A FEW 
 
 HISTORICAL REMARKS 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 SUPPOSED ANTIQUITY 
 
 CHURCH RATES, 
 
 AND 
 
 £>o 
 
 THE THREE-FOLD DIVISION 
 
 TITHES. 
 
 BY 
 
 A LAY MEMBER of the CHURCH of ENGLAND. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JAMES RIDGWAY & SONS, PICCADILLY. 
 
 MDCCCXXXVII. 
 

 
 .. .) 
 
 y r:ny ; y r ... 
 
 '• ' : ; ' • 
 
 ; ; 
 
 ••'• v . v, -jj? • * yKtiyT' ****.•<# 
 
 " .J..? 
 
 ■ —. ' 
 
A FEW 
 
 4 
 
 $ 
 
 & 
 
 O 
 
 It 
 
 c 7 HISTORICAL REMARKS, 
 
 Fellow Countrymen ! The question of Church Rates, 
 at present under the consideration of Parliament, is one of 
 the utmost importance to us all, whether we be actually 
 rate-payers or not; since it is obviously for the advantage 
 of all parties concerned, that it should be speedily settled, 
 one way or the other ; and it must equally be a matter of 
 anxious hope, with the honourable men of all parties, 
 that in the settling it, no injustice shall be done to any 
 one; that the Church shall not be deprived of what may 
 .*? justly be its due, nor the Dissenter compelled to submit to 
 more than may justly be required of him. It is very un¬ 
 fortunate that the pursuit of private interest, and the 
 | support of political party, should have been allowed so 
 £ often to distort the views of those who really were anxious 
 ~io discover what justice was in this case, and by what 
 aZ measures it might be secured, both to the Churchman and 
 p the Dissenter. 
 
 For my own part, I confess I have full confidence in 
 the good intentions of Ministers, and much hope from the 
 > wisdom of Parliament; but I also know very well, that 
 J: unless we individually, each in his own sphere, and as far 
 3 as lies in his power, contribute to the investigation and 
 ft illustration of the subject, a very large number of men, 
 both in the Houses of Parliament and out of them, will 
 think that they are doing their duty, in preventing the 
 ministerial bill from passing into a law. 
 
 ?20522 
 
4 
 
 It is this conviction that induces me to address you; 
 for I have seen a little tract, which has been very exten¬ 
 sively circulated, on the extreme antiquity of Church Rates, 
 and in which it is asserted, that upwards of a thousand 
 years ago, compulsory assessments were made by law, for 
 the maintenance and repair of the churches; and though I 
 do not think that it would be wise to insist upon retaining - 
 in our statute book laws (which might be good laws a 
 thousand years ago), merely because they were laws a 
 thousand years ago, still I can understand the reluctance of 
 those persons who would not willingly overturn what had 
 been sanctioned from such early periods. 
 
 It is precisely because this tract, which is very boldly, 
 as well as dishonestly written, cannot be brought to the 
 test by every man into whose hands it may fall, and that 
 it rests upon assertions, the truth or falsehood of which can 
 only be ascertained by persons who have devoted them¬ 
 selves to particular studies, that I feel anxious to examine 
 it, and to inquire how far the assertions made in it, are 
 consonant with truth. 
 
 You are well aware that the opponents of Church Rates 
 state two facts, first, that in early times, the maintenance 
 and repairs of the Church were provided for out of the 
 tithe; and second , that in these times there was no legal 
 assessment whatever, in the nature of our Church Rates. 
 Now these two points, the writer of the tract in question 
 boldly denies, and asserts that there never was any regu¬ 
 lation whatever, as to the distribution of the tithe ; and 
 secondly, that there was a compulsory assessment or Church 
 Rate. These assertions of his are incorrect, and I will now 
 show you that they are so. 
 
 The first person who brought Christianity to this country, 
 as a missionary from Pope Gregory of Rome, was St. Au¬ 
 gustine : he found the people of England worshipping 
 Woden and Thunor, and other gods, and he succeeded in 
 converting a great number of the men of Kent from hea¬ 
 thenism. He came weak, poor, and friendless, but he 
 speedily became strong, rich, and influential, and from Kent, 
 the true religion gradually made its way into the other 
 kingdoms of which England then consisted. The men of 
 Kent made various offerings to the Church, and to Au¬ 
 gustine, the Bishop, even as they had before been accus¬ 
 tomed to make offerings to the priests of Woden and the 
 
5 
 
 other gods. Now Augustine had not been very long here, 
 before he found that he could not proceed in a half-converted 
 land, as he could in Italy or France, which had much 
 longer received the light of the gospel; and being unwilling 
 to take upon himself the whole responsibility of making 
 changes which might have been contrary to the strict laws 
 or canons of the church to which he belonged, he took care 
 to consult Pope Gregory, as to what measures he should 
 adopt, and what steps he should take. We have still, the 
 letters which Pope Gregory sent to Augustine, and not 
 only from their great wisdom and piety, but from the rules 
 of conduct which they laid down, these letters were held in 
 great estimation by the primitive English Christians; one 
 of these letters is particularly valuable, because it contains 
 a large number of inquiries made by Augustine, together 
 with the answers returned by Pope Gregory. Now one of 
 these questions, amongst this great number all directed to 
 the one end of ascertaining what Augustine and his cler¬ 
 gymen were to do in the newly converted land, inquires 
 “ What distribution is to be made of such gains as accrue 
 “ to the altar (i e. the church), from the offerings of the 
 “ faithful ?” And to this Gregory answered, “ that it 
 “ was the custom of the Apostolical see, whenever a bishop 
 u was ordained, to give him a command to this effect:— 
 “ that of every stipend which accrued to the church, four 
 “ portions should be made ; one for the bishop and his 
 “ family, that he might keep himself, and receive guests 
 u and strangers; a second, for the maintenance of the 
 “ clergy; a third, for the relief of the poor ; and a fourth, 
 u for the repairs of the churches; but,” Pope Gregory added, 
 u as you are a monk, you must not be separated from your 
 “ clergy; but in a newly established church, like that of 
 u England, you must adopt such a habit as prevailed 
 “ amongst our forefathers, in the primitive church of Christ, 
 “ who had nothing for themselves alone, but all things in 
 <c common.” (1) 
 
 I have given the translation of this passage, instead of 
 the original, because you may not all be able to read Latin; 
 but such as can, will find the original of this, or any other 
 passage I may have to quote, in a leaf by itself, at the end. 
 
 Now I call it very dishonest of a writer who pretends 
 to refer to this very passage, to follow it up by saying that 
 there was no rule established, and that the bishop was 
 a 3 
 
6 
 
 left to do as he liked with the offerings of the people: for 
 the very words plainly show, that had Augustine not been 
 a monk (and therefore incapable of having private property 
 of his own), Gregory would have said, “ You must do as 
 “ all other bishops do, make four parts;—one for the 
 w clergy, one for the poor, one to keep the church in 
 “ repair, and one for yourself and family, that you may 
 “ keep house and give succour to the wanderer and the way- 
 “ farer.” Instead of this, Gregory says, “ you must have 
 w no property of your own ; w but he does not say, “ you 
 u are not to set apart the portions which are to support 
 “ the poor, and repair the church.” On the contrary, it is 
 most probable that from this very letter of Gregory's first 
 arose the custom of dividing tithes into three , and not four 
 portions, which was afterwards prevalent in the Anglo- 
 Saxon church. The author of the tract goes on to argue, 
 that all this might have been very well while the bishop 
 and his clergy all lived together, and went about as 
 missionaries from place to place, converting the heathen, 
 and while he had tithes and heaps of offerings besides; but 
 that the case became very different, when parish churches 
 began to be established, and when the bishop's tithes and 
 offerings would not have sufficed for the purposes proposed 
 by the division about which we are arguing: and here I 
 must observe to you, that he is either very ignorant, or very 
 dishonest, for at this time, and for very long afterwards, 
 there was no tithe at all in England, or perhaps any where 
 else, and the clergy were supported by the voluntary 
 offerings of the laity, or by such rents and payments as 
 were once made to the landlords, and had by them been 
 granted to the church ; moreover, bishops got grants of 
 land, and salt pits, and fisheries, and gifts of wood, and 
 pigs, and hens, and sheep, or fleeces, and tubs of honey, 
 wane, and Welsh ale; and with these voluntary grants 
 they contrived to live very w T ell, and undoubtedly did 
 great good among the ignorant and half-heathen inhabitants 
 of the land. Then the writer proceeds to show how parish 
 churches came to be built, and says very justly, that wdien 
 a great landowner washed to have a resident clergyman on 
 his estate, he built a church, and then the bishop ordained 
 a priest to the cure; but he does not say justly, that then 
 the landlord endow ed his new church with that portion of 
 the tithe which he w 7 ould have paid to the bishop, because 
 
7 
 
 at the time of which we are speaking, there was no tithe at 
 all; and because moreover there is no proof, even supposing 
 him to have paid a portion of tithe, that it was exactly that 
 portion which he would have paid to the bishop. On the 
 contrary, it was far more likely to be that portion which he 
 would have paid for the repairs of the cathedral, and which 
 he was excused from paying, because he had now a church 
 of his own. I shall come back to this, however, hereafter, 
 when I show you that it is upon a law of a much later 
 period that the writer founded this assertion. Some parish 
 churches arose thus, and no doubt the landowners who built 
 them, took care to keep them up, and to feed the clergyman 
 they had placed in them; it is also most probable, that, in con¬ 
 sequence of so doing, they were rather less liberal in their 
 voluntary donations to the bishop's church. But there were 
 also some parish churches established by the bishops them¬ 
 selves,—Bishop Cedd, of Essex, for instance,—and these 
 were, beyond a doubt, supported by their share of the 
 common fund. 
 
 We have been speaking of a period earlier than the last 
 half of the seventh century, and I request that this may be 
 borne in mind, because the date is a matter of some import¬ 
 ance. In the last half of the seventh century, under 
 Archbishop Theodore, parish-churches had been pretty 
 generally established in the south of England, and in the 
 beginning of the eighth century they were introduced into 
 the north also, under Archbishop Egbert. Now the writer 
 of the tract very daringly declares, “ that he defies us to 
 “ show that tithe was divided and appropriated as we say 
 “ it was after the establishment of these parish churches." 
 What will you think of the value of his assertions, when 
 you read the few lines I am about to quote ? That very 
 same Archbishop Egbert whom I have just mentioned, 
 says, in a ^collection of rules which he made for the conduct 
 of his clergy, “ that the priests themselves shall receive 
 “ tithes from the people, and that they shall keep a written 
 “ account of the names of all those who may give it, and 
 “ that they shall divide it according to the authority of the 
 “ canons, in the presence of godly men; and they shall 
 u take out the first part for the beautifying of the Church, 
 “ and the second part they shall in pity and all humility 
 u distribute through their hands, (that is the hands of the 
 “ godly men,) for the use of the poor and of strangers; but 
 
8 
 
 “ the third part the priests shall keep for themselves/' (2) I 
 confess this still seems to me very like a reception of tithes 
 voluntarily given, and that not to a bishop but to a parish 
 church. Lest, however, the writer should say we do not 
 give him fair play when we fix upon such a period as 
 Egbert's, we will take an example from a much later 
 period, when tithe was levied by law, and England had 
 long had parishes and parish churches. In a similar col¬ 
 lection of canons, made by Archbishop iElfric in the year 
 970, I find it stated thus: “ The holy fathers have also 
 u appointed that men shall give their tithes to the Church 
 u of God, and the priest shall come and distribute them 
 “ into three parts, one for the repair of the Church, 
 u and the second for the poor, but the third for the 
 u ministers of God who have the cure of that Church." (3) 
 This still looks very like a parish church, and you will be 
 apt to say with me, “ if it was the bishop's affair, how 
 “ came he to forget his share ?" 
 
 Now' I know it wall be said that all these episcopal 
 regulations were not laws , and in one sense this is true, 
 they were not solemn acts passed in a Witena Gemot or 
 meeting of the councillors , which would have bound clergy 
 and laymen alike; but they were nevertheless ecclesiastical 
 laws , that is, regulations made by archbishops for the 
 conduct of the clergy under their respective jurisdictions ; 
 and this was in fact all that was necessary, for the laity 
 had nothing to do with mere ecclesiastical arrangements. 
 And perhaps the clergy did come at last to neglect the 
 proper distribution of their tithe, for in the year 1014, 
 when the horrors of foreign invasion had humbled the 
 hearts of men, it w r as solemnly enacted in the Witena 
 Gemot, or great council of the nation, that tithe should 
 be appropriated and divided as aforesaid. Here are 
 the w'ords of the law, as it was agreed to by the king and 
 his parliament: “ and respecting tithe the king and his 
 a witan have chosen and enacted, even as right it is, that the 
 “ third part of the tithe which belongeth to a church shall go 
 “ to repair the church, and the second part to God's servants, 
 u the third to God's poor, and to poor men in slavery." (4) 
 Thus you see the same arrangement which is made by 
 Gregory before tithe existed, is repeated by Egbert, a cen¬ 
 tury later, by /Elfric, nearly two hundred and fifty years 
 after Egbert, and by King /Ethelrcd and his councillors, 
 
 * 
 
9 
 
 both lay and clerical, nearly fifty years after iElfric. So 
 that we have a tolerable chain of tradition as to the custom 
 with respect to tithe in England, till iEthelred thought fit 
 to make the three-fold division part of the law of the land; 
 and I think we have given an answer to the defiance so 
 boldly put forward. 
 
 I shall now come to the second part of my subject, and 
 answer the writers assertion that there was a compulsory 
 assessment in the nature of a church rate. And this can be 
 done still more easily than the first. He says we find an 
 impost called cyric-sceat, or, as he translates it, church- 
 shot, quite distinct from tithe, and levied under penalties, 
 and this was church rate. Now we have a right to ask, 
 w How do you know this was church rate, or that it was 
 “ applied to the repairing of churches V but to this question 
 the writer gives no answer: he assumes, at once, that 
 church shot was church rate, for which there is not a 
 shadow of proof, and then shows that it was an impost 
 compulsorily levied. He states it so boldly, and blinks 
 the real question so cunningly, that it would not be sur¬ 
 prising if he were to mislead honest and straight-forward 
 men, who would not be willing to suspect a person when 
 writing in behalf of the church on so grave a subject, of 
 being guilty of asserting things which he knew he could 
 not prove. But I am sorry to say that this has been the 
 case, and I will show you that it has, by proving to you 
 not only what church shot was not , but what it really was . 
 
 My argument against church shot cannot exactly be gone 
 into till I have mentioned all the cases in which it is 
 noticed by the Anglo-Saxon kings; however, they are not 
 very numerous, and will not detain us long. Church shot 
 then is first mentioned in the laws of Ine, who was king of 
 a small portion of England, then called Wessex, and who 
 reigned there from the year 688 to 725, when he became a 
 monk. Ine mentions church shot twice, § 4, a Church 
 “ shots are to be paid in at Martinmas. If any one neglect 
 w this, let him forfeit sixty shillings, and pay his church 
 “ shot twelve-fold;” (5) and again, § 61, “ church shot shall be 
 “ paid for the halm and the hearth (that is the arable land 
 “ and the house) that the man occupied at Christmas.” (6) 
 The next is King Athelstan, who reigned from 925 to 940, and 
 in a general order made by himself, with the advice of his 
 bishops, and one archbishop, he directs his officers of various 
 
10 
 
 ranks to take care that tithes and other church imposts, 
 including church shot, shall be paid at the proper season, 
 not less from his own lands than those of his subjects; (7) but 
 this was not a law passed by the king and his witan , and there 
 are very different versions of it, some of which merely 
 mention tithes, and take notice of nothing else. The next 
 is King Edmund, who reigned from 940 to 946, and he 
 and his councillors, in a great meeting at London, decreed 
 thus, § 2, 44 Tithe we command each Christian man to pay, 
 64 upon his Christendom, and church shot and alms money. 
 “ If there be any one who will not do this, let him be 
 “ excommunicated.” (8) The next mention is in the law of 
 King Edgar, who reigned from 959 to 975, and a very 
 important mention it is, though the writer of the tract in 
 question has taken good care not to quote it. It is the 
 second section of the law passed in the council of Andover, 
 § 2, “ concerning church shot. If there be any gentleman 
 44 who has a church with a churchyard on his own inherited 
 44 land, let him give the third part of his tithe to his own 
 44 church ; but if any one have a church which has not a 
 44 burying-ground, let him make such an allowance to his 
 44 priest as he chooses, from the nine parts. And let all 
 44 church shot be paid to the old minster.” (9) 
 
 Now this is the law which the writer had in his mind when 
 he spoke of the origin of parish churches, and in this law I 
 find no trace of 44 that portion of tithe which he would have 
 44 paid to the Bishop :” the words are 44 a third part of his 
 44 tithe;” and as I said, it is more natural to suppose that 
 having built a church of his own, he was allowed to keep 
 for the repairs, &c., of that church, what he was otherwise 
 bound to pay for the use of the bishop's church. And that 
 these are parish churches is quite certain, for the having a 
 church-yard was what made a parish church in England, 
 as having a font and celebrating baptism, was what made 
 a parish church in Italy and Germany. And on this ac¬ 
 count, if the lord of the manor had not a parish church, but 
 only a small chapel or oratory, he was not excused his 
 tithe, but was obliged to support his priest, who might be 
 considered as his private chaplain, out of the nine parts that 
 remained when he had paid his tithe. But now I will tell 
 you why this law was not cited by the writer. It was on 
 account of the last clause in it, by which church shot was 
 directed to be paid always to the old minster or cathedral. 
 
11 
 
 For if we take the authority of the Saxon law, and if we 
 agree with the writer that church shot is our Church Rate, 
 it would follow that nearly every parish church in England 
 would, by that law, be deprived of the Church Rate, and 
 that it must be paid to the Dean and Chapter of the Diocese. 
 But this very bad result is not to be feared, for as I will 
 soon show you, church shot is not Church Rate. Still I 
 am afraid this clause was what prevented us from hearing 
 of King Edgars law, for he was the greatest levier, and 
 distrainer for tithe, that had ever yet been known in 
 England. The next is in another law of the same king, 
 passed in the Council of Wihtbordestan, where the king 
 advises all men not to incur the anger of God by neglecting 
 to pay their tithe and church shot. (10) Next we have King 
 TEthelred, from 978 to 1016, and in the council of Enham, 
 § 16, he and his councillors declared that church shot should 
 be paid at Martinmas. (11) This same king held another 
 council in the year 1008, in which the same laws were re¬ 
 enacted, and very nearly in the same words, and in § 13, 
 the church imposts mentioned at the council of Enham, 
 were again enumerated; but church shot is omitted, which 
 is very strange, supposing it to be a Church Rate, without 
 which, churches could not be kept in repair. The same 
 king, TEthelred, held a third council in the year 1014, in 
 which several church matters were ordained, and among 
 others, in § 6, it is said “And church shot is to be paid at 
 “ Martinmas ; and if any one does not perform this, let him 
 “ pay it twelve fold, and forfeit one hundred and twenty 
 “ shillings to the king.” (12) You will be surprised that the 
 writer of the tract did not mention this; I am not, because 
 in the same council, § 3, stands the passage about the ap¬ 
 plication and division of tithes, which I have already quoted 
 to you; and you see very clearly that when jEthelred 
 directed a third of the tithe to be set apart for repairing the 
 church, the church shot which he also directed to be 
 levied under a penalty, must have been for some other pur¬ 
 pose. And once more in another council, held the next 
 year, the same king and his councillors declared, that tithe 
 and church shot should be paid, as it had been of old. (13) 
 King Canute is the last king with whom we have any thing 
 to do, and he and his councillors at Winchester copied a good 
 deal of iEthelred's law, and among the rest, the law about 
 the payment of church shot, § 10; and at the same time 
 
12 
 
 in § 11, he copied Edgars law, that this church shot 
 should be paid to the old minster. And the § 63, says, 
 “ It is right that all people shall assist in repairing the 
 “ church/' (14) but how they are to assist he does not say. 
 
 Now these are all the cases in which mention is made of 
 this church shot, and as I have given the exact translation 
 of the words used, you will see that there is not one word 
 said about what this church shot was, and how very bold 
 and dishonest it is to argue as if there were no doubt of its 
 being our Church Rate, or something of the same sort. I 
 think that you will see at once how improbable it is that it 
 should have been Church Rate for repairing churches, for 
 if it were, why should it so often be omitted, being so ne¬ 
 cessary an impost that one could think it would always be 
 the first mentioned ? And, why in that law of iEthelred's, 
 which directs tithe to be applied to the repairs of the church, 
 should church shot also be commanded to be paid, if 
 church shot were intended for any such purpose ? How¬ 
 ever, I must go a little further, and show you that not only 
 the portion of tithe, but a portion of other ecclesiastical 
 revenues was applied to the same purpose, in the spirit of 
 Pope Gregory's directions, according to which, a share of 
 every thing which was given to the church , was to be so laid 
 out. I suppose you all know, that among the Anglo-Saxons 
 most crimes were punished by fines, and that besides these 
 fines, which were given to the person injured or his relations, 
 an additional fine was paid to the king, or the bishop, or 
 the earl, or church or abbey, within whose jurisdiction 
 the crime was committed; and this fine was paid, because 
 the offender had broken the peace of the person within whose 
 jurisdiction he was. We have now only the “peace of 
 “ our Sovereign Lord the Kingbut, in those days, there 
 were many persons and corporations, and communities, 
 whose peace might be broken; and the amount of the fine 
 varied with the dignity of the person whose peace was 
 broken. I will give you an example from the laws of 
 Canute I. section 3. According to this, the fine for break¬ 
 ing the peace of a cathedral was five pounds (then a large 
 sum), except in Kent, where it was five pounds to the king, 
 and three besides to the bishop; and, if it were a minster 
 of the smaller sort, the fine was one hundred and twenty 
 shillings; and for a still smaller minster or church, which had a 
 burial-ground, but where there was little service, it was sixty 
 
13 
 
 shillings; and if it was a field church, without a burial- 
 ground, it was thirty shillings. Nov/ the sums thus collected 
 were also directed to be applied to the repairs and other ne¬ 
 cessary services of the Church. In the council of Enharn, 
 section 36, iEthelred decreed, “ that if the ministers of God 
 “ should obtain any payments of money, accruing to them 
 “ according to the ordinance made by wise lay-councillors, 
 “ (in our modem phrase c by Act of Parliament/) eoncern- 
 u ing fines, that such ought to be applied under the care of 
 “ the bishop, to the establishment of oratories and hospitals 
 “ for the poor, and to repairs of the church , and to the pur- 
 “ poses of education, and to purchase food and clothing for 
 “ the servants of God, and books and bells, and church 
 “ vestments, and never to worldly pomp and vain glory." (15) 
 But besides this, the bishops, who from the great gifts of 
 lands and other things, were become so rich, as not always 
 to pay proper attention to the collection of tithe, (16) were 
 themselves not exempted from the necessity of repairing the 
 churches out of their own property. For in the council 
 of London which I have mentioned, King Edmund and his 
 councillors say, section 5, “ Concerning the repairing of 
 “ churches. And we have also decreed that each bishop 
 “ shall repair God's house, out of his own (property), and 
 “ shall also admonish the king, that all God's churches 
 “ shall be well provided, as right necessary it is for us 
 “ all." (17) So that not only was each bishop bound to keep 
 his own church in good repair, but, if necessary, he was to 
 tell the king to make the other bishops do so too. 
 
 Now with the portion of tithe set apart for the purpose^ 
 and the portion of the fines set apart for the purpose, and 
 the portion that the bishop might be made to contribute for 
 the purpose, I have no doubt that the churches were kept 
 in very good repair, without a Church Rate of any kind. 
 And this is a third reason for my not believing that church 
 shot was such a rate. 
 
 But I have a better reason than that; I can show you 
 exactly what it was ; in short, that it was something of a 
 very different kind. 
 
 You have seen that there is nothing in the laws them¬ 
 selves, to tell us what it was, and we must therefore look 
 for an explanation of it elsewhere. You have also seen 
 how very dishonest it is in the writer to say boldly, church 
 shot is Church Rate, without offering any argument to 
 
 B 
 
14 
 
 prove it, and as if it were a thing universally acknowledged; 
 but you may be quite sure, were it a thing so certain, or 
 even so probable, that we should have heard of this argu¬ 
 ment before, instead of having now to meet it for the first 
 time. There is no doubt that cyricsceat may mean Church 
 Money; but even supposing it to do so, it must still be shown 
 that church money means money for repairing a church, 
 which can only be done by showing that the church 
 money was raised for that purpose, and was so applied. 
 But though sceat does mean money, it means other things 
 besides, both in Anglo-Saxon, and in German, and in 
 Danish, and in other languages of the same original stock; 
 in short, it means a portion , whether of lands or anything 
 else, and is so general in its signification, that it will com¬ 
 prehend almost every thing that the lawyers call chattels ; 
 and the older the use of it is, the more it means things of 
 this sort, and the less restricted it is to the sense of money. 
 Now I am prepared to show you that the sceat or shot , was 
 one of the oldest payments ever made from land, and one of 
 the most natural; that it was paid to landlords as well as to 
 the church (though then it was no longer called church 
 shot), and that it still continued to be paid at Martinmas, 
 in Germany, till a late period; it was in fact, a portion of 
 corn , and was, in all likelihood, one of the payments which 
 had been made to the priests of Woden, before the Saxons 
 were converted; and in some cases, to the landlords, by 
 whom it was presented to the church; and though, in later 
 times, religious people, out of their pious feeling, may have 
 added other things to it, as eggs, hens, and the like, you 
 will never find a description of what was paid as church 
 shot, without finding that the principal part if not all of it 
 was corn . And you will now see why it was paid at 
 Martinmas rather than any other time; it was that the 
 farmer might have time to cut, dry, carry, thrash, and 
 garner his wheat, or rye, and that the payment might 
 not be half full of chaff and dust. And just in the 
 same way all other church imposts were paid, as 
 Peterpence (for the Pope) on St. Peters day, and tithe of 
 young cattle at Pentecost, or at latest at Allhallows, and 
 church shot at Martinmas (Nov. 11), and plough-money 
 a fortnight after Easter, and wax for lights at Candlemas, 
 and soul-money for the dead at the open grave, and so 
 nn. So you see all these imposts were paid according to 
 their nature and to the proper season. 
 
15 
 
 It is quite clear that in looking for an explanation of 
 this word, the best way is to find out what the people who 
 lived while Anglo-Saxon was still spoken, and Cyric-sceat 
 still paid, thought of it themselves. And this we will 
 do; Florence of Worcester (one of the oldest English 
 historians, who died in 1187, while Anglo-Saxon was still 
 the common language of England, and who himself under¬ 
 stood Anglo-Saxon very well), gives us a copy of a letter 
 which King Canute wrote from Rome, in the year 1081, to 
 his bishops and noblemen. According to Florence, Canute 
 wrote, “ Now I command and intreat all my bishops, and 
 “ those who are set over the land, upon the faith which ye 
 “ owe to God and me, that ye take good care before I 
 “ come to England, that all dues which we owe to God, 
 u according to the ancient law (of the land) be paid, that 
 “ is to say, alms for the plough, and tithe of the animals 
 “ born during the year, and the pence which we owe St. 
 “ Peter at Rome, whether from the cities or the farms, and 
 “ in the middle of August, tithes of the fruits (of the earth), 
 “ and on the feast of St. Martin, the first fruits of seed , to 
 “ the church in whose parish each man is, which in English 
 “ (Anglo-Saxon), are called circesceat” church shot. (18) 
 This is by itself pretty strong evidence what church shot 
 was, and when we remember that the same thing (called 
 by the Germans fruchtzins , or payment of fruits) was 
 also paid at Martinmas, we shall, I think, have a con¬ 
 clusive answer enough to those who would make it out to 
 be church rate. But we can and will give more proof that 
 Florence and Canute knew very well what it was that 
 church shot meant. A very old French writer, who lived 
 while the meaning of these words was still well remembered, 
 says, “ chirseed, or chirceomer, or chirceamber, was a 
 “ certain rent in threshed com, which every man among 
 a the Britons and the English was obliged to carry to his 
 “ church on St. Martins day.” (19.) Now this is a very valu¬ 
 able passage, because it proves that it was not a mistake of 
 the Frenchman of church seed for church scet , as some people 
 have thought, since he gives it another name, which he 
 could not have got at by any mistake of letters: he calls it 
 church seed or church amber. Now an amber was exactly 
 such a two-handled vessel as we yet measure corn with, 
 and from this it appears that the church shot was also 
 sometimes called church bushel, or church peck, or what- 
 
16 
 
 ever the exact measure may have been; but it alsu 
 proves that whether the measure were great or small, 
 it was still a measure of some kind of corn. Meta, 
 who is a great law authority, and an extremely ancient 
 one, says just the same thing. His words are, “ Chir- 
 “ chesset, signifies a certain measure of threshed wheat, 
 “ which every one in the time of the Britons, as well as 
 “ the Anglo-Saxons, contributed to holy church on St. 
 “ Martin s Day.” lc.47, § 27. (20.) I suppose you all know 
 that when William the Conqueror came to England, he 
 caused an account to be taken of the whole land, who had 
 it, what landlords and what tenants there were, what 
 services each man was obliged to render, and what pay¬ 
 ment to make to others : and this inquisition was called 
 Doomsday-book. Now the passages I am going to quote 
 are taken from that book, (22.) u And concerning cyricsceat 
 u the county say that the bishop ought to have from every 
 “ landed estate which belongs to his church, on the feast 
 “ day of St. Martin, one measure of corn, of the best that 
 “ grows, for each hide of land, whether free or not free; 
 “ and if the day should be broken, he who kept it back, 
 “ was to pay the one amount, and eleven times besides.” 
 Again, u respecting the cyricsceat of Pershore, the county 
 “ say, that that church of Pershore ought to have—from 
 u each hide of land one measure of corn—at Martinmas 
 “ &c.” and then follows the same penalty as above men¬ 
 tioned, and which I beg you to observe is that fixed by 
 Ine and his successors. Again, “ concerning cyricsceat, 
 “ the county say that from every hide of land, free or not 
 “ free, which belongs to the church of Worcester, the 
 “ bishop ought to have at Martinmas one measure of 
 “ corn, of the best which grows there” and so on as before. 
 
 I have not much more to say on this subject, nor do I 
 think it necessary; however, one or two examples will do 
 no harm. In an inquisition made in the year 1201, it 
 was returned, “ that the manor of Glastonbury paid the 
 u abbot sixty hens, and as much wheat seed as would sow 
 u three acres , as churchscet.” (21.) Now all these are in¬ 
 stances of what those who lived while Anglo-Saxon was 
 spoken, understood by church shot: and I will only give 
 you one or two more instances, before the Norman 
 conquest. Bishop Oswald of Worcester making a grant of 
 lands, freed them from every charge except the church shot. 
 
17 
 
 viz. two bushels of clean grain; this was in 962. In 963 
 the same bishop granted lands, and reserved upon them 
 church shot twice in the year, once at mowing, and once at 
 reaping time, so that he took church shot in grass as well as 
 corn. And in 987 the same bishop making a grant of 
 lands stipulated that the holder should every year pay for 
 church shotas much seed as would sow one acre of land. (23.) 
 One more, and I have done; it shall be taken from a still 
 earlier Anglo-Saxon document. Bishop Werfrith who 
 lived in, and a little before, the reign of King Alfred, 
 gave certain lands to his kinswoman, Cyneswith, for the 
 life of herself and two others, with reversion to the chapter 
 of Worcester; and he granted them free from every sort of 
 charge or service, except one, and that was the yearly 
 payment of church shot, expressly and by name; and what 
 was the church shot thus expressly named ?—Neither more 
 nor less than three measures of wheats “ except that every 
 “ year there shall be given three measures of wheat as 
 “ church shot , to Clive !” (24.) 
 
 By this time, I hope we have a better notion of what 
 church shot was, than if we had contented ourselves with 
 the bold assertions of the writer so often alluded to ; and 
 one cannot but wish that he had bestowed upon the inves¬ 
 tigation of the subject, some of that time which he has spent 
 in railing against radicals, and democrats, and infidels, who 
 exist only in his own imagination. For my part I am no 
 democrat, though a reformer of abuses wherever they are 
 proved to exist. So far from being an infidel, I am a mem¬ 
 ber of the Church of England, and was educated at one of 
 her Universities. But I cannot suffer falsehoods to be put 
 forward in her defence, without feeling the wish to expose 
 them ; nor can I believe her to need falsehoods for her de¬ 
 fence. Why does she need defence at all ? As long as her 
 conduct is Christian, legal, and orderly, she has no enemies to 
 fear, either among dissenters or others, for her interests and 
 the interests of Christianity, are those of us all. But, as 
 soon as she lends herself to the pollutions of party and poli¬ 
 tics, and forgets to be the minister of peace and good will 
 on earth, then will I join my voice to petition the legislature 
 to remove from her the means of doing evil which she pos¬ 
 sesses, and to restore her to her state of apostolic purity— 
 and apostolic poverty too. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 1. Augustine’s question.—“ De bis quae fidelium oblationibus 
 “ accedunt altario, quantae debeant fieri portiones et qualiter epis- 
 ** copus agere in ecclesia debeat?” Gregory’s answer:—“ Mos 
 “ autem sedis apostolicae est, ordinatis episcopis praecepta tradere 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 repa- 
 “ randis. Sed quia tua fraternitas monasterii regulis erudita, seorsum 
 “ ^ er *i non debet a clericis suis in ecclesia anglorum, quae, auctore 
 
 deo, nuper adbuc ad fidem adducta est, banc debet conversationem 
 “ instituere, quae initio nascentis ecclesia fuit patribus nostris, in 
 “ quibus ‘ nullus eorum, ex his quae possidebat aliquid suum esse 
 “ i dicebat, sed erant eis omnia communia.’ ”—(Smith’s Beda, p. 62.) 
 Alfred when translating the passage, renders susceptionem by onfan- 
 genysse gesta and cumena. —(Smith’s Beda, p. 489.) 
 
 2. Ut ipsi sacerdotes a populis suscipiantdecimas, et nomina eorum 
 qui dederint (who may happen to give them, not dederunt who have 
 given them), scripta habeant, et secundum auctoritatem canonicam 
 coram Deum timentibus dividant, et ad ornamentum ecclesiae 
 primam eligant partem, secundam autem ad usum pauperum atque 
 peregrinorum, per eorum manibus misericorditer cum omni humilitate 
 dispensent; tertiam vero sibimet ipsis sacerdotes reservent.—(Ecgb. 
 Exc., § 4, in Wilkin’s Concil., Vol. I.) 
 
 3. Sancti patres etiam constituerunt, ut homines tradant decimas 
 suas ecclesiae del, et sacerdos veniat ac distribuat eas in tres partes; 
 unam ad reparationem ecclesiae, et secundam egenis, tertiam autem 
 dei ministris, qui ecclesiae illius curam gerunt.—(iElfric, Can. § 25., 
 Wilk. Cone. I., 253.) 
 
 4. And be teodhunge se cyng and his witan habbadh gecoren and 
 geeweden, ealswa hit riht is, thaet thriddan dael thaere teodhunge, the 
 to circan gebyrige, ga to ciricbote, and odher dael tham Godes 
 theowum, thridde Godes thearfum and earman theowetlingan. iEthelr. 
 VI., § 3.—(Schmid. Gesetze der Angel-Sachsen, I., 132.) 
 
 5. Be cyricsceattum. Cyricsceattas syn agifene be Seint Mar- 
 tines maessan. Gif hwa thaet ne gelaeste, sy he scyldig LX., still, 
 and be twelffealdum agyfe thone cyricsceat.—(Ine., § 4, Schmid, I., 
 15.) 
 
 6. Be cyricsceattum. Cyricsceat mon sceal agifan to thaem healme 
 and to thaem heordhe the se man on bidh to middum wintra. (Ine. § 
 61. Schmid. I., 28.) 
 
 7. And ic wille eac thaet mine gerefan gedon thaet man agyfe tha 
 cyricsceattas and tha sawl-sceattas to tham stowum, the hit mid rihte 
 to gebyrige. (iEthelst I., § 5. Schmid. 1., 68.) 
 
 8. Be teodhungum and cyricsceattum. Teodhunge we bebeodadh 
 aelcum cristenum men be his cristendome, and cyricsceat, and aelmes- 
 feoh. Gif hit hwa don nylle, sy he amansumod. (Edm. I., § 2. 
 Schmid. I., 94.) 
 
 9. Be cyricsceat. Gif hwa thonne thegna sy, the on his boclande 
 cyrican haebbe, the legerstowe on sy, gesylle he thonne thriddan dael 
 his agenre teodhunge into his cyrican, § 1. Gif hwa cyrican haebbe, 
 the legerstow on ne sy, thonne do he of thaem nygan daelum his 
 
19 
 
 preost thset thaet he wille. And ga ylc cyricsceat into tliaem ealdan 
 mynster be aelcum frigan (h)eordhe (Edgar L, § 2. Schmid. I., 
 99.) 
 
 10. neadgafol ures drihtnes, thaet syn ure teodhunga and cyric- 
 sceattas. (Edgar II., cap. 1. § 4. Schmid. I., 103.) 
 
 11. and cyricsceat to Martinus maessan. (iE their. IV., § 16. 
 Schmid. I., 120.) 
 
 12. And cyricsceat gelaeste man be Martinus maessan, and se the 
 thaet ne gelaeste, forgilde bine mid twelffealdan, and tham cyninge 
 CXX scill. (iEthelr. VI., § 7. Schmid. I., 133.) Thus the same 
 law as Ine’s, and as it afterwards was, only with a double fine to the 
 king for disobedience. 
 
 13. De consuetudinibus sanctae dei ecclesiae reddendis. Et praeci- 
 pimus, ut omnis homo super dilectionem dei et omnium sanctorum 
 det cyricsceattum et rectam decimam suam, sieut in diebus ante- 
 cessorum nostrorum fecit, &c. (iEthelr. VII., § 2. Schmid. I., 138.) 
 
 14. To cyricbote sceall eall folc fylstan mid rihte. (Cnut. I., § 63. 
 Schmid. I., 165.) It is really a pity that when the writer opened his 
 copy of the Saxon laws to look for this passage of Cnut’s, he did not 
 turn to the same king’s arrangement respecting cyricsceat. Perhaps 
 he did, but did not like the equaeval Latin rubric “ de primitiis 
 “ seminum.” 
 
 15. And gif for godbotan (godbodan) feohbot arisedli, swa wise 
 woroldwitan to steore gesettan, thaet gebyredh rihtlice be bisceopa 
 dihte to gebedbigene and to tliearfena hydhdhe, and to cyricbote, 
 and to lardome, and to waede and to wiste tham the God theowian, 
 and to bocan and to bellan, and to cyricwaedan, and naefre to worold- 
 lican idelan glengan. (JE their. IV., § 36. Schmid. I., 125.) 
 
 16. Haec enim sanctus Augustinus praedicavit et docuit, et haec 
 concessa sunt a rege, et a baronibus, et populo. § Sed postea 
 instinctu Diaboli multi earn detinuerunt, et sacerdotes negligentes 
 locupletes non curabant inire laborem ad perquirendas eas, eo quod 
 sufficienter habebant suae necessaria vitae. (LI. Edowardi Confessoris, 
 cap. 8, in Hoveden, or Schmid. I., 278.) 
 
 17. Eap we cwaedon thaet aelc biscop gebete Godes hus on his agnum, 
 and eac thone cyning myndgige, thaet ealle Godes cyricean syn wel 
 behweorfene, swa us micel thearf is.—(Edm. I., § 5, Schmid. I., 94.) 
 
 18. Nunc igitur praecipio et obtestor omnes meos episcopos et 
 regni praepositos, per fidem, quam Deo et mihi debetis, quatenus 
 faciatis, ut antequam ego Angliam veniam, omnia debita, quae Deo 
 secundum legem antiquam debemus, sint soluta, scilicet eleemosynae 
 pro aratris, et decimae animalium ipsius anni procreatorum, et denarii 
 quos Romae ad sanctum Petrum debemus, sive ex urbibus sive ex 
 villis, et mediante Augusto decimae frugum, et in festivitate sancti 
 Martini primitice seminum ad ecclesiam sub cujus parochia quisque 
 est, quae Anglice Circesceat nominantur.—(Flor. Wigorn. ad an. 1081.) 
 
 19. In the preface to Lambarde’s own edition of the Archaionomia, 
 or Ancient Saxon Laws (printed by Day, in 1568), the following 
 passage was quoted :—“ Chirseed, ou chirceomer, ou chirceamber, 
 “ fut un certein de bled batu, que chescun home devoit al temps des 
 “ Brytons et des Anglez porter a lour eglise le jour Seint Martin.” 
 This passage however, was not quoted by Abraham Wheloc in the 
 
20 
 
 Cambridge reprint of 1644, though without quoting it, he choseH 
 sneer at it, and to reject Lambarde’s rendering of cyricsceat in || 
 words of Florence, viz. primitice seminum, and to substitute foM 
 census ecclesiasticus , which he supposed meant something else; ill 
 nevertheless quite certain, that whether called cyricsaed, cyricscIH 
 cyricamber, primitice seminum, or census ecclesiasticus, it meant M 
 and the same thing, viz. a portion of corn, &c. Ducange in Vffl 
 Ciricsetum quotes the French words “ un certein rent,” upon w|j 
 authority I cannot say. 
 
 20. Chirchesset, certam mensuram bladi tritici significat, quffl 
 quilibet olim sanctse ecclesise, die Sancti Martini, tempore tarn Bm 
 tanorum, quam Anglorum contribuerunt.—(1: cap. 47, § 27.) 
 
 21. Manerium Glaston. reddit per an. in gabulo vii. lib. vi. sol.H 
 den. In churchscet lx. gallinas et semen frumenti ad tres acras. I 
 
 22. De ciricsceatto dicit vice comitatus quod episcopus, de onjj 
 terra quae ad ecclesiam suam pertinet, debet habere, in die festivitsB 
 sancti Martini, unam summam annonae, qualis melior crescit in in 
 terra, de unaquaque hida libera et villana; et si dies ille fractus fueiB 
 ille qui retinuerit reddet ipsam summam, et undecies persolvat; fl 
 ipse episcopus accipiat inde forisfacturam qualem ipse debet habere i 
 terra sua. De cirisceatto de Perscora dicit vicecomitatus quod ijj 
 ecclesia de Perscora debet habere ipsum cirisceattum de omnib| 
 ccc hidis, scilicet de unaquaque hida ubi francus homo manet, unai 
 summam annonae, et si plures habet hidas, sint liberae; et si dig 
 fractus fuerit, in festivitate sancti Martini, ipse qui retinuerit cl 
 ipsam summam et undecies persolvat, abbati de Perscora ; et redcfij 
 forisfacturam abbati de Westminstre quia sua terra est. Cart. Hemini 
 I., 49, 50. De ciricsceate. Dicit vice comitatus quod de unaquaqij 
 hida terrae, libera vel villana, quae ad ecclesiam de Wirecestre pertinJ 
 debet episcopus habere, in die festo sancti Martini unam summaj 
 annonae, de inelicri quae ibidem crescit; quod si dies ille non reddil 
 annona transient, qui retinuit annonam reddat, undecies persolvet, | 
 insuper forisfacturam episcopus accipiet, qualem de sua terra habei 
 debet. Ibid. 1,308. 
 
 23. Oswald’s grant, A.D. 962. Sit autem terra ista libera omit 
 regali nisi ecclesiastici censi , id est duos modios de mundo grano. Vi(j 
 the charter in Heming I., 145., and the charter of A.D.9 63, in Heminj 
 I., 189. The grant of 987 says, “et semper possessor terrae illius red] 
 “ dat tribuium ecclesiasticum, quod circsceat dicitur, to pirigtune; cj 
 “ omni anno unus ager inde aretur to pirigtune, et inde metatur. 
 Heming I., 208. 
 
 24. And heo hit haebben egliwaes to freon, butun agefen elce gerl 
 threo mittan hwaetes to ciricsceatte, to Clife. I might fill as man; 
 pages more, did I choose to quote all the examples lying before me o 
 the same sort, from the heberollen of the German ecclesiastical bodies 
 but enough has been said. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 Printed by T. Brettell , Rupert Street, Hay market, London .