any other case, means the same officers or persons as are mentioned in the Tithe Act, I836. 1 (2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, The expression " tithe rentcharge " means tithe rentcharge issuing out of lands and payable in pursuance of the Tithe Acts, and includes any rentcharge into which a corn-rent has, either before or after the passing of this Act, been converted under the Tithe Act, i86o, 2 and which is subject to the like incidents as such tithe rentcharge as aforesaid ; but does not include a rentcharge 1 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. Ixxi., ss. 12, 13. 2 23 & 24 Viet. c. xciii. 236 A History of Tithes. payable under the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, I886, 1 nor a rentcharge payable under the Tithe Act, i86o, 2 in respect of the tithes on any gated or stinted pasture, nor a sum or rate payable for each head of cattle or stock turned on land subject to common rights or held or enjoyed in common. The expression " prescribed " means prescribed by rules under this Act. Commencement and application of Act and saving. X. (i) This Act shall extend to every sum on account of tithe rentcharge which first becomes payable on or after the half- yearly day of payment of such tithe rentcharge which occurs next after the passing of this Act, whether such sum accrued before or after that day, and shall not extend to sums due on account of tithe rentcharge which were in arrear before the passing of this Act, nor, except so far as relates to the assessment and recovery of rates, shall it extend to tithe rentcharge issuing out of the lands of a railway company. (2) A sum on account of tithe rentcharge shall not be re- coverable under this Act unless proceedings for such recovery have been commenced before the expiration of two years from the date at which it became payable. (3) Nothing in this Act shall alter the priority of any tithe rentcharge in relation to any other charge or incumbrance upon any lands. (4) Any enactment in the Tithe Acts or in the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886, directing any expenses, rentcharge, or other sums to be recovered as tithe rentcharge, shall, as respects any sum becoming due after the passing of this Act, be 1 49 & 50 Viet c. liv. 2 23 & 24 Viet. c. xciii. Tithe Act, 1891. 237 construed to refer to the recovery of tithe rentcharge under this Act, save that the owner of the lands shall not be entitled to obtain any remission under this Act. Repeal. XL Section eighty-four of the Tithe Act, 1836, is hereby repealed. Extent of Act and short titles. XII. (i) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland. (2) This Act may be cited as the Tithe Act, 1891. (3) The Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter seventy-one, intituled " An Act for the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales," is in this Act referred to and may be cited as the Tithe Act, 1836, and that Act and the enactments amending the same passed before the passing of this Act are in this Act referred to and may be cited as the Tithe Acts. (4) The Act of the session of the twenty- third and twenty- fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety- three, intituled " An Act to amend and further extend the Acts for the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales," is in this Act referred to and may be cited as the Tithe Act, 1860. (5) The Act of the session of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter thirty-four, intituled "An Act for granting to Her Majesty duties on profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices/' is in this Act referred to and may be cited as the Income Tax Act, 1853. 238 A History of Tithes. SCHEDULE. Fees under Section 2 of the Tithe Act, 1891. Where the sum claimed does nor exceed five pounds : For notice of application to the Court One shilling. For making the order ... .... One shilling and sixpence. Where the sum claimed exceeds five pounds : f One shilling for every five pounds and For notice of appli- \ fraction above five pounds or any mul- cation to the Court . I tiple of five pounds of the sum claimed. {One shilling and sixpence for every five pounds and fraction above five pounds or any multiple of five pounds of the sum claimed. But the total fee in any one case shall not exceed For notice of the application ... ... ... Ten shillings. For making the order ... ... ... Fifteen shillings. REMARK ON THE TITHE ACT, 1891. I. i. The main principle of this Act, is that the tithe rent- charge is in future payable by the owner of the lands and not by the occupier, unless he is also owner. The same principle existed in the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. But unfortun- ately the 8oth section of that Act, out of which landlords con- tracted themselves, says that " any tenant who shall pay any such rentcharge, shall be entitled to deduct the amount thereof from the rent payable by him to his landlord, and shall be allowed the same in account with his landlord." Very few tenants de- Tithe Act, 1891. 239 ducted the tithes from their rents according to this section. It therefore became the general practice for the tenants in their leases or agreements, to agree to pay certain rents to the landlord, and also the tithe rentcharge to the tithe-owner. This Act carries out the intention of the Commutation Act in making the landowners liable to the payment of the tithe rentcharge. The Lords made a wise addition to subsection i, viz. that, " Any con- tract made between an occupier and owner of lands after the passing of this Act, for the payment of tithe rentcharge by the occupier, shall be void" The Bill on leaving the Commons, pro- vided, in subsection 2, for contracts made before the passing of this Act, but made no provision against contracts made after the passing of the Act, thus leaving the door open to contracts which may be made after the passing of the Act. The owner of the lands is now the collector of the tithe-owner. And the great advantages which the tithe-owner derives from this Act increase the market value of the rentcharge fully 25 per cent ; and it will materially increase the value of the rentcharge when redeemed. I. 3. It gives power to the owner to distrain for the sum equivalent to the tithe rentcharge paid by the owner of the lands and due by the occupier under a contract made previous to the passing of this Act, according to section 85 of the Act of 1836. The present Act thus transfers the unpopular system of distraint from the tithe-owner to the owner of the lands. No doubt section 85 was framed with a view of preventing tenants escaping pay- ment by removing produce and stock from one field to another. II. i. To recover the tithe rentcharge through the County Court is new machinery. It is a new buffer between the tithe- owner and tithe-payer ; it removes all immediate friction between the clergyman and his tithe-paying tenant. The subject of 240 A History of Tithes. u fees " and " costs," was the most contentious point in passing the Bill through Committee of the House of Commons. The Lords introduced the amendment, that " costs " should be re- covered as in the case of an ordinary action in the County Court. This amendment will be extremely irritating to the small land- owners, especially in Wales. It will also be a fruitful source of irritation to tithe-payers and of legal persecution by tithe-owners through their agents. The Lords' amendment, introduced by Lord Selborne, was truly compared by Sir William Harcourt to " tares sown among wheat." The Tithe Act of 1836 gave 2 1 days to the occupier to pay his tithe after it had fallen due, but this Act gives three months to the owners of the lands. This is a reasonable time, for the landlord has. often to wait six months and even longer for his rents. II. 2. By this, the tithe-owner can, in default of payment on distraint, take possession of the lands, and derive all the advan- tages of the tillage, and keep possession for years without render- ing any compensation to the occupier. This is but one of the many cases which show that the Act was wholly framed in the interest of the tithe-owner, and disadvantageous to the tithe- payer. The security and stringent means for recovering tithe rentcharge are all advantages to the tithe-owner. II. 5. The tithe -owner has a prior claim to all other cre- ditors. II. 9. The owner of the lands, or the occupier, cannot be imprisoned for non-payment of the tithe rentcharge, but may be fined or imprisoned as regards other matters in the execution of County Court warrants. IV. The object which the framers of this section in the House of Lords had in view was to prevent collusion, as stated in their debates, between the owner of the lands and the Tithe Act, 1891. 241 occupying tenant. They based the assertion on the groundless assumption that certain landowners and farmers would enter into a conspiracy to defraud the tithe-owner. This discovery was reserved for the Lords. So section 4 contradicts section i subsection i. The last proviso in section 4 was added by the House of Commons to protect the occupier by giving him a remedy against the landowner. The landowner may have been impecunious, and therefore let his land free of rent for some years, on condition that the tenant should erect certain buildings on the farm or put the farm and fences into better order ; or he may let his lands for a sum down with a small rental ; or the lands may have been let on beneficial leases on payment of a fine with a small reserve rental. But all these are common arrange- ments without any reference to collusion. The Lords, however, thought differently. But the most important point for consider- ation is, that this section upsets the main principle of the Act, namely, that the landowner, and not the occupier, should pay the tithe rentcharge. This section makes the latter pay it under certain circumstances, but which he can recover from his landlord in the manner stated. VI. i. In consequence of a decision in the Law Courts, if a tithe-owner should make default in payment of rates, as many have done, the only remedy for the collector was to recover from the occupier for a debt which was none of his ; and the only remedy which the occupier had for this payment was to recover it from his landlord ; and the landlord was to recover it from the tithe-owner. Here was a remarkable roundabout way to recover payment of rates from the proper person the tithe-owner. Many tithe-owners, in order to annoy and irritate rate-collectors and tithe-payers, would not pay the rates. They knew well and took advantage of the legal ruling, and so they would not pay until 242 A History of Tithes. rate-collectors, tithe-payers, and landlords, had to go through the above legal process to get payment of the rates from them. And so this subsection was framed in order to put a stop to such con- duct on the part of tithe-owners, who are now bound to pay the rates, and it also repeals any part of any Act which authorizes payment from the occupier of rates on tithe rentcharge. VIII. i. This is generally called the " Relief Clause." Quite a misnomer. This paltry relief was given for the great benefits and advantages which the tithe-owners derive from this Act. The relief will affect only a few farms in each county. In esti- mating the annual value of the lands, the valuable building erected will be taken in the valuation, and so tend to diminish the amount of remission of tithe rentcharge. APPENDIX A. ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS. STATEMENT of commuted tithes in possession of Archbishops and Bishops in 1836. See (i) and (4) at p. 210. s. d. I 4 Bishop of Ban"or 5 "560 I I IO ill 3 COUntieS from 17 r>nr?vheL Bath and Wells... 1,831 II o iii Somerset , , II J, Archbishop of Canterbury 30,713 16 7 in 4 counties ,, 67 ,, Bishop of Carlisle 7,353 16 2 ,, 2 . , ., 13 j, Sr- ,, Chester 14,702 16 4 8 31 ,, Chichester 2,118 18 i 5, I 5, J, 7 5 Durham 1,181 16 91 5, 2 ,, 6 ,, Ely 16,764 3 4 9, 7 ,, 48 J > Exeter 1,027 10 2 4 5 JO. j, Gloucester&Bristol 10,191 i 4* f 7 M 35 ,, Hereford 8,022 16 4 .3 ,, 38 5> Lichfield 7,128 12 7 ,, 4 , ii ,, Lincoln . . . . 7 676 7" j ,, T C London / jW v 7,538 4 i , , o , , , , 3 * J , , , 5- ,, Llandaff 2,936 7 7 ,, 3 i. 12 ,, 7 026 7 2 2O Oxford / , Jr*** 4,844 / 19 . 9 >f " ' 5 ' ' , ,, 4 ,, 10 ,, Peterborough ... 140 ,, i ,, ,, I ,, Rochester 4,451 9 4 5, 3 ,, 5> 7 ,7 20. ,, Salisbury 3,683 14 5 ,, 2 ,, 4 M St. Asaph 8,126 o ,, 4 ,, 21 ,, St. David's 5,363 > 7 ,, 24 , , Winchester 3,685 2 4 5, Worcester 1,803 I 6 t I 5 ,, 25- Archbishop of York . . . 24,944 13 7 3 ,3 36 ^"189,718 ii o from 458 parishes, It must be noted, that these are commuted tithes ; but the tithes were much higher in value. 243 244 APPENDIX B. APPENDIX CHAPTERS. B. s. d. Dean and Chapter of Bangor 1,616 in i county in 5 parishes. , , Bristol 11,578 2 7 in 5 counties in 34 , , Canterbury 22,548 8 4 ,, 5 ,, 39 ,, Carlisle ... 12,104 19 71 3 , , 30 ,r Chester ... 1,028 13 5 ,, i ,, 6 ,, , , Ch ichest er. . . 8,883 8 2 3 ,, 26 r ,, Durham ... I5,32i 19 tj ,, 3 ;, 25 jy Ely . 10,762 16 2 , 4 ,, 15 ,, ,, Exeter 14,636 17 4 4 ,, 51 >p , , Gloucester. . . 6,654 2 3 4 ,, 25 y r /, Hereford . . . 10,371 I 2 ,, 4 ,, 45 ?r Lichfield ... 6,738 9 5 5 ,, 18 , r ,, Lincoln 5,in 3 3 6 , , 19 j r ,, Llandaff ... 4,642 o 2 ,, 29 Jr ,, London 10,681 4 ii , 4 , , 17 5 f ,, Manchester 2,596 10 ii , i ,, i yj , , Norwich . . . 11,329 3 8 ,, 2 5> 39 jj ,, Oxford 39,785 i 10 ,,18 , , 82 ,, ,, Ripon i,376 8 3 ,, I , 2 Jr ,, Rochester ... 15,394 18 4 ,, 4 39 tf ,, Salisbury ... 11,282 8 5 ,, 33 ,, ,, St. Asaph ... 3,018 10 io| ,, 3 ,, 7 >r ,, St. David's 6,3 2 3 12 8 5 ,, 37 >y Wells 7,382 7 9 3 ,, 22 j t ,, Westminster 9-794 6 4 ,, 8 , , 22 >y ,, Windsor ... 29,887 9 2 ,,16 , 6l |f ,, Winchester 14,988 10 5 7 j , 25 J? Worcester... 12,033 4 ,, 6 , , 23 ,, 29. York 6,357 3 9 3 ,, 21 " ;3I4,276 14 3 in 798 parishes. APPENDIX C. 245 APPENDIX C. Dean. Precen- tor. Chan- cellor. Preben- Treasurer. daries. Total. I. Chichester ... ... 1,439 853 525 891 7,755 11,403 Durham i,457 3,6i5 5,072 Ely ... 3,406 3,406 Exeter ... 2,505 2I 5 1.054 1,219 2,100 7,193 5- Hereford 843 503 655 479 1,668 4,148 Lichfield 3,320 '14,853 18,173 Lincoln 6,478 9 9,3io 15,797 St. Paul's, London ... 583 1,711 1,592 3,850 6,936 Salisbury 5,507 2,429 3,253 3,258 16,819 30,366 10. Wells 2,041 355 340 800 4,934 8,470 York 4,412 563 1,094 6,465 12,534 Southwell Coll. Church 3,504 3,504 Ileytesbury ,, 1,288 1,288 Dean of S. Buryan 1,050 15- ,, ,, Middleham ' 232 WALES Bangor... 1,020 - 200 435 1,655 Llandaff i8 5 435 2 1,098 1,718 St. Asaph's 1,988 i,585 868 350 1,294 6,085 19- St. David's 384 326 3 2 8, 892 9,502 ^148,492 I have given ^314,276 as the total tithe-rent charges of 29 chapters ; to this add ^158,770 for separate prebendal and vicars-choral estates, etc., and we get the enormous revenue of ^473,046, or ^716,000 in tithes for 29 chapters, and only for tithes, without regard to the chapters' landed and mineral estates. There is nothing similar to this to be found in any other Chris- 1 The Bishop of Lichfield had as Prebendary ,1,540 per annum, which is included here. 2 Archdeacons not included here. 3 Included in Bishop's. 246 APPENDIX C. tian country in the world. It is even shocking when we add the above to their respective chapters, viz. : I. Chichester 8,883 + 11,463=20,346 Durham 15,322+ 5,072 = 20,394 Ely 10,762+ 3,406 = 14,168 "Exeter 14,636+ 7,193 = 21,629 5. Hereford 10,371+ 4,148=14,519 Lichfield 6,738+18,173 = 24,911 Lincoln 5,111 + 15,797 = 20,908 London ... ... ... 10,681+ 6,936=17,617 Salisbury ... 11,282 + 30,366 = 41,648 Wells... /... 7,382+8,470=15,852 ii- York 6,357 + 12,534 = 18,891 WALES Bangor 1,616+ 1,655= 3,271 Llandaff 4,642+ 1,718= 6,360 St. Asaph 3,018+ 6,085= 9,103 15. St. David's 6,323+ 9,502=15,825 265,542 A\B. The Vicars-Choral of ten Cathedrals possessed ,10,278 tithe-rent charge, and 22 Archdeacons had 17,906, of which the Archdeacon of Surrey had 4,539 per annum, a most scandalous amount from parishes in Surrey and Hampshire ; the Archdeacon of Canterbury had 3,009 per annum. Summary of A, B, and C : A> Archbishops and Bishops ... ... ... ... 189,718 & Chapters 314,276 \ Separate estates of Principals and I s Prebendaries ... ... ... 148,492 I Vicars-Choral of ten Cathedrals ... 10,278; Twenty-two Archdeacons ... ... ... ... 17,236 Sinecure Rectories in Wales, erroneously in- ^ /- ^ serted among " Clerical Appropriators " J 681,695 A very useful lesson is derived from a study of the tithe-rent charges in possession of the Colleges of Oxford and Cam- bridge in 1836. APPENDIX D. 247 - APPENDIX D. Oxford. I. King's ... 357 10. Brasenose 115 Corpus Christi ... 1,333 Balliol ... 1,491 Exeter ... ... 807 Queen's ... ... 2,451 All Soul's 2,355 Trinity ... ... 2,620 5. Magdalene ... 2,886 Merton ... ... 5,125 University College ... 2,958 15. St. John's 779 Jesus ... ' ... - '3,576 Wadham... 955 Oriel ... 1,487 17. Winchester, or New Pembroke 292 College ... 10,311 _ ., Total . 42,898 Cambridge. I. King's ... ... 10,408 II. Queen's 10 Catherine's Hall 430 St. John's ... 5,048 Jesus ... 1,543 Clare ... 2,004 Christ ... 2,637 Downing 5 5. Corpus Christi ... 150 St. Peter's 639 Magdalene ... 1,318 Trinity ... ... 33,44i University College- ... 4,110 17. Trinity Hall ... 976 Emmanuel 481 Pembroke .. 3,154 ^67,646 10. Gonville and Cains ... 1,292 ] Oxford /42,8o8 Cambridge 67,646 Total Tor ^4 Colleges .. * ... ... ;no>544 Schools, Charities, and Hospitals = 80, 52O 3 Companies and Corporations = ^10,971 1 v367 is from eight parishes in Wales ; and of this amount, the Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, is the owner of "1,532 los. 2 ,2,402 for the Margaret Professor from Terrington, in Norfolk. 3 Including Winchester School, 7, 258 per annum ; Eton, ^8,484; Wim- bornc, /2,4i6. In Wales, All Soul's has ^875 ; University, Oxford, ^37 ; Christ College, Cambridge, 370. 248 APPENDIX D. Christ Church, Oxford, has ,39,785 of tithes from eighty-two parishes in eighteen counties. I have not included the amount here, because it is placed among the Chapters, yet all the pro- perty is collegiate. Summary of Colleges, Schools, etc. : Oxford, 17 Colleges 42,898 Cambridge, 17 Colleges 67,646 Winchester School 7,258 Eton College 8,484 Wimborne ... ... ... ... ... ... 2,416 Other smaller Schools ... ... ... ... 11,362 Hospitals 32,000 Charities ... 8,276 Municipal Corporations ... ... ... ... 5,562 Public Companies ... ... ... ... ... 6,024 Governors distributing Church Revenues 4,129 ^"196,055 The disclosures made in the Tithe Commutation Return of 1887 (Lord Wolmer's) as regards the extent of the prebendal and other separate estates, are most astonishing. The four principal officers Dean, Precentor, Chancellor, and Treasurer of certain cathedrals, were endowed with separate estates in tithes and lands, in addition to their shares of the Chapter properties. Then the prebendal estates were in the aggregate enormous. I am now dealing only with tithe property. And it is well to remark again that we should add one-half of the commuted value to. the commuted value in order to ascertain the original tithe value, according to Sir John Caird's opinion, that the com- muted value of tithes = 4 millions, was 2 millions less than the tithe value = 6 millions. I must also remark, that the rentals of the episcopal, capitular and prebendal tithes, were only one- APPENDIX. 249 third their rack-rental value, because the owners had for cen- turies let all their properties on beneficial leases for years, or on lives for one-third their rack-rental value. The lessees retained the other two-thirds. The tithe-payers had to pay them their tithes in full. In 1835, appeared, for the first time since the reign of Henry VIII., an official Parliamentary Report of the revenues of the Church. The creation of the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1836, and the passing of the Cathedral Act of 1840, led to investigations as to the actual rack-rental value of the episcopal, capitular, and prebendal properties. The lease- hold property with which the Act of 1840 vested the Commis- sioners was ascertained to be only one-third of its rack-rental value, and it was also found that the same remark applied to all the church properties which were let on beneficial leases. This was a vital discovery. The Commissioners set about their Herculean work of enfranchising all the leasehold estates in order that they should obtain for the Church, the two-thirds which the wealthy lessees were receiving. The leases for years are of course long ago in possession of the Commissioners ; but a great many leases for lives are still running on, although it is now fifty-one years since the Act of 1840 was passed. It was never anticipated by Sir Robert Peel, Lord Russell, and other Church reformers, that the net income of the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be over one million per annum. Any person who would have said so then would have been considered insane. In 1840 the idea of enfran- chising all the leasehold property of the church was not for one moment thought of, and if it were, that it could never be realized. Without going into the history of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sion, it is essentially necessary to state that this Commission has cleared away, as far as public patronage is concerned with 250 APPENDIX. Acts of Parliament, the gross, yes, the disgraceful waste of church endowments. For instance, the present Archdeacon of Surrey, instead of receiving about ^6,000 a year, of which ^4,539 came from the tithe- rent charges, has a canonry in Winchester Cathedral, gross income ^1,000 per annum, and the vicarage of Frensham, with net income ^400 and house. An Order in Council divided, respecting vested interests, the Arch- deacon's enormous income among poor benefices and endowed new churches in the parishes where the tithes arose. This is a good specimen of all the operations of the Commissioners. Incumbents possessing enormous incomes, whose benefices were in public patronage, have been dealt with by Orders in Council, and by private Acts of Parliament, in a similar manner, on the next avoidances, when the new incumbents were appointed, on very reduced incomes, and the residue divided among the poorer incumbents in the same parishes. Then as regards the episcopal, capitular, and prebendal revenues, the Commissioners allow the bishops and chapters their incomes as set forth in Acts of Parlia- ment and Orders in Council, and with the residue of the immense property, they satisfy local claims of parishes where the tithes arose or landed estates were situate. As for the prebendal pro- perties, separate estates of capitular offices, sinecure rectories and dissolved canonries, the Cathedral Act of 1840 vested them in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the good of the Common Fund, but Parliament allowed local claims on the tithes only. In a subsequent Act (1860), the local claims were extended, rather unwisely, to all kinds of church property. Hence we find many country parishes, with a population of a few hundreds, richly endowed and furnished with comfortable, well-built parsonages. The incumbents claim this by virtue of the extension clause of the local claims. The Commissioners have therefore been APPENDIX. 251. bound to satisfy local claims of hundreds of parishes with popu- lations varying from 150 to 300, while the teeming populations of the town parishes have to go without help from the above resources. About ^360,000 per annum has been given out of the Common Fund to satisfy local claims up to 1890. The Com- missioners were opposed to this extension clause, and it was not in the Bill, but was inserted and carried by members of Parlia- ment after the Bill was introduced, who had churches on their o\vn estates, and in their neighbourhood, where large church endowments existed. The clause included all the landed estates- and house property of the bishops, chapters, prebendaries, sinecure rectories, etc. In London there are lamentable cases of small incomes in parishes where there are no local claims, and large incomes of adjacent parishes, arising from local claims. For example, the Finsbury estate in London consists of three acres of land, which were given, in the fourteenth century, by a layman to St. Paul's for the support of one prebendary. The Corporation of London leased this estate from the dean and chapter, and built valuable houses upon it. The Act of 1840 vested this property, on the expiration of the lease, in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In 1867 the lease expired, and the Commissioners came into possession of ^60,000 per annum from the rentals of this property. By the Act of 1840, there would be no local claim, for none of this revenue came from tithes. But by the Act of 1860, there was a local claim. Hence eighteen district churches within the parish had their incumbents' incomes raised to ^500 a year each ; new costly parsonage houses were erected, and large annual sums are allowed to the churchwardens of all these churches for the church services and repair of churches. But not a shilling was given to the poor incumbents in the adjacent populous parochial districts, flY XHIK 252 APPENDIX E. APPENDIX E. The Septennial Average Prices of Wheat, Barley, and Oats from 1835 to 1890, or 55 years, taken from Willich's Tithe Commutation Tables. To Christmas To Christmas do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. Per London Gazette 1835 on gth Dec. 1836 .._ 18^6 WHEAT ; per imperial bushel. BARLEY, . l )er . , imperial bushel. OATS, im P eriil 'bushel? Value of TITHK-RHNT CHARGE of ^100. S. d. 7 oj 6 8* 6 6f 6 61 6 9 6 11} 7 3t 7 7* 7 7i 7 7 7 4 7 oi 7 it o iol 6 7 i i s \ 6 zl 6 o| 6 o 6 oj 6 6 6 ii\ 7 af 7 4 7 4* 7 4* 7 o*- 6 8J 6 3t 6 o 5 "1 6 ol 6 3l 6 5f 6 3* 6 4 6 7 4 6 io2- 7 oj 6 10?- 6 6} 6 61 6 8| 6 61 6 3 \ 6 o* 5 ioi 5 lot 5 9$ 5 4} 5 if 4 ii 4 81 4 5* 1. a J. d. 3 ii* S-nf 3 "I 3 9f 3 Hi 4 i 4 2 4 i* 4 <* 4 it 4 la 4 4 it 'f 4 if 4 ! 3 tol III III J| 4 5* 4 6.| J| -I t,H Mj 4 5t II ril 4 10 4 u 4 10 4 9 1 4 if 4 ii 4 10* 4 8J 4 6 4 4* 4 3'1 4 if 3 Hf 3 10 3 81 3 7* 3 61 3 5 J. d, 2 9 2 9 2 8* 2 9 | 2 IOJ 2 III 2 lo| 2 9 * 2 9 2 9 2 8|- 2 9* 2 8* 2 8i 2 8 2 7 i 2 62- 2 61 2 6 2 7 ! 2 9l 2 II 3 ol 3 if 3 2 3 i 3 o 2 II j 2 10 2 9 | 2 94 1 2 I01 2 II 2 Ilf 1 r 53 3 2| 3 3f 3 3, 3 af 3 at 3 of 2 III 2 lOf 2 9 2 t 2 74 2 61- 2 2 ^l 2 3 i~ s. d. IOO O O 98 13 9-1 97 7 ii 95 7 9 98 15 9* 102 12 5^ ' 105 8 2^ 105 12 2l 104 3 5l 103 17 n 102 17 8| 99 18 iol IO2 I O loo 3 7* 98 16 10 96 ii 4 l 93 i6-xit 9i i3 5l 9o 19 5 89 15 8| 93 18 il 99 i3 7* 105 16 3^ 108 19 6f no 17 8 112 3 4t 109 13 6 107 5 2 103 3 ioj 98 15 io| 97 7 9* 98 13 8 loo 13 3 103 5 i 104 i ol 104 15 i 108 4 oj no 15 iol 112 7 3 ! 112 15 6f no 14 ii 109 16 n| H2 7 5 l i" 15 ifc 109 17 9! IO7 2 IOJ 102 l6 2 loo 4 9t 98 6 2! 93 17 3 90 10 3^ 87 8 10 84 2 8J 80 19 8^ 78 i 3| 76 3 3f i8}8 ... 1839 ... 1840 .. 1841 1842 ... 1843 1844 1845 .. ... 1846 1848 .... . . 1849 1850 1851 ... . . i8=;2 ... 1853 1854 1855 1856 1858 1859 X 86o 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 18*7 ,868 1869 .... 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876... 1877 1878 1879 1880 . 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 do. do. Gen 1889 1890 eral average for the last 55 years 5536 6 5 ;lOO 13 2} APPENDIX F. 253 APPENDIX F. Summary of Tithe -rent charges, copied from the Parliamentary Tithes- Commutation Return, 1887. Counties. RENT CHARGES. Payable to Clerical Appropriators. Payable to Parochial Incumbents. Payable to Lay- Impropriators. Payable to Schools,. Colleges, etc. Bedford . . . Berks ^3-599 18,978 4,214 i5, T 56 15,630 12,218 10,517 7.193 30.910 9,485 ",367 i5, 2 53 18,650 20,018 13,156 1,065 7<,o48 13,122 1,461 17,695 4.533 6,635 31,023 1,671 17,^87 10,004 9,614 739 3,496 23, I 4* 21,309 20,501 7,044 7,4 6 5 24,807 2,812 756 4 I ,352 11,961 57, 2 47 13,276 46726 28,605 50,201 33,208 6i,i75 9,965 2T,OOO 115.691 62,184 28,071 I59,Ol8 53,478 47,601 43,65 7 10,860 143,881 36,179 25,244 80,295 16,828 i7,i95 203,016 27,027 24,634 20,516 3i,997 6,891 66,427 104,994 103,467 33,474 155,^97 48,287 103,019 29,654 3,i55 77>705 42,128 91,697 3.429 18,763 13,652 5,741 13,217 26,834 4,425 10,096 28,365 13,766 13,340 53,988 12,983 6,312 16,217 2,109 35,217 20,650 3,809 23,208 5,388 5,673 ?3,340 27',88i 6,642 7,54 606 34,939 25,749 26,163 20,733 37,75i 19,247 2^,040 io543 i ; 907 18,587 8,598 57,727 4,22* 4,oi 6 50 8,867 '' 53 4 9 2 t i,3*3 123 6, 4 63 3,749" .4,697 22,010- 2,552 1,770- 3,594 1,051 7.729- 4,039 443 5,334 74 413- 13,204 831 7.835 3,166 4,207 3,831 1,856 21,917 773 5,774 1,301 4,507 7,807 1,827 7,262 1,329 15,043 Bucks Cambridge . . . Chester .... Cornwall .... Cumberland . . Derby . . Devon Dorset Durham .... L'ssex . Gloucester . . Hereford .... Hertford .... Huntingdon. . . Kent .... Lancaster. . . . Leicester .... Lincoln .... Middlesex . . . Mon mouth . . . Norfolk .... Northampton . . Northumberland . Nottingham . . . Oxford .... Rutland .... Salop Somerset .... Southampton Stafford .... Suffolk Surrey . .'.- Sussex Warwick .... Westmoreland . . Wilts Worcester , . . York 614,032 2,277,539 705,174 187,897 WALES. Anglesey .... Brecon Cardigan .... Carmarthen . . . Carnarvon . . . Denbigh .... Flint . . 2,667 4,616 3,251 6,640 2,133 13.413 6,607 7,"4 2,034 7,688 4,779 6,721 12,065 11,722 4,979 7,419 ii,i39 16,602 12,192 16,854 6,889 14,991 15,243 7,406 2,139 3, 2 7 io,475 H,707 3,012 5,525 4.528 5,592 542 3,824 7,200 348 i,534 161 794 468 J ,037 1,249 257 40 1,586 74i 291 Glamorgan . Merioneth . . . Montgomery . . Pembroke . . . Radnor .... England . . . 67,663 614,032 i37,5oo 2,277,540 61,168 705,167 8,159 187,897 Total . . 681,695 2,415,040 766,335 196,056 General total of the four items, 4,059,126. APPENDIX G. APPENDIX G. Analysis of the Tithe Commutation Return in Appendix F, showing (i) the number of Old Parishes in England and Wales ; (2) the number not appropriated, and the number appropriated, to which is added a full explanation of the analysis. ENGLAND. Collegiate Parishes T f I Total Counties. Parochial Rectors. Appro- priated Rectors. Impro- priated Rectors. School, Hospital, etc., Appro- priated Vicars. with Vicars but without otai number of number of Ancient Rectors. Rectors. Vicars. Parishes. i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bedford 25 3 12 7 21 6 27 53 Berks . . 65 26 33 6 54 7 61 137 Bucks . 63 9 42 i 36 10 46 125 Cambridge . 40 19 8 19 32 5 37 9i Chester . . 51 21 18 26 26 90 Cornwall . Si 28 86 3 103 6 109 204 Cumberland 31 26 23 2 25 2 27 84 Derby . . 47 16 50 5i 5 56 118 Devon . 245 83 104 9 H7 8 155 449 10 Dorset . . 167 29 48 69 H 83 261 Durham 30 20 17 8 29 4 33 79 Essex . 237 28 99 20 129 7 136 39i Gloucester . 109 49 39 6 69 10 79 213 Hereford . 80 80 29 9 98 17 U5 215 Hertford . 64 15 26 5 42 4 46 114 Huntingdon 36 7 ii 3 13 13 57 Kent . . 176 143 63 13 181 10 191 405 Gloucester . 28 ii 3i i 21 21 7i Leicester . 75 7 33 3 35 ii 4 6 129 20 Lincoln . 188 38 67 8 89 32 121 333 Middlesex . 23 8 14 i 17 4 21 50 M on mouth . 44 40 30 4 5i 5 56 123 Norfolk . 447 86 102 23 157 9 166 667 Northampton 91 8 :6 6 21 ii 3 2 132 Northumber- land . 18 16 43 3 43 3 4 6 83 Nottingham 4i 27 22 8 45 8 53 106 Oxford . . 74 20 25 ii 40 4 44 134 Rutland . 24 6 2 6 i 7 33 Salop . . 116 8 87 4 75 4 79 219 30 Somerset . 252 89 107 4 156 8 164 460 Southampton 171 33 48 31 87 9 96 292 Stafford . . 46 32 53 i 56 5 61 137 Suffolk . . 3 '9 16 123 10 93 15 108 4*3 Surrey . . 74 13 42 i 35 3 38 133 Sussex . . 1 60 59 62 8 104 10 114 299 Warwick . 48 7 45 18 53 16 69 i34 Westmore- land . 13 3 8 2 13 T H 27 Wilts . . 131 69 50 12 101 12 H3 274 Worcester . 73 3i 16 I 36 7 43 128 40 York 155 ii7 156 27 1 86 34 220 489 Total . 4158 1346 1890 3 OI 2645 327 2972 8022 APPENDIX G. 255 APPENDIX G (continued}. WALES. Col- Parishes Total Counties. Parochial Rectors. Appro- priated Rectors. Impro- priated Rectors. legiate School, Hospital, Appro- priated Vicars. with Vicars but without Total number of number . f Ancient Rectors. Rectors. Vicars. Parishes. i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Anglesey . 50 10 13 4 5 _ 5 77 Brecon . 27 24 15 I 24 2 26 69 Cardigan . IS 15 31 I 24 24 62 Carmarthen 14 21 39 2 36 2 38 78 Carnarvon . 40 10 13 5 17 I 18 69 Denbigh 20 22 7 2 18 5 23 56 Flint . . 14 15 2 15 15 3i Glamorgan. 58 29 29 42 3 45 119 Merioneth . 22 8 4 5 5 34 Montgomery 26 15 ii 2 19 i 20 55 Pembroke . 62 27 40 2 49 3 52 134 1 2 Radnor . . 18 26 2 I 17 3 20 50 Total . . 366 222 206 20 271 20 291 834 In England 4158 1346 iSQO 301 2645 327 2972 8022 Total in England and Wales . 4524 1568 2096 321 2916 347 3263 8856 Column i indicates that nearly one-half of the parochial tithes in England and Wales were appropriated to archbishops, bishops, chapters, monasteries, colleges, etc. There are 8,856 old parishes in England and Wales. Columns 2, 3, and 4 give the number of appropriated rectories, total 3,985. So we have 3,985 old parishes deprived of their rectorial tithes. Who have these ? Column 2 are archbishops, bishops, chapters, vicars-choral, and archdeacons. Column 3 are what are sometimes called "Lay Rectors," i.e., im- propriated rectors, namely, lay persons in receipt of rectorial tithes, resulting from the dissolution of monasteries and the dispersion of their tithes by the Crown to laymen. Columns 3 and 4 are lay persons receiving tithes from 2,417 parishes, amounting to gross 256 APPENDIX G. ,962,390, or nearly a million a year. Appendices A, B, and C, give the rectors in column 2. Appendix D gives the 321 in column 4. As regards column 3, the tithe-rent charges are dealt with as private property, and as such is constantly changing hands by sales or otherwise. In columns 6 and 7, 3,985 appropriated and impropriated rectors of the old parishes employed 2,916 vicars. But column 6, or 347 parishes, have vicars, but no rectors. 1 Again, the 1,568 clerical rectors in column 2 employed only 1,176 vicars, and the remaining 392 parishes had no vicars. Again, the 2,096 impropriated rectors in column 3 employed only 1,525 vicars, and the remaining 564 parishes had none. Again, the 321 college, etc., rectors employed 207 vicars, and the remaining 102- parishes had none. I refer the reader to the summary of tithe- rent charges at page 253. (i) The Clerical Appropriators having 681,695, number 1,568. They are classified in Appendices A, B, and C. (2) The Parochial Incumbents receiving ^2,415,040, consist of rectors, 4,524 + 3,263 vicars =7, 7 8 7. (3) Lay Impropriators receive ,766,334; they number 2,096. (4) Schools, colleges, etc., receive 196,055 ; they number 321, and are classified in Ap- pendix D, page 247. 1 The 347 impropriated rectors received, by Inclosure Acts, lands or pay- ments in lieu of tithes, and are, therefore, excluded from the Tithe Return. APPENDIX H. 257 APPENDIX H. LANDS AND MONEY PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TITHES. The number of parishes in which awards were made under the Inclosure Acts, in 29 counties, was 989. l These parishes do not appear in the Tithe Commutation Return of 1887. Parishes ... 435 ... 63 ... 477 ... 14 ... 548 ... 989 Add the tithe } number at 4,524 ... 1,568 ... 2,096 ... 321 ... 3,263 ... 8,856 page 255 ) Total ... 4,959 1,631 2,573 335 3,811 9,845 To 9,845 are added 200 benefices in London, Canterbury, Isle of Man, etc , which receive tithe-taxes from houses, also fixed and variable incomes from commuted tithes. Therefore, 10,045 benefices derive incomes from tithes. The total number of bene- fices is 13,979. Of the remaining 3,934, 464 are not endowed with tithes or glebes, and 3,470 were formed between A.D. 1818 and A.D. 1890. As regards the 9,845 parishes, it is important to notice that the tithes of one-half or 4,886 in England and Wales, were impropriated^ that is, alienated from the parishes, and 4,959 were not alienated. The total number of beneficed clergy in England, Wales, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, may be taken as 13,979 ( as ver 7 few benefices are now held in plurality), viz., England 13,048, Wales 856, Isle of Man 34, Channel Islands 41. In the census of 1 88 1, the number of civil parishes was stated to be 14,926, hence 947 were consolidated. The benefice may consist of one or many parishes united. For example, at page 192, there are 43 parishes united into n benefices, so 13,979 benefices mean about 15,000 parishes. 11,667 benefices have parsonage houses, 2,312 have not. 1 Parliamentary Return, " Tithe Commutation," published 26th March, 1867. S 2 5 8 APPENDIX I. APPENDIX I. AGGREGATE SUMMARY OF REVENUES OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND. * Gross income of property derived from T. Archiepi.scopal and Episcopal Sees II. Cathedral and Collegiate Churches III. Ecclesiastical Benefices IV. Ecclesiastical Commissioners V. Queen Anne's Bounty Ancient Endowments. . 87,827 Private Benefactions since ^03. 11,081 192,400 . 3,941,057 272,605 . 1,247,827 700 5*469,171 284,386 .'.,,., r 5,753,557 Its capitalized value is about ;, 140,000,000. The return deals only with the permanent sources of revenues. Hence it omits fees, pew-rents and Easter offerings. The return was made from values in 1886. The Commissioners' own gross income in 1890 was ^1,320,000, and not ^1,247,827. The gross income of the beneficed clergy is by this return ^4,8 10,662 or gross ^344 a year each, net ^262. To find net income, I have allowed ;i, 140,000 to cover depreciation and expenses out of ^2,592, ooo tithe-rent charge, 1890. The total rateable value of the episcopal, capitular and par- sonage houses = \ 1,151+ ,18,928 + ^5 1 8,054 respectively = "548,133. The rack-rental value is about 800,000 a year. Dealing with the fluctuating part of the beneficed clergy's in- come, \ve may safely estimate fees, pew-rents and Easter offerings at 1,000,000 a year. In arriving at this amount I have been guided by certain well-known official data, (i) The average fluc- tuating incomes of the 115 rectors in the old parish of Manchester were, for 1890, 142 each. (2) The 987 benefices of Wales and Monmouth had, in 1890, 10 each. My conclusion, therefore, is that 4,600 benefices get, like Manchester, 653,000; 4,600 get "300,000 ; and 4,779 et tne Welsh rate, viz., 48,000. Total, ,1, 000,000. It varies from one to one and a half millions a year. In 1890 we may safely take the following as the correct gross aggregate revenues of the beneficed clergy: 3,941,057 + 272,605 + 617,000 (C.F.) + "1,000,000 = 5,830,662 or 415 each ; net "334 calculated like the net 262 above. But ^"6,000,000 a year for the 13,979 incumbents is nearer the truth. Add to 11,667 w ^h parsonages, a rental of ^52 a year for house = net average for each of the 11,667 ^386. We have, at last, a correct idea of the immense wealth of the beneficed clergy alone. 1 Taken from the Parliamentary Return just published, viz., " Revenues of the Church of England," 231x1 of June, 1891. INDEX. Abel, 3. Abraham, I. Adam, 3, 6. Advowsons, sale of, 27. Aelfwold, King of Northumbria, 42. Aidan, Bishop, 36. Alcuin, 35. Alfred, King, 67. Alien Priories, property of, 139; annual amount sent to Cluny in France, 170; dissolved, 170. Allen, John, his " Inquiry into the Royal Prerogative," 58. Althorp, Lord, 202. Appendices, see Table of Contents, p. xvi. Apostolical Constitutions, 5-7. Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, increased Bishop Roger's modus for City of London, 187 ; the record of the Common Council on this modus, 1 88, Asser, 55. Athelstan, King, law of tithes, 70. Athon, John de, his "Constitutions of Otho " ; refers to canon law which makes rectors repair chancel and nave of churches, 124, note I. Baldred, King of Kent, his witan de- clined to ratify a grant of folcland, 58. Baron, John, 105. Bede, 1 1 ; speaks but once of tithes, to be paid to poor, 21 ; his account of landowners' churches, 25, 26, 81, 82. Bellarmine, Cardinal, 5, 6. Benefices in England and Wales, 257. Birch, his "Cartularium Saxonicum," 37 39 5 8 > 6l > H3 ; discovers ear- liest Anglo-Saxon census MS., 91. Birinus, first Archbishop of York, 35. Bishops, first distributors of church revenues, 18; British Bishops (A.D. 597), 35 ; Anglo-Saxon, 93. Blunt, in his " History of the Refor- mation " tells of the condition of the poor at the dissolution of monas- teries, 128. Blackstone, Judge, quadripartite di- vision, 18, 23; church endowments, 24, 25 ; monks, 88 ; his views on the origin of arbitrary consecration of tithes, 148. Bocland defined, 57. Boniface, Archbishop of Mentz, 40. British Churches, ancient, no tithes paid to, 14. Brewer, J. S., u, 17, 119. Bromton, John, abbot of Jervaulx in Yorkshire, 48, 49, 114, 115. Burnet, Bishop, his criticisms on Wharton's "Anglia Sacra," 129, 130. 259 26o Index. Cain, 3. Caird, Sir James, valued tithes at six millions, 207. Canons, Calchyth (Chelsea), A. P. 787, P-43- Canute, King, his laws, 121 ; made use of thirty-six out of the forty- five articles of the " Church Grith " Laws, 121 ; parishioners to keep churches in repair, 156. Canterbury, primacy of, 37. Catalogue of Sir Robert Cotton's lib- rary, in A.D. 1632, 99, 100 ; second catalogue, 1695 ; third, 1705. Cave, Dr., his character of Wharton, 129. Chancel, to be kept in repair by owners of tithes, 156. Charibert, king of Paris, 13. Charles (Charlemagne), king of France, makes his first public law for payment of tithes, A.D. 779, pp. 33, 34, 40. Christian ministers, how maintained, 4, 7- Church Defence Institution, II. Church of England established in the kingdom of Kent, 14, 15 ; in Northumbria, 36. Church Grith Law, art. 6, enacts the tripartite division of tithes, 95 ; Thorpe, Lingard, Stubbs, and Freeman acknowledge this law, 96, 97 ; chapters x., xii. refute the opinions of opponents of this law. Church-Scot, 77, 78. Church Revenues, 258. Clergy, their share of Church reve- nues, 18, 79, 132, 258 ; " They had not the sole use of tithes," 21. Codex Diplomaticus, Kemble, 59, 61, 63. Column, Bishop, 37, 38. Comber, Thomas, Dean of Carlisle, supports, like Dean Prideaux, the divine right of persons to their tithes, and abuses Selden for having denied it, 53. Commons, House of, petitioned the Crown against paying tithes for timber, 136 ; succeeded in 1372 in limiting power of canon of A.D. 1343 as regards timber, 136-138. Commutation Act, 201 ; Paley's and Adam Smith's definitions of tithes, 201 ; " commuted value," defined, 203 ; an illustration of the, 204 ; formula used to find the septennial average, 204 ; the 8oth sec. left a loophole by which landlords con- tracted themselves out of payment, 204, 205 ; great injustice of paying tithes on agricultural produce only, 206; tithes valued in 1836 at six- millions, 207 ; who shared the profits ? 207, 208. Confession, The, its power for exact- ing tithes, 28. Constantine, Emperor, 7. Cotton, Sir Robert, his library, 98- 101 ; Church Grith law not in his library during his life, 99 ; Lord Selborne says it was, 102 ; not in the official catalogue of 1632, pp. 99, loo ; first mentioned in Wanley's- catalogue of 1705, p. loo. Cotton, Sir John, 100, 101 ; died A.D. 1702; Act of Parliament passed in 1702 vesting library in trustees, 100. Councils, synod at Westminster, A.D. 1175, 133; in A.D. 1195 by Archbishop of York, 133 ; Arch- bishop Winchelsey's synod in Index. 261 London, A.D. 1295, 134 ; synod at St. Paul's, London, A.D. 1343 ; tithing all manner of timber, 135 ; the House of Commons frequently petitioned against this canon ; ar- bitrary appropriation of tithes abolished by the third Lateran Council, 148; again in A.D. 1215, 150; Archbishop Stratford's coun- cil in London in A.D. 1342, the 4th canon of which provided for poor, 157 ; the third Lateran coun- cil had forbidden " infeudations," 159. Crab, Friar, 10. Cranmer, Archbishop, surrendered landed estates.to Henry VIII., 182. Cromwell, Earl of Essex, his advice to Henry VIII., how and why to divide the monastic lands, 125, 126. Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, 40. Danegeld, 17. Danes, treaty with, between Edward the Elder and Guthrum II., for payment of tithes, 69. Decretals, forged, of Isidore, 10. Degge, Sir Simon, his " Parson's Counseller," 128; he said, "The poor have a share in the tithes," 129 ; a brief sketch of his life, 130; Lord Sel borne quotes a garbled edition of Degge's Counsellor, 130, 131. Deusdedit, Archbishop of Canterbury, 37- Dibdin, Mr. Chancellor, in his new edition of Dr. Brewer's work wrongly translates " portiones," 1 1, 17, 22, 23 ; differs from Brewer on the division of tithes, u ; omits material evidence , 119; his error on the "Penitential " of Theodore, 119 ; his "blend," 119. Diocese and parish at one time, syn- onymous, 83. Dionysius, " Exiguus," mentions no- thing about tithes, 5. Dominicans, 170. Dunstan, Archbishop, 148, 163 ; first episcopal pluralist, 165. Eadbert, bishop of Lindisfarne in A.D. 686, paid tithes to the poor, but not to the Church, 21, 51. Earl of Chester, charter of, 176. Ecclesiastical Commission created in 1836, particulars of its " Common Fund" in 43rd Report, 141, 173. Edgar's, King, laws, 79; manorial churches received one-third of the tithes, 79 ; threefold division of churches, 80 ; first English law expressly appropriating tithes, 80 ; canons of, 86 ; important gloss, 86. Edmund, King, the laws of, 77 ; bishops to keep churches in repair, 156. Edwin, King, 36. Edward the Confessor, his alleged laws for tithes, 19. Edward the Elder, King, his treaty with King Guthrum II., by which the Danes were to pay tithes, 69. Egbert, King, 37, 58. Egbert, Archbishop of York, his works, 29 ; his Excerptions, 30-32, 103 ; his alleged tripartite division of tithes an anachronism, 30 ; sources of Egbert's excerptions, 32. Englishman's Brief, 9, 138, 139, 142, 143, MS- 262 Index. Esdaile, Edward Jeffries, owner of tithes of St. Botolph without Aid- gate, with particulars, 199, 200. Ethelbert, king of Kent, became a Christian, 13; created and endowed three bishoprics, 15 ; the Anglo- Saxon Church was thus State Es- tablished, 15, note 3 ; enacted no laws for payment of tithes, 19. Ethelbert, King of East Angles, 48. Ethelred II., called the Unready, re- turns from exile, A.D. 1014, p. 102 ; his Church Grith law for the tri- partite division of tithes, 94, 95, etc. Ethelwulfs, King, charters, 59, 60, 62, 65. Exon Domesday, 58. Extraordinary tithe-rent charge, how it originated, 2 1 1, 213 ; redeemed, 213- Felix, a Burgundian missionary, 35. Fire Acts, 188, 190. First Fruits and Tenths, their origin, 2. Folcland defined, 56. Franciscans, 170. Freeman, E. A., on lawyers, 25 ; on letter of Kentish men to Athelstan, 75 ; on tithe law passed at Great - anlea, 75 ; on Edmund's law, 79 ; contradicts himself on the Church Grith law loS-llO; letter to Ful- ler, 108-109 ; his pedantry and in- consistency, in and note 2. Fuller, Rev. M., "Our Title Deeds," its errors, 19, 68, 69, 73, 116, 119 ; dedicated his work to Lord Sel- borne, 119; Freeman's letter to him about the "Church Grith law," 108, 109 ; omits material evidence against Price's opinion, 107 ; passes over the threefold division of Church revenues stated by the rectors of Reading, 132 ; admits threefold division in Grith law, 117; fails to " shake its authority," 118, 119. George, bishop of Ostia, 42. Greatanlea, Council of, 74. Grith and Mund, 95. Gu thrum L, King, his treaty with Alfred, in which there was nothing about tithes, 67 ; received from King Alfred East Anglia and Northum- berland, 69. Guthrum II., his treaty with Edward the Elder in which the Danes were to pay tithes, 69. Habam, King Ethelred 's ordinances of, 95- Iladdan and Stubbs' " Concilia" iii. on Ethel wulfs charters, 61, 63, 65 ; their opinions on Theodore's '* Penitential," 20-23. Hale, William, archdeacon of Lon- don, first questioned the tripartite division of tithes, 85 ; foundation of his arguments, 107 ; gets Price's opinion on the Church Grith law, 107 ; seeks and receives another opinion, which is adverse to Price's, 107 ; Selborne, Fuller, Dibdin and others avoid quoting this adverse opinion, 107. Ilallam, Henry, 81. Hasted, the historian of Kent, 175. Iligbert, Archbishop of Lichfield, 41, 42. Holinshed, 48. Honoring, Archbishop of Canterbury, parishes traced to, 83. Index. 263 Hook, Dean of Chichester, 15. Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury, intr., xiii. Huntingdon the chronicler, 54. Ina, King, Church-scot in~ his Laws, A.D. 690, p. 78 ; tithes not men- tioned, 78. Inclosure Awards, 257. Incumbents of churches, now free- holders, but up to A.D. 1 1 80 held their positions according to will of patron, 148 ; before Richard I. and John, lay patrons, nominated, in- stituted, and inducted them 150. Infeudations defined, 159 ; third Lateran Council, A.D. 1180 had forbidden them, 159. Ingulph, 55, 65, 66. Irish missionaries, 12. Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, forged decretals, 10. Jaenbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, 40. Johnson's, John, "Laws and Cus- toms," 69 ; founded on tl Concilia," 105 ; the Church Grith law un- known to him, 105. Josephus, 10. Josseline, secretary to Archbishop Parker, 101. Justus, Bishop, 15, 16, 36, 37. Kemble, John, 5, 14, 33 ; on Offa's grant, 50 ; his six canons in testing charters, 59 ; his opinions on Ethel- wulfs charters, 63-65 ; supports Athenian's tithe-law, 71 ; synods and councils not different in mean- ing, 74, 79- Kennett, Bishop of Peterborough, on one - third of tithes to manor churches, 85, 86 ; " the parish priest was the bank," 24. Kentish men, letter of, to Athelstan^ 75- Lambarde, William, his collection of Anglo-Saxon laws, A.D. 1568, 104. Landlords' or manorial churches, 23, 24 ; earliest account of, 25, 26 ; Edgar's laws giving them one-third of the tithes, 26, 79 ; how this one- third passed into the whole accord- ing to Lord Selborne, 123, 149. Laurentius, Archbishop, 36. Legatine Councils in England, 42. Lindisfarne, bishopric of, 36. Lingard, Dr., on Bede's/'Tributum," 22 ; on Egbert's excerptions, 30 ; on Athelstan's law, 72 ; his re- marks on the letter of the Kentish men to King Athelstan, 75 ; on Church Grith law, 96, 116. London, tithes in the city and liberties of, 186-200; first Fire Act enacting tithes, 1 88 ; second Fire Act, 190 ; parishes receiving tithes by these Fire Acts enumerated, 190-192 ; forty-one parishes out of the eighty- six now united, their incomes and populations, 192 ; other parishes in the city and liberties not included in Fire Acts, their incomes and populations, 194-200 ; the tripar- tite division of church revenues in London churches, 193. Magdeburgh centuries, 43. Malmesbury chronicler, 54. Manorial churches, see Landlord's churches. 264 Index. Market-gardens Act of 1873, how it originated, 211 ; orchards, 211. Mas9on, provincial council of, IO, II. Mellitus, Bishop, 15, 16, 36. Mendicant friars, 170; their ruling idea, 170 ; their views about tithes, 171. Milman, Dean of St. Paul's, 34. Mirror, The, 127. Monasteries in England, their number up to A.D. 1215, pp. 143, 146, 147, 169 ; annual value of their pro- perties, 159; brief account of, 163- 185 ; monasteries commenced to decline, 170; precedents to guide Henry VIII. in dissolving monas- teries, 177, 178; total number dis- solved, and their annual value, 185 ; the three abbots who were executed, 184. Monks, 1 8, 88 ; the four privileged orders exempted from paying tithes, 161 ; these lands still exempt, 162. Norman Conquest gave a great im- pulse to building monasteries, 168 ; number of bishops, 1 68. Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury, 87, 88 ; the source of his canon on tithes, 88. Offa, king of Mercia, full particulars of, 40-42 ; his alleged law of tithes, A.D. 794, p. 47- Old Latin translators, in, 112 ; they omit fifteen Anglo - Saxon laws which Thorpe has published, 112. Oswy, king of Northumberland, 37- 39- Otho's "Constitutions," A.D. 1237, p. 124. Papal Legates in England, 35. Parish Churches, their origin, 81, 93 ; Selden's opinion, 84 ; opinions of other writers, 93. "Parochia," different meanings, 83. Parsonage houses, number of, 258. Paulinus, first Archbishop of York, 36. Peel, Sir Robert, solved the tithe problem, 202. " Penitentials " of Archbishop Theo- dore, 20, 21, 51. Pepin, King, 34. Perpetual curate, how it differs from vicar, 158. Peter's pence, 42. Poor, the, Archbishop Theodore first refers to tithes paid to, 51; Bishop Eadbert gave tithes to, 51 ; tithes to poor in Edgar's law, 85 ; Arch- bishop Stratford, 4th canon in 1342 on paying a part of the tithes to, 157 ; first Poor Law Act, 125 ; Blackstone on the, 127 ; the people also supported the poor in Edgar's canons, 68, 127; "the poor have a share in the tithes," says Dcgge, 129 ; four Acts of Parliament giving the poor a right to a part of the tithes, 131 ; 43 Eliz., c. ii., for re- lief of poor, 131. Popes: Clement I., 5, 6; Gregory the Great, n, 13; his reply to Augustine's letter, 1 6, 35 ; Sylves- ter, 17, 129; Simplicius, 17; Gelasius, 17; Honorius III., 37; Boniface V., 37; Vitalius, 39; Adrian I., 40, 41 ; Alexanders III.'s letter to English hierarchy com- manding the people to pay tithes, 133 ; Innocent III., A.D. 1200, ordered payment of tithes, 149. ' Population in Anglo-Saxon times, 91. ! Price, Richard, his opinion of the Index. 265 *' Church Grith Law," 106 ; the value of this opinion, 107. Prideaux, Dean of Norwich, 47 ; his mistaken interpretation of Offa's grant, A.D. 794, p. 50 ; his mistaken interpretation of Ethelwulf s char- ters, 53, 54 ; supports Athelstan's alleged tithe law, 72 ; abuses Selden and his " Plistory of Tithes," 53. Pulman, John, 19. Quadripartite division of church revenues, 16-18. Queens : Anne, 2 ; Bertha, 13. Records, city of London, 193, note. Redemption of tithes, 209 ; two values on it, when forming Bill for, 207 ; illustrations of the modus operandi, 207, 208. Repairs of Churches, Edmund's law makes bishops do it, 77 ; Canute's makes the parishioners, 156 ; canon law makes owner of rec- torial tithes repair chancel and nave, 124, note i. Roger, Bishop of London, his modus dedmandi for the city of London, 1 86 ; tripartite division of these revenues, 186. Roman Mission to England, 13, 14, 35- Russell, Lord John, borrowed Peel's machinery for tithe problem, 202, 203; originated extraordinary tithe rent charge, 21 1, 212; his " perma- nent settlement " of the tithe ques- tion, a delusion, 215. Saxon Chronicle, 54. Schmid, Dr. Reinhold, published Church Grith Law in his " Anglo- Saxon Laws," 108 ; Thorpe's opinion thereon, 108 ; referred to by Male's unnamed correspondent, 107. Selborne, the Earl of, 5, 10, 49 ; his views on the Church Grith law, 96 ; quotes Stubbs' private letter against tripartite division of tithes, 97 ; wrongly quotes marginal writ- ing on MS. of Grith law, 101 ; erroneous strictures on art 43 of law, 102 ; his witnesses to upset this law, 102-116; their evidence against him, 102-116; omits material evidence which militates against his views on this law, 105, 107 ; his fallacious inferences from negative evidence, 102-106 ; quotes Freeman's letter to Fuller on Church Grith law, 108 ; incorrect and misleading description of con- tents of the " Worcester Volume," Nero, A.I, 117, 118; his remarks on 15 Rich. II. c. vi. open to grave objections, 154; his opinion as to the origin of tithe endowments to parishes, 149. Selden, John, 3, 5, 10, II ; on lega- tine councils of A.D. 787, pp. 43,45; on Offa's laws of A.D. 794^.48; his interpretation of Ethelwulf's char- ter, 65, 66 ; but expresses a doubt, 66 ; his remarks on the treaty be- tween Edward the Elder and Guth rum II., 69 ; supports Athelstan's tithe law, 71 ; supports Edmund's law, 79, 83 ; his remarks on Edgar's laws, 84 ; quotes Egbert's excerptions from the Worcester Volume, 103 ; his use of the ex- pression, " arbitrary consecration " T 266 Index. of tithes, meaning that a layman could give his tithes without the sanction of the bishop, to whatever spiritual person he willed, 149. Smith, Dr. Thomas, his catalogue of the Cottonian library in A.D. 1695, 100; Church Grithlaw omitted, 100. Soames, History of Anglo-Saxon Church, 40. Spelman, Sir Henry, 5, 67 ; his "Concilia" in A.D. 1639, p. 103. Statutes 17 Edw. III. c. 28, 136, Com- mons petition against timber tithe, 18 Edw. III. c. 9, 136, Com- mons petition against timber tithe. 21 Edw. III. c. 48, 136, Com- mons petition against timber tithe. 25 Edw. III. c. 37, 136, Com- mons petition against timber tithe. 45 Edw. III. c. 3, 136, petition granted. 12 Rich. II. c. 7, 127, Support of poor by towns. - 15 Rich. II. c. 6, 153, 157, pro- vision for poor and vicar. -r 16 Rich. II. c. 5, 161, Act of Premunire. - 2 Hen. IV. c. 4, 161, against purchasing bulls for exemp- tion. - 4 Hen. IV. c. 12, 154, per- petual vicar created and en- dowed. 19 Hen. VII. c. 12, 127, support of poor by towns. 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, 179, re- straint of appeals to Rome. Statutes (continued'] 27 Hen. VIII. c. 20, 179, for payment of tithes. 27 Hen. VIII. c. 21, 188, tithes of City and Liberties of Lon- don. 27 Hen. VIII. c. 26, 127, sup- port of poor by towns, etc. 27 Hen. VIII. c. 28, 180, mona- steries under ,200 a year dis- solved. 28 Hen. VIII. c. 16, 179, pope's power over tithes abolished. 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13, 184, mona- steries over ^200 a year dis- solved. 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13, 126, owners of abbey lands to use hospi- tality. 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13, 184, lands of privileged orders now exempt from paying tithes. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 7, 185, lands of privileged orders now exempt from paying tithes. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 8, 160, all abbey properties given to king. 37 Hen. VIII. c. 12, 188, tithes of 2s. gd. in the in London. 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 13, 76, pay- ment of personal tithes. 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 13, adds to 27 Hen. VIII. c. 20, and 32 Hen. VIII. c. 7. I Eliz. c. 19, 183, tithes in ex- change for episcopal lands. 13 Eliz. c. 20, 131, profits of benefices to the poor. 18 Eliz. c. u, s. 7, 131, confirms the above Act. 43 Eliz. c. 2, 131, for relief of the poor. Index. 267 Statutes (continued] 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 15, 188, Fipe Act for tithes in London. 44 Geo. III. c. 89, 190, increases tithes in London. 6 and 7 Wm. IV. c. 71, 201, Commutation Act of 1836. 6 and 7 Wm. IV. c. 77, 141, created Ecclesiastical Com- mission. 2 and 3 Viet. c. 62, s. 27, 213, on tithes of orchards. 36 and 37 Viet. c. 42, 213, on tithes of market gardens. 49 and 50 Viet. c. 54, 213, re- demption of extraordinary tithes. 54 Viet. c. 8, 225, for recovery of tithes. Stephens, Serjeant, tithes as odious, 23- Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, his Canon set apart a portion of the tithes for the poor, 97. Streaneschalch (Whitby), 37, 38. Stubbs, William, Bishop of Oxford, 45 ; supports Athelstan's tithe law, 71, 79, 83 ; supports Grith law of A.D. 1014 in his "Constitutional History," 96, 97 ; contradicts his historical statements in private letters as regards this law, 97; Selborne quotes one of his letters, 97 ; the bishop quotes Stratford's canon recognising the claim of poor to a share of the tithes, 97 ; admits that the poor have a claim on the tithes and other church endow- ments, 157. Terra Regis defined, 58. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, 39, 40 ; first to have mentioned tithes, 20, 51. Theophylact, Bishop of Todi, 42. Thorpe, Benjamin, 14, 67, 72 ; his opinion on Wilkins's "Concilia," 106 ; frequent references. Tillesley, Archdeacon, 6. Tithes, Old Testament quotations of their payment, I ; their appropria- tion to monasteries, 8 ; how first given to the Christian Church, 8 ; the clergy had not the sole use of them, 21 ; Legatine Council in Eng- land, A D. 787, for their payment, 43 ; first civil law in England for their payment, 44 ; Lord Sel- borne's opinion on the I7th In- r junction of the Legatine Council 45 ; Athelstan's law on, 70 ; defi- nition of, 76 ; duties of parish priests for their tithes in pre- Re- formation times, 142 ; these duties no longer performed, 144 ; parishes held their tithes by common right, but monasteries by grants or pre- scriptions, 151 ; traced from their origin, 151 ; appropriated to monasteries of two kinds, 151 ; tithes of Church in Wales, 214- 222; commuted in 1836, 201 ; in London, 186-200. The total value in 1836 of commuted tithes according to counties see Appendix F ; see Appendix G for the number of parishes in England and Wales paying tithes, and the number of rectors and vicars receiving them. For their divisions, see the heading " Tripartite." Tripartite division of tithes, by the laws of Edgar, 79; of Ethelred II's, 95; of Canute's, 121; this 268 Index. division in London, 193, is stated by the rectors of Reading, 132. Tripartite division of Church revenues, 7, 17, 82, 86, 95, 189. Trustees of Sir R. Cotton's Library, IOO. Vergil, Polydore, Archdeacon, 48. Vicar, orgin of, 152; the "perpetual vicar" of 4 Hen. IV. c. 12, 154, 155 ; this law as regards the vicar is important in two ways, 128 ; not originally a freeholder, 158; num- ber of vicars employed in the old parishes receiving tithes, see Ap- pendix G ; a list of the small or vicarial tithes, 155 ; generally en- dowed by the bishops with one- third of the tithes following Edgar's appropriation, 158, note I ; vicars owe to Acts of Parliament their endowments and permanent free- hold position, 158, note I ; Lord Selborne's remarks on 15 Rich. II. c. 6 open to grave objections, 154. Wales, tithes of the four dioceses of, 216-224 ; Bangor, 217, 218 ;. Llan- daff, 218, 219; St. Asaph, 219, 220 ; St. David's, 220-222 ; tithe- rent charge in possession of Ecclesi- astical Commission in Wales in the year 1889, 222, 223 ; amount of prebendal tithes still outstand- ing on leases, 223 ; amount paid to the Welsh dioceses out of the Com- mon Fund in 1889, 223 ; the net annual receipts from Wales in 1 888, 224 ; the gross income for 1890, 224 ; Church and Nonconformist populations respectively, 224. Wanley, Humphrey, his catalogue of the Cottonian Library, 100. Wasserschleben, Professor, on the " Penitential " of Theodore, 120. Wendover, Roger, 48, 54. Werburgh, St., monastery at Chester, charters and grants to it by the Earls of Chester, 176. Wharton, Henry, division of tithes, 1 8 ; attacked Degge's " Parson's Counsellor," 128 ; attacks Bishop Burnet's " History of the Reforma- tion," 129 ; his character by the bishop and by Dr. Cave, 129, 130; the bishop's exposure of the errors of " Anglia Sacra," 129, note 3 ; he had two parishes at the age of 24, and wrote his '* Defence of Plura- lites," 129; Degge attacked plura- lists, 128. Wheelock, 105. Wickliffe, John, his views about tithes, etc., 171, 174. Wighard sent to Rome in A.D. 664 to be consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury and died there, 39. Wighood, a French abbot, 42. Wilfrid, 35, 38. Wilkins, David, the first to publish the '* Church Grith Law " in his " Anglo-Saxon Laws," 105 ; he omitted it in his " Concilia"; the character of his writings given by Thorpe and Archdeacon Hale's correspondent, 107, 108. Wittenagemot,what constitutes a, 73. Wolsey, Cardinal, 141. Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing , and London. WI7 RETURN TO the circulation desk of any I |niwor~i*.< ~* ^-M* p ' UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY