| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: A history of tithes
Author: Clarke, Henry William
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A history of tithes" ***
A HISTORY OF TITHES
A
HISTORY OF TITHES
BY THE
REV. HENRY WILLIAM CLARKE, B.A.
TRIN. COLL., DUB.
_Author of “The Past and Present Revenues of the Church of
England in Wales,” and “The Public Landed Endowments of the
Church in Anglo-Saxon Times.”_
SECOND EDITION
[Illustration]
London
SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1894
PREFACE.
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 Ethelwulf’s charter 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 Ethelwulf 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 disadvantage 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 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 history 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 absolute
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 _inferences from negative evidence_. And
these inferences are so cleverly and shrewdly expressed, in the special
pleading style, that although I knew they were wrong, yet I found it
extremely difficult 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 embarrassing;
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 Spelman were
well acquainted with the Worcester (Cottonian) manuscript [he calls it
“The Worcester Volume” on the same page]; 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 character or the authority of a law_.”[2] 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.
1, 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
discussion, 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 XVIII.
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 (1)
the number of old parishes; (2) parishes appropriated and their vicars;
(3) parishes which had not been appropriated. Nearly one-half (or 3,864)
in England were appropriated. It was worse in Wales, for of 834 old
parishes, 468 were appropriated. 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 published, 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 parsonage houses with their _rateable_ value, which is
_much less_ than their _actual_ value.
The Return is defective; (1) 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 Endowments 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, 1. Old Testament passages
for payment of tithes, 1. 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 Masçon, 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 Roman Mission to England, pages 13-19._
Landing of Augustine in England, 13. Cordial reception by King of
Kent, 17. 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 Clergy were at first maintained in England, 17.
Brewer’s and Dibdin’s translation of “portiones,” 17. Quadripartite
division, 17. Blackstone’s opinion, 18. Bishops’ churches, and
chapels of ease, 18. Did Augustine preach payment 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
genuineness, 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 of 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.
Arbitrary assumption 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 17th 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 17th injunction, 45.
Offa’s supposed 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.
CHAPTER VII.
_King Ethelwulf’s 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. Ethelwulf’s charters
thus tested, 59, 60. The Malmesbury Cartulary, 60. Ethelwulf’s
second charter of grants, 62. Kemble’s opinion on Ethelwulf’s first
and second grants, 64, 65. Charter C, an abridgment of William of
Malmesbury’s charter, 65. Selden’s conclusion on Ethelwulf’s 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 Guthrum 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 implication, 71, 72. What
constituted a Witenagemót? 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
appropriating tithes, 80.
CHAPTER IX.
_Origin of our Modern Parish Churches and Boundaries,
pages 81-93._
The old minster, 81. Chapels of ease, 81. Landlords’ churches, 81.
Church boundaries conterminous with landowners’ estates, 82. Manorial
Churches in Domesday with one-third of tithes, 82. Errors created by
confounding 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 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 of library, 100. First printed catalogue,
100. Library vested in trustees, 100. Second catalogue, 100. History
of the “Worcester” volume, Nero, A. 1, p. 101. Lord Selborne’s object
is to upset the Act of A.D. 1014, pp. 101, 102. Selden and Spelman
never saw the Church Grith law, 103, 104. Lambarde, Wheelock, and
John Johnson, never saw it, 104. Thorpe’s opinion of Wilkins’s
“Concilia,” 106. Price’s evidence is worthless, 107, 108. Freeman’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, 110, 111. 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. 1 stated,
117. Brewer, supported, but Dibden 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 XI.
_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 the 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.
Elizabeth’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 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
properly 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 XIII.
_Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries, pages 146-158._
Impetus to the building of monasteries, 146. Lay-owners arbitrarily
appropriated 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 appropriations,
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 endowments,
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.
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, 166. The English monks passed through
three reformations, 166. The Norman bishops divided the properties
of the cathedral church, 168. 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 pronounced
heretical, 171. Cathedral Act of 1840 [3 & 4 Vict., 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,
180. 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 £100,000, p. 180. The conditions upon which
Parliament granted Henry VIII., and by him to others, such vast
estates, 180. 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 1 Eliz., c. 19, p. 183. Houses dissolved by
31 Henry VIII., c. 13, p. 183. Three abbots executed, 184. Over 653
monasteries dissolved, 184. In 1546, 90 colleges, 110 hospitals,
and 2,347 chantries suppressed by 1 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 citizens and for the 11_d._, yet they considered it a
cheat and fraud, 187. By 27 Henry VIII., c. 21, the citizens were to
pay their tithes at 2_s._ 9_d._ in the pound, 188. Another change in
the payment by 37 Henry VIII., c. 12, p. 188. The 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 of 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 80th 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
between tithe and tithe-rent charge, 207.
_Redemption of Tithe-rent Charges._ The difficulty in dealing with
this question, 209. Everything turns on the word “value,” 209. Are
we to start from “par value” or “current value?” 209. £100 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
influenced 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 and 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 Commissioners 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 Lampeter, 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 of
Church people and of Dissenters in the four dioceses, 224.
CHAPTER XX.
_Tithe Act, 1891, pages 225-242._
1. 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. 11. 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.
Summary 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.
H. 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 England, 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 constitutions 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 custom, or
Mosaic law, bound Christians to the payment of tithes _quâ_ tithes. He
asserted, with truth, that the Divine Founder of the Christian religion
and His apostles left behind them no written instructions for the
payment of tithes, but the latter did state how the ministers were to
be maintained, viz., on the purely 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 unblushingly 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
_quâ_ 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; 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 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 England 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. 755, gave
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 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 circumstances, 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 diminution. 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 purpose they wished, or for the payment
of tithes. Their functions 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 property 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 episcopal 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 remarkable 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
Churchmen boastingly assert that the Church of England has received no
help from the State (!) The Ecclesiastical Commission is actually a State
Department. And what amount of 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 landlords
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 real tithe-rent payers. But the
landlords having contracted themselves out of the 80th 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 VIII., 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 departed parishioners,
granting absolution, teaching transubstantiation 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 endowments, 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 Parliamentary 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 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 embraced 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 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, because 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 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 themselves
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 everything 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 must see that false
tithing was the cause of the first murder, and it was the cause that God
cursed the earth.”[3]
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.”
CHAPTER II.
_FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA TO THE COUNCIL OF MASÇON._
In Apostolical times the Christian ministers were supported by voluntary
contributions out of a common fund, and this practice prevailed for four
hundred years.[4] 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 (1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2). The voluntary contributions
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 payment 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.”
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.[5]
The Apostolical Constitutions for the Christian Church, collected, 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, translated 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 δεκασμούς. 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.”[6]
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 payment of tithes in apostolic times, although Cardinal
Bellarmine, a great champion of “Holy Church,” ignored them.[7]
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. “Because the early Christians,” he says, “were liberal to the
Church, therefore it was reasonable that tithes in the ‘Constitutional
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. (1) 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 purposes. In A.D. 322 Constantine, the
first Christian emperor, published an edict which gave full liberty to
his subjects to bestow 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 question 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 impropriators, schools, colleges, charities
and hospitals receiving tithes. Granted, for argument’s sake, that the
Christian priesthood 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 Norman 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 faithful
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 commenced 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 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 extensive
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 impartial, 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 Christian religion was first
propagated, the writer of the “Brief” would have us to believe that the
converted Jews transferred the payment 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,
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 religion.”[8] We are not informed
upon what authority this statement 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
exhortations to pay tithes in the writings of the third and fourth
centuries. We read of canons having been made for their payment 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 Masçon 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 upon the genuineness of this canon at the Council at
Masçon.[9] 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 Establishment 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 hospitalite et adimplenda misericordia,
nobis quid erit loquendum.” “But as for those who live in common, why
should we say anything 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” (1
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 person 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 distorted, in order
to show the early origin of tithes. There is nothing gained, but 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. Ireland 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 convert 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 discouraged, 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 intelligent 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 Canterbury,
the metropolis of his kingdom. He presented his palace in Canterbury to
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 17th November, 597, Augustine went to France and
was consecrated archbishop by the Archbishop of Arles, 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 indubitably 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 archbishops 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 informs us that they were
enacted by the advice of his Witan.[10]
Article 1. “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.”[11] 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 we affirm
that the introduction of Christianity was at least ratified by a solemn
act of the Witan.”[12]
In 601 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.[13] In
602 he laid the foundation of his cathedral church in Canterbury. In
604 he ordained Mellitus, 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.[14] 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 proceeded 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 _Cathedral Church_, because the bishop’s cathedra, sedes,
stool or chair was in the choir and on the same level with the seats of
other members 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 hereafter
be shown that the origin of parishes was erroneously traced back to
the episcopal division of dioceses, when “parish” and “diocese” were
synonymous.
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 quæ fidelium
oblationibus accedunt altari, quantæ 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 entertainments; 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 familiæ 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, quæ, auctore Deo nuper
adhuc ad fidem adducta est, hanc debet conversationem instituere, quæ
initio nascentis ecclesiæ fuit patribus nostris; in quibus nullus eorum
ex his, quæ possidebant, aliquid suum esse dicebat, sed erant eis omnia
communia.”
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.”[15]
This last passage is thus translated by Mr. Brewer and endorsed 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.”[16] It is not only misleading, but bad
scholarship to translate “portiones” by “tithes.” _Decimæ_ is always the
word used in Latin for tithes.
The quadripartite division of Church funds mentioned here by the Pope
existed in Italy and France. In Spain and other countries the tripartite
division was the custom.
Pope Sylvester, early in the fourth century, decreed, it is said, but
with which I do not agree, that the revenues of the Church should be
divided into four parts. One part should be assigned to the bishop
for his maintenance; another part to the priests and deacons and the
clergy in general; the third part to the reparation of the churches; and
the fourth part to the poor, and to the sick and strangers.[17] Pope
Simplicius, in the fifth century, mentions the fourfold division of the
Church funds in his third epistle. Pope Gelasius (A.D. 501), in his ninth
epistle, renews the regulation of Simplicius, and orders the bishops to
divide their diocesan revenues into four portions and distribute them as
above indicated. This was before the establishment of tithes.
Augustine, being a monk, could have no separate share of his own, and the
probability is that all the offerings were divided into three but not
necessarily equal parts. One part was for the maintenance and clothing of
the bishop and his clergy; a portion was given to the poor and strangers,
and a portion went towards the repairs of the church and erecting
oratories and schools.
Blackstone states that “At the first establishment of parochial clergy,
the tithes of the parish were distributed in a fourfold division: one for
the use of the bishop; another for maintaining the fabric of the church;
a third for the poor, and the fourth to provide for the incumbent.
When the sees of the bishops became otherwise amply endowed, they were
prohibited from demanding their usual share of these tithes, and the
division was into three parts only.”[18]
Wharton, in his “Defence of Pluralities,” refers to the fourfold and then
to the tripartite divisions in England.[19]
The rules and vows of the monks prevented them from being scattered over
the diocese. They lived together in common and within their monastery.
Their chief functions were to instruct the converts, who, when duly
prepared, were sent forth by the bishop as ordained itinerant ministers
to convert their countrymen in the distant parts of the diocese where
there were no churches but crosses erected at convenient spots, and
around these crosses the people assembled to hear the word of God, to
have their children baptized, and to partake of the Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper. Collections were always made on such occasions, which the
preachers brought and deposited at the bishop’s house for the common
fund. When the itinerant preachers saw people eager and zealous in their
religious duties, they reported the same to the bishop, who caused to be
built for them out of the common fund some wooden chapels, which served
as chapels of ease to the mother-church. In some cases the bishop had
a wooden house constructed close to the chapel, where a priest could
permanently reside.
It is very improbable that Augustine preached or solicited the payment of
tithes. It is stated in the alleged laws of Edward the Confessor, that
“Augustine preached the payment of tithes, which were granted by the king
(Ethelbert), and confirmed by the barons and people, but afterwards, by
the instigation of the devil, many detained them; and those priests who
were rich were not very careful in getting them,” etc.[20]
These so-called laws are pure fabrications. Thorpe takes his text from
a Harleian manuscript written about the beginning of the 14th century.
Internal evidence condemns their genuineness, for in law xi. there is a
reference to the Church having been exempted from paying Danegeld, and
adds, “This liberty had been preserved by Holy Church even to the time
of William the Younger, called Rufus, who sought aid from the barons of
England in order to keep Normandy from his brother Robert when he went to
Jerusalem; and they granted him four shillings from every ploughland, not
excepting Holy Church,” etc.[21]
The Rev. Morris Fuller, rector of Ryburgh, states, without the slightest
authority, “May it not have a reference to the time of Ethelbert, who
began to reign in Kent A.D. 566, _when tithes were by law paid to the
clergy_, and the time of Ina, King of Wessex, who began to reign A.D.
688, _when there was a law by which they were then paid_.”[22] There
is not one word about tithes in the laws of Ethelbert and Ina. John
Pulman, a barrister, ventilated exactly the same opinions in 1864 in his
“Anti-State Church Association Unmasked.” Fuller copied the erroneous
views of Pulman.
CHAPTER IV.
_THE FIRST DOCUMENTARY STATEMENT OF TITHES IN ENGLAND._
The first genuine statement of the payment of tithes in England appears
in the second book of Archbishop Theodore’s (668-690) “Penitential.”
It was not composed by Theodore himself, but was drawn up under his
direction and published with his authority. They are answers given by
him to questions asked him on the subject of penance. It is edited by a
“Discipulus Umbrensium,” or a Disciple of the Umbrians, for the benefit
of the English. There is no doubt that this Penitential is genuine.
Bishop Stubbs, Mr. Haddan and Professor Wasserschleben accept it as
such.[23]
The following three notices of tithes appear in the “Penitential”:
1. “Presbitero decimas dare non cogitur.” The priest is not compelled to
pay tithes.[24]
2. “Tributum ecclesiæ sit, sicut consuetudo provinciæ, id est, ne tantum
pauperes inde in decimis aut in aliquibus rebus vim patientur.” Let the
offering to the church be according to the custom of the province; that
is, that no force should be put upon the poor as to tithes or anything
else.[25]
3. “Decimas non est legitimum dare nisi pauperibus et peregrinis, sivi
laici suas ad ecclesias.” It is not lawful to give tithes except to the
poor and strangers, or laymen to their own churches.[26] This is a
prohibition to the clergy against giving the laity presents out of the
tithes.
“These articles,” says Lord Selborne, “put the payment of tithes on
the footing of custom, depending for its observance upon episcopal
or clerical influence, rather than ecclesiastical censures,”[27] the
anathemas subsequently hurled against all who dared to keep them back
from Holy Church.
Theodore’s “Penitential” was not a code of laws, but its contents are
very important as reflecting the custom and practice existing with regard
to tithes in that early age of the Anglo-Saxon Church.
The silence of Bede on Theodore’s “Penitential” is brought forward
as evidence against it. But Haddan and Stubbs show conclusively that
“Bede either did not know the book, or did not consider Theodore as the
immediate author.”[28]
Bishop Stubbs makes a vital remark on (3). “Tithes are mentioned,” he
says, “by Theodore in the genuine ‘Penitential,’ in a way that proves the
duty of making the payment, _but not the right of the clergy to the sole
use of them_.”[29]
Theodore encouraged landowners to build churches on their estates by
permitting them to have the appointment of the priests who were to
officiate in them.
It is remarkable that Bede, in his ecclesiastical history, mentions the
word “decima” only once. It appears in bk. iv. c. 29. Writing of Bishop
Eadbert, the successor of Bishop Cuthbert at Lindisfarne, he says,
“So that according to the law, he gave every year the tenth part, not
only of four-footed beasts, but also of all corn and fruit, as also of
garments _to the poor_.” [Ita ut juxta legem, omnibus annis _decimam_,
non solum quadrupedum, verum etiam frugum omnium atque pomorum, necnon
et vestimentorum partem, _pauperibus_ daret]. The law referred to here
was the Mosaic or Divine law. Eadbert was made bishop A.D. 688, two
years before Theodore died. He gave the tenth part _to the poor_. Bede’s
history comes down to A.D. 734, and yet this is the only instance in
which tithe is mentioned in his writings, and then it was given to the
poor—strong evidence as to the common law right of the poor to a share of
the tithe.
Dr. Lingard quotes another passage from Bede, which he says appears to
him to allude to tithes, viz., “That there was not a village in the
remotest parts of Northumbria which could escape the payment of TRIBUTE
to the bishop.”[30] If Bede alluded to tithes, he would have written
_decimæ_ and not _tributa_. _Tributum_ is from _tribuo_, which is allied
to _tribus_, _i.e._, _pars_, and so _tribus_ = to divide into parts.
Hence _tributa_ = parts or portions. Bede also uses the word “portiones”
to express the same idea without any reference whatever to tithes.
Theodore, in his “Penitential,” uses the two words, _tributum_ and
_decimæ_ in the same passage with separate meanings. _Tributum_—a tax,
contribution, tribute, collection, subscription.[31]
Before leaving Theodore’s genuine “Penitential,” I must refer to
the second revised edition of Mr. J. S. Brewer’s “Endowments and
Establishment of the Church of England,” by Chancellor Lewis T.
Dibdin, published in 1885. In his preface, the new editor “gratefully
acknowledges the valuable aid he received from Dr. Wace and the Bishop
of Chester (Dr. Stubbs, now Bishop of Oxford) through more than one
difficulty on endowments as to which he was in doubt.”[32]
“With regard,” he says, “to tripartition of tithes, the documents quoted
in support of it are (as far as I am aware) a spurious passage in the
‘Penitential’ of archbishop Theodore; see Stubbs’ ‘Councils,’ iii. 173,
n. 203.”[33] In referring to the volume quoted here, I find that the
writers say nothing about this spurious passage, but at p. 203, Haddan
and Stubbs give the three passages in Theodore’s “Penitential,” which
“Penitential” _they state is genuine_, and to which I referred in a
previous page. Then Mr. Dibdin adds, “An alleged law of Ethelred, 1013.”
Where did he get 1013? He refers to Wilkins’s “Anglo-Saxon Laws,” p. 106,
but Wilkins gives it as a genuine law of Ethelred enacted in 1014. The
fact that he did not transfer this law to his “Concilia” is undoubtedly
no argument against its genuineness as a law. I refer for additional
information on the law of 1014 to another part of this book, where the
Church-Grith law of Ethelred is fully discussed.
“I will not put,” says Blackstone, “the title of the clergy to tithes
upon any Divine right, though such a right certainly commenced, and I
believe as certainly ceased, with the Jewish theocracy. Yet an honourable
and competent maintenance for the ministers of the gospel is undoubtedly
_jure divino_; whatever the particular mode of that maintenance may
be.”[34] I quite agree with these remarks. But as Mr. Serjeant Stephens,
in his Commentaries, says, “The institution of tithes in its specific
form is _odious_ to the people and unsatisfactory to the political
economists.”[35]
LANDOWNERS’ CHURCHES.
The nobility and landed gentry were not slow in fully appreciating the
advantages of resident over itinerant priests. Some of the princes,
in changing from place to place, selected certain of the clergy to
accompany them for the performance of divine service for their families.
The Thanes followed their example and appointed chaplains, for they felt
the great inconvenience, especially in winter, in attending services at
the mother-church, which might have been at a very considerable distance
from their residences. The villagers were even in a worse condition.
To remedy these inconveniences, the landowners commenced slowly to
erect churches on their estates about A.D. 686, but more actively
about A.D. 700. The limits of these were conterminous with the extent
of their properties. Hence we find some of the old parishes of very
unequal extent. It is impossible to state exactly, in the absence of
documentary evidence, the origin of the modern parish churches and much
less their endowments. “At the original endowment,” Blackstone says,
“of parish churches, the freehold of the church, the churchyard, the
parsonage house, the glebe, and the tithes of the parish were vested in
the then parson by the bounty of the donor.” Blackstone states here the
parson’s common law right to the tithes, but after he receives them the
same common law right obliges him to share them according to the usage
and canons of the Church. The bishop was originally the recipient and
distributor of all Church revenues. The parochial incumbents had taken
his place and were bound to distribute them according to the original
custom. It would never suit for the poor to collect their own share of
the tithes. As Bishop Kennett says, _the parish priest was the bank_.
The manorial church was certainly the germ of the modern parish church.
And we can trace this germ back to A.D. 686. From that time to Edgar’s
reign the germ rapidly expanded, and the country became dotted all over
with manorial or landowners’ churches, when Edgar passed his celebrated
law which gave these with burial grounds a legal right to one-third part
of the tithes of the estate. This Act upsets Blackstone’s statement,
that the incumbent received all the tithes of the parish. It is true what
Mr. Freeman says about the opinion of lawyers. “As for modern writers,”
he says, “on the subject of the division of tithes, it is utterly useless
to go to the opinion of mere lawyers, Blackstone or any other, as giving
any help to either side. We may safely go to them to learn what is the
law in force at the present moment; _for historical purposes they are
worse than useless_.”[36] I endorse every word he says. Mr. Fuller did
not take this advice, but quotes Blackstone as above. Lawyers are no
better informed on this point than other men. When Blackstone wrote his
Commentaries, he gave us what was then the accepted law, that the parson
had a right to the tithes, and hence he is quoted as the best authority
on this point. But he omitted to state that although the parson is _the
general collector_, is THE BANK, by common law right, yet as trustee he
is only entitled to a share of church funds, and the poor and the church
building have also a common law right to a share of what the parson
received. Edgar’s law, which was re-enacted by Canute, gave the manorial
priest but one-third. When, then, did he get the whole? This is answered
further on.
Bede gives an account as early as A.D. 686 of the erection of churches by
landowners on their own private estates. “Not very far,” he says, “from
our monastery, about two miles off, was the country house of one Puch,
an earl. It happened that the man of God [Bishop John of Beverley] was
at that time invited thither by the Earl to consecrate a church”[37] [at
South Burton, Yorkshire].
“At another time also [A.D. 686] he [Bishop John] was called to
consecrate the church of Earl Addi.”[38] These landed proprietors,
who also had the advowsons, made a provision for the priests of their
churches by erecting residential houses and attaching to the churches
some glebe lands, from five acres to a hide and more. Add to the glebe
the daily oblations. To the land and oblations were added in course of
time one-third of the tithe of the produce of the manorial lands. Is it
reasonable that a single man should have for his _own personal use all
the tithes_ of the estate, together with the glebe lands and oblations?
No. Originally he had none of the tithes, all of which went to the mother
or parish church. Edgar’s law, giving him one-third, was re-enacted by
Ethelred in 1014, and again re-enacted by Canute, and the one-third of
the tithes to the manorial church is to be seen in the Domesday Survey of
1086. The mother or monastic church discharged the poor man’s common-law
right to a share in the tithes. His common-law right to a share not only
in tithes but in oblations also, was as well established as that of the
parson’s. But the parson in course of time became the recipient of all
the tithes in a manner which I shall hereafter explain, and was obliged
by the canons and custom of the church to distribute a portion to the
poor and to repair the church and defray other church expenses out of the
tithes and oblations after having allowed himself his own share.
As Christianity advanced in England the foundations of private
oratories became very numerous, for almost every great man, as soon as
he was converted to the Christian religion, built an oratory for the
convenience of his family, tenants, and dependents. The bishops had
prudently encouraged laymen to build such churches on their estates,
and allowed them to have the advowsons. Residences for the incumbents
were built close to the churches, and the landowners endowed them with
lands varying in extent from five acres to over a hide as I have
stated before. In course of time, they endowed them with the one-third
of the tithes of their estates, transferring the remaining two-thirds
to the monastic or conventual church, which was the mother-church of
the entire parish. In these churches all seats were free. Pew-rents
were then unknown. The church built by a layman had to be consecrated
by the bishop, but the lay owner had the advowson or nomination of the
incumbent. This was the origin of lay patronage in the Church of England.
The church so built belonged to the manor or estate. When in course of
time the property was sold or otherwise disposed of, the church and
advowson went with the property. In the change of ownerships, the rectory
and advowson were often separated from the manor, and were at first
appropriated by the owner to bishops, chapters, or monasteries. At the
Reformation, churches and advowsons, which became the property of the
Crown, were granted to laymen, and were also granted to archbishops,
bishops and chapters. The Crown separated in some cases the advowson
from the great tithes, and sold or granted both to the same or different
parties. Therefore we find two owners instead of one. The original patron
never anticipated this change. An advowson or a rectory may be and is
possessed in shares or turns by several owners. They are strictly treated
as property and are dealt with accordingly. The sales of advowsons are
carried on at public auctions and by private agents, and are given to the
highest bidder. The public sale-room is now less resorted to, owing to
the scandal thus created. But the sales are still vigorously pushed on
_privately_ by family solicitors and professional agents. A living, for
example, is worth, say, £800 a year from glebe and tithe-rent charge; the
incumbent is old, and the owner of the advowson is desirous of finding a
purchaser of next nomination after the death or resignation of present
incumbent. A life-interest only is thus purchased. There are other cases
in which the advowson is completely sold. The parishioners have no voice
in the matter.
As regards the payment of tithes, I shall show that for many years
the English bishops and their clergy had threatened and cajoled the
simple-minded Anglo-Saxons into the belief that the Church had the right
to impose the Levitical obligations upon them. We have only to read the
miraculous legends recorded by Bede and others to find out the means by
which the clergy had imposed upon the credulity of those simple-minded
people. It was by deceit, trickery, hypocrisy, and sham miracles that
the Anglo-Saxon bishops and their clergy had obtained tithes, first as
free-will offerings, then by legislative enactments, which made these
free-will offerings compulsory.
THE CONFESSIONAL.
The Confessional was a powerful instrument in the hands of the clergy by
which they obtained the payment of tithes. During the archiepiscopate
of Theodore (668-690) auricular confession began to take the place of
public discipline. Theodore’s “Penitentiary,” which was published with
his authority, directed confessors how to conduct themselves in hearing
confessions and how to enjoin penance. Confession to the priest was made
necessary, not in order to obtain his absolution, but to be informed
what sort of penance was required for every offence, and for the several
degrees and circumstances of it. The most difficult part of the priest’s
office was to proportion the private penance to the crime, and Theodore’s
“Penitentiary” was looked upon as the best rule in this particular.[39]
It is remarkable that the earliest mention of tithes in England is found
in Theodore’s “Penitentiary.”
CHAPTER V.
_WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO EGBERT, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK (734-766)._
Briefly stated, they are—
(1) The “Penitential,” a document of the tenth century.[40] There are
four books prefaced with twenty-one canons. The first book only is
Egbert’s.
(2) The “Confessional and Penitential.” The fourth book only of the
“Penitential” is Egbert’s. And as regards the “Confessional,” he _may_
have translated it.
(3) The Excerptions. Mr. Thorpe takes these from Cott.: Nero, A. 1. They
are in Latin, numbering 163. The first twenty-one are ninth century
canons. There is another different compilation of excerpts in Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge, K. 2. The excerptions which appear in these
two manuscripts are not Egbert’s.[41]
Sir H. Spelman, Wilkins,[42] Johnson,[43] Bishop Kennett, Dr.
Lingard,[44] Kemble, Thorpe,[45] and others believed that the Excerptions
were written in the eighth century by the archbishop himself, and some of
these writers have referred to them in support of the threefold division
of tithes. But there is ample internal evidence in the canons themselves
to condemn them as the genuine production of Egbert, or that they could
have been written during his archiepiscopate.
If any one should take the trouble or be obliged to refer to Dr.
Lingard’s History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, published in
two volumes in 1845, he will observe the numerous references which this
Roman Catholic historian makes to Egbert’s Excerptions and Penitentials,
but which are now condemned as spurious. This is a serious matter for his
Church, because he mainly supports many important acts of discipline in
the Anglo-Saxon Church by such references. But when the references are
condemned as spurious, all his arguments founded upon them fall of course
to the ground.
Mr. Haddan and Bishop Stubbs say that the excerptions are not Egbert’s.
What does Mr. Selden say? “An antient collection of divers canons written
about the time of Henry the First, with this inscription of equal age,
‘Incipiunt excerptiones Domini Egberti Archiepiscopi Eburace Civitatis,
de jure sacerdotali’ [= Here begin the excerptions of the Lord Egbert,
archbishop of the city of York, concerning the duty of priests], hath
these words, ‘Ut unusquisque sacerdos cunctos sibi pertinentes erudiat,
ut sciant qualitèr decimas totius facultatis ecclesiis divinis debitè
offerant.’ [That every priest teach all that belong to him to know how
they are to offer the tithes of all their substance in a due manner to
the churches of God.] And immediately follows, ‘Ut ipsi sacerdotes à
populis suscipiant decimas, et nomina eorum, quicunque dederint, scripta
habeant, et secundum authoritatem canonicam coram testibus dividant, et
ad ornamentum ecclesiæ primam eligant partem, secundam autem ad usum
pauperum atque perigrinorum per eorum manus misericorditèr cum omni
humilitate dispensent; tertiam verò sibimet ipsis sacerdotes reservent?”
[That the priests themselves receive the tithes of the people, and write
down their names and what they have given, and divide it according to
canonical authority in the presence of witnesses, and choose the first
part for the ornament of the church, and distribute the second part
with their own hands tenderly and with all humility for the use of the
poor and strangers; and let the priests reserve the third part for
themselves.][46]
“If the credit of this,” continues Selden, “be valued by the inscription,
then it is about 850 years old. For, that Egbert lived Archbishop of York
from the year 743 (?) to 767 (?). But the authority of that title must
undergo censure. Whoever made it, supposed that Egbert gathered that law
and the rest joined with it out of some former church constitutions;
neither doth the name ‘Excerptions’ denote otherwise. But in that
collection some whole constitutions occur in the same syllables, as they
are in the Capitularies of Charles the Great, as that of ‘unicuique
ecclesiæ unus mansque integer,’ etc., and some others, which could not be
known to Egbert, that died in the last year of Pipin, father to Charles.
How came he then by that? And how may we believe that Egbert was the
author of any part of those Excerptions? unless you excuse it with that
use of the middle times which often inserted into one body and under
one name laws of different ages. But admit that; yet, what is ‘secundum
canonicam autoritatem coram testibus dividant’? The ancientest ‘canonica
autoritas’ for dividing tithes before witnesses is an old Imperial,
attributed in some editions to the eleventh year of the reign of Charles
the Great, being King of France; in others to the Emperor Lothar the
First. But refer it to either of them, and it will be divers years later
than Egbert’s death. And other mixed passages there plainly show that
whosesoever the collection was, much of it was taken out of the Imperial
Capitularies, none of which were made in Egbert’s time.”[47]
This is a reasonable and argumentative statement of facts. In addition
to the above, I may refer to the seventh canon, “That all priests pray
assiduously for the life and empire of our lord the emperor, and for
the health of his sons and daughters.” Again, canon 24 is found in
Charlemagne’s Capitulary of A.D. 813. Egbert died on the 19th November,
766,[48] and Charles became King of France in 768. These dates are very
important in this controversy.
The first twenty-one canons are from the Audain manuscript in the
monastery of St. Herbert in the Ardennes. Canons 22 to 28 inclusive are
taken from other Gallican Capitulars. These twenty-eight canons were made
between A.D. 789 and 816. The remaining 135 canons are taken from other
foreign sources.
It is quite unnecessary to introduce into the discussion of the threefold
division of tithes in England, doubtful canons, such as the “Excerptions”
of Egbert and other writings copied from them. There are, without these,
sufficient solid, genuine facts at our command with which to prove the
threefold division of tithes in England, and these are stated further on.
CHAPTER VI.
_THE FIRST PUBLIC LAY LAW FOR THE PAYMENT OF TITHES._
The first law making the payment of tithes legally imperative was enacted
in 779 by Charles, King of France, in a general assembly of his estates,
spiritual and temporal, viz., “Concerning tithes, it is ordained that
every man give his tithe, and that they be distributed by the bishop’s
command.” [De decimis, ut unusquisque suam decimam donet, atque per
jussionem pontificis dispensentur.][49]
Charles’s civil law had only enforced by coercion the existing
ecclesiastical law or custom of payment of tithes; and the ecclesiastical
law was founded upon the Levitical law; but I hold that the Levitical
law, as regards tithes, was not binding on Christians. In the New
Testament there is no reference whatever to tithes to be given to the
Christian priesthood. None of the apostles claimed tithes from their
followers.
“The growing habit,” says Kemble, “of looking upon the clergy as the
successors and representatives of the Levites under the old law may very
likely have given the impulse to that claim which they set up to the
payment of tithes by the laity.”[50]
The establishment of the right in England followed the same course as
that in France.
It is important to give Milman’s observations on the working of the above
law.
“On the whole body,” he says, “of the clergy, Charlemagne bestowed the
legal claim to tithes. Already, under the Merovingians, the clergy had
given significant hints that the law of Leviticus was the perpetual law
of God. Pepin had commanded the payment of tithes for the celebration of
peculiar litanies during a period of famine. Charlemagne made it a law of
the empire; he enacted it in its most strict and comprehensive form as
_investing the clergy in a right to the tenth of the substance and of the
labour alike of freemen and serf_.”
“The collection of tithes was regulated by compulsory statutes; the
clergy took note of all who paid or refused to pay; four or eight, or
more, jurymen were summoned from each parish as witnesses for the claims
disputed; the contumacious were three times summoned; if still obstinate,
they were excluded from the Church; if they still refused to pay, they
were fined over and above the whole tithe, six solidi; if further
contumacious, the recusant’s house was shut up; if he attempted to enter
it, he was cast into prison to await the judgment of the next plea of
the Crown. The tithe was due on all produce, even on animals. The tithe
was usually divided into three portions, one for the maintenance of the
Church, the second for the poor, the third for the clergy; the bishop
sometimes claimed a fourth. He was the arbiter of the distribution; he
assigned the necessary portion for the Church, and appointed that of the
clergy. This tithe was by no means a spontaneous votive offering of the
whole Christian people. _It was a tax imposed by imperial authority and
enforced by imperial power._ It had caused one, if not more than one,
sanguinary insurrection among the Saxons. It was submitted to in other
parts of the empire, not without strong reluctance. Even Alcuin ventured
to suggest that if the apostles of Christ had demanded tithes, they would
not have been so successful in the propagation of the Gospel.”[51]
PAPAL LEGATES IN ENGLAND, A.D. 787.
For 190 years no papal legate appeared in England since Augustine landed
on our shores in 597. When Pope Gregory sent his missionaries to England,
he thought the whole country was inhabited by English, and so ordered
that there should be two provinces, each containing twelve Episcopal
sees and governed by two Metropolitans, one at London and the other
at York.[52] Still Gregory must have been aware of the existence of a
British Church in the island, for British bishops were present at the
Synods of Arles, A.D. 314; Sardica, 347; and Rimini, 359.
The following historical facts should be carefully noted. Each of
the several divisions of England—call them the Heptarchy or anything
else—owed its evangelization to a source not exclusively of the Roman
mission. Kent and Essex had certainly remained Christian under the
successors of Augustine; but Wessex, with Winchester as its capital, was
converted by Birinus a missionary from Northern Italy; East Anglia by
Felix, a Burgundian; Northumbria and Mercia by Irishmen; Essex by Cidd
and Sussex by Wilfrid. Therefore the Roman mission, after the death of
King Ethelbert whose successors relapsed into heathenism, was rather
a failure.[53] Augustine was narrow-minded and sectarian, attached to
everything Italian. There were seven British bishops then in England.
In 602 a meeting was held at which representatives of the Italian and
British Churches were present. Augustine demanded that the Celtic Church
should change the time of keeping Easter in order to adopt the Roman
time. The British bishops declined to do anything of the sort, and then
Augustine lost his temper and rebuked them. His conduct thus exasperated
the members of the Celtic Church. The Italians were looked upon as
foreigners seeking to lord it over the native Church, and the Scots and
Britons were determined to yield their independence to neither threats
nor entreaties.
Augustine claimed metropolitan power, but the Celtic bishops haughtily
rejected such a proposal.
On the death of Ethelbert, and when a difference arose between his son
who succeeded him and Laurentius the archbishop, Laurentius, Mellitus and
Justus, were about to throw up the Italian mission in England and retire
to Gaul.[54] London was lost, and the whole aspect of the Roman mission
was gloomy in the extreme, when the second Archbishop died in 619.
Mellitus the third died in 624. Justus who succeeded him had consecrated
Paulinus on the 21st of July, 625, as the first Archbishop of York. In
627 King Edwin held a Witenagemót in a _room_ where the introduction
of Christianity into the Kingdom of Northumbria was discussed. The
result was that the king and his nobles were converted to the Christian
religion.[55] The fact that a room was capable of accommodating the
Witenagemót has led to the conclusion that the number must be small.
Paulinus had fled from York in 633, eight years after his consecration,
and after the battle of Heathfield. But his place was taken by Bishop
Aidan, a missionary from Columba’s Irish monastery in Iona, who had
established an Episcopal see in Lindisfarne.
There is a letter of Pope Boniface V. to Archbishop Justus, written
between April, 624, and October, 625, conferring on him the primacy
of all Britain and ending with these words, “Hanc autem ecclesiam
utpote specialiter consistentam sub potestate et tuitione sanctæ Romanæ
ecclesiæ.”[56] [But this Church as specially remaining under the power
and instruction of the Roman Holy Church.]
In 634, Pope Honorius I. conferred on Archbishop Honorius, seven years
after his consecration, the primacy of all Britain.[57]
But there is no evidence to show that the Celtic bishops acquiesced
in this power of metropolitan over all England conferred by the
Pope on the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was therefore an arbitrary
assumption of ecclesiastical authority exercised by the Pope of Rome
over the Anglo-Saxon Church, simply because a Roman mission was sent to
Christianize the Saxon heathen. But other missionaries were at work in
the same field, who were quite unconnected with Rome or its bishop.
The time of keeping Easter was the terrible stumbling-block in the way of
a union between the Roman and Celtic missionaries.
In A.D. 664, a synod was held at Streaneshalch; the subject of the proper
time of keeping Easter was discussed in the presence of King Oswy of
Northumberland by Bishop Colman and Wilfrid. In the same year Deusdedit,
Archbishop of Canterbury, died. The result was that the king espoused the
Roman style.[58] Then followed an interregnum of four years. Wilfrid’s
strong opinions about Easter kept him out of the archiepiscopate.
It is vitally important to note this turn of the tide to Rome. I take all
particulars from Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. If this turn had not
occurred there would have been two separate and independent Churches in
England, the Celtic and the Roman.
In 664 a synod was convened in the monastery of Streaneshalch (Whitby)
presided over by King Oswy, who was at first a follower of the Celtic
ritual, for the discussion of the proper time for keeping Easter. Bishop
Colman spoke for the Celtic Church; Priest Wilfrid for the Roman time.
The latter had previously gone to Rome to learn the ecclesiastical
doctrine. Colman traced the Celtic time to the teaching of St. John the
Evangelist; Wilfrid traced his to St. Peter, and then quoted, “Thou art
Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it; and to thee I will give the keys of the
Kingdom of Heaven.” This quotation turned the scales, as will be seen
from what followed. “Is it true, Colman,” said the King, “that these
words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?” “It is true, O King!” “Can you
show,” said the King, “any such power given to your Columba?” Colman
answered “None.” “Then,” added the King, “do you both agree that these
words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven
were given to him by our Lord?” They both answered, “We do.” Then the
King concluded, “And I also say unto you that he is the door-keeper, whom
I will not contradict, but will, as far as I know and am able in all
things, obey his decrees, lest when I come to the gates of the Kingdom of
Heaven, there should be none to open them, he being my adversary who is
proved to have the keys.” The King having said this, all present resolved
to conform to the Roman ritual.[59] This was not the first nor the last
case in England in which St. Peter and the power of the keys did good
duty for the Church of Rome. The result of this discussion turned the
scales from Irish to Roman Christianity as the religion of England.
King Oswy had, before the synod met, held the Celtic views. His son, who
was present, held the Roman views. The result of this discussion led to
serious changes in the Church of England, for in the same year, A.D. 664,
the archbishopric of Canterbury became vacant, and Kings Oswy and Egbert
sent to Rome Wighard, an Englishman, whom they appointed, there to be
consecrated archbishop by the Pope, because there was no metropolitan in
England to perform this duty of consecration. He died there, and then the
Pope was empowered by the same kings to select and consecrate a suitable
person himself. “We have not been able,” writes Pope Vitalian, “now to
find a man docile and qualified in all respects to be a bishop according
to the tenor of your letter.”[60] Again, “King Egbert, being informed by
messengers that _the bishop they had asked of the Roman prelate_ was in
the kingdom of France.”[61]
From these two quotations, it is beyond all doubt or question that the
English kings did ask the Pope to select a qualified person for the see
of Canterbury. And it is absurd for Protestant writers, such as Soames,
in the face of these quotations, to assert that Theodore’s appointment
was a piece of skilful manœuvring on the part of the Pope. It was nothing
of the sort. It is but reasonable to assume that when Wighard died in
Rome, Vitalian wrote at once and informed the English kings of the event,
and that they then, although we have not their letters, asked the Pope
to choose a man for them. He therefore consecrated Theodore, a Greek by
birth and education. We all know what followed. In the same year the Pope
conferred on Theodore the “supremacy over all England.”[62] He landed in
England in 669, and held his see for twenty-one years. The Churches of
the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were independent of each other up to the arrival
of Theodore, who had energetically worked to unite all the Churches under
the metropolitan power of Canterbury. Here then we are on solid ground.
The Pope’s supremacy over all the Churches in England dates from the
archiepiscopate of Theodore.
There is no reference to tithes from the publication of Theodore’s
“Penitential,” probably about A.D. 686, until the two legates came to
England in 787, or a period of one hundred years, Archbishop Boniface
of Mentz, writing to Archbishop Cuthbert between 746 and 749, refers
to tithes having then been received by English bishops, “In daily
offerings,” he says, “and tithes of the faithful, they receive the milk
and wool of the sheep of Christ, but they take no care of the Lord’s
flock.” [“Lac et lanas ovium Christi oblationibus cotidianis ac decimis
fidelium suscipiunt; et curam gregis Domini deponunt.”[63]] Here is an
early instance of endowed bishops neglecting their flocks.
This brief sketch will enable the reader to follow further particulars.
KING OFFA.
Pope Adrian I. had risen from the position of a subject of the empire to
that of a sovereign prince through the instrumentality of Charlemagne.
Jaenbert, archbishop of Canterbury, thought that by the same person he
could exercise sovereign authority, like the Bishop of Rome, over the
kingdom of Kent as feudatory of Charlemagne. Offa, the Mercian king,
had assumed the title of King of Kent and treated it as a province of
Mercia. The King of France was too shrewd a diplomatist to encourage
such a foolish idea as that of the Archbishop against the terrible and
powerful Offa. But Offa found out this prelate’s intrigues, and instead
of sending an army to Kent to crush Jaenbert, he adopted another line of
policy of dividing his ecclesiastical province, and having a full-blown
archbishop in his own kingdom of Mercia, with his seat at Lichfield, and
endowed with the revenues which Jaenbert had drawn from that part of his
province.[64]
Offa had thus touched Jaenbert’s pocket, a very sore point with some
people. In order to carry out his design of changing the bishopric of
Lichfield into an archbishopric with metropolitan powers, he sent a
special mission to the Pope, and it was during this negotiation that the
shrewd Adrian came on the scene in English history. Adrian had reason
to fear Offa’s power, for there is a letter from Offa to Charlemagne,
intriguing to depose Adrian, and put a Frenchman in the chair of St.
Peter.[65]
Higbert, bishop of Lichfield (c. 779), was made archbishop by Offa in
785; he first signs the charter as archbishop in 788, but could not act
as Metropolitan, and so be on an equality with the Metropolitans of
Canterbury and York, without the pallium, which it was taken as granted
could only be given by the Pope. The pallium is a long strip of fine
woollen cloth, ornamented with crosses, the middle of which was formed
into a loose collar resting on the shoulders, while the extremities
before and behind hung down nearly to the feet. This pallium gave him the
power to ordain the bishops of his province, or to summon them to his
synod, or to sit on the archiepiscopal throne. It was the sign of the
Pope’s confirmation of his appointment as archbishop.
The Roman Curia at first hesitated to comply with the King’s request.
Offa was determined to carry his point, and he knew well by what means
he could realize his object. He resorted to wholesale bribery among the
Roman officials, and thus gained his point.[66] Peter’s pence probably
was also part of the bargain.[67]
I have gone into details on this subject on account of the results which
followed. Hitherto the Church of England was practically independent
of the Roman Church. But here was a splendid opportunity for so astute
a diplomatist as Adrian to advance Papal supremacy over the Anglican
Church. Certainly, Theodore’s appointment was a great step in the same
direction.
The Pope proposed, and Offa consented, that a mission should be sent
to England with a view of holding a council in Mercia, and of making
such regulations in the disorganized Church as may be found necessary.
Thus the Anglican Church lost her independence, and subsequently became
a slave to a foreign bishop and the Roman Curia. For what? What was
the _quid pro quo_? To convert the bishopric of Lichfield into an
archbishopric with metropolitan power from 788 to 801. The price was too
much. Higbert was the only person who ever bore the title of archbishop
of Lichfield. He died in 801, and his successor bore the title of bishop.
LEGATINE COUNCILS IN ENGLAND.
In 786, the two papal legates, accompanied by Wighood, a French abbot,
sent by Charlemagne to assist them, reached England with letters from
the Pope to King Offa, Aelfwold, King of Northumbria, and to the two
archbishops.
George, Bishop of Ostia, went to King Aelfwold’s court, and Theophylact,
Bishop of Todi, repaired to Offa’s. These kings then summoned councils
of their chief men, both spiritual and temporal. The Northern Council
assembled in 787; Offa’s Council assembled at Calchyth, _i.e._ Chelsea,
London, in the same year. The legates placed before each Council the
twenty Injunctions, which were drawn up at Rome previous to their
departure. After the Injunctions were read out at each Council, they
were signed by the two kings, the princes, two archbishops, bishops, and
abbots. These ecclesiastical synods, presided over by the kings, were
Witenagemóts, and the twenty Injunctions were so many laws regularly
and legally passed. The 17th Injunction relates to tithes; therefore
the payment of tithes received on this occasion a legal sanction in the
two kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria. Here then we put our fingers on
the first case in which tithes in England had been legally ordered to
be paid. Previous to 787 there existed the custom of voluntarily paying
tithes. Some paid, and some did not. But in this year and in these
two kingdoms only, the custom was made a legal obligation by the two
Anglo-Saxon Parliaments.
“What copy,” says Selden, “of this synod the centuriators had, or whence
they took it, I find not. But if it be good authority, _it is a most
observable law to this purpose_. Being made with such solemnity by both
powers of both states of Mercland (Mercia) and Northumberland, which
took up a very great part of England; and it is likely that it was made
general to all England.”[68] It is most important to note that for 120
years after these legatine councils were held, there is a dead silence in
our laws and chronicles as regards the payment of tithes.
The legates, on their return to Rome, made a report to the Pope of their
proceedings in England. The document was published in A.D. 1567 at Basle
by the Magdeburg Centuriators, from a manuscript of which they give no
account.[69] It contains, however, as Lord Selborne admits, abundant
internal proof of authenticity.[70] Yet he adds: “But because it is not
probable that, if the Injunctions which we now know from this source
only had entered into the body of the public law of the three greatest
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the eighth century, they would, in this country,
have entirely disappeared.”[71] When such arguments from negative
evidence as to laws are urged, I always think of Mr. Thorpe’s wise
remarks, that “what we now possess of Anglo-Saxon laws is but a portion
of what once existed.”[72] It contains twenty Injunctions, and was signed
by the two kings and all the bishops, including an Irish and Welsh bishop.
In this document the object of the mission is thus stated: “To travel
through and visit the island, and to confirm the authority of the Roman
Pontiff acquired there formerly through the mission of Augustine.”[73]
FIRST CIVIL LAW IN ENGLAND FOR PAYMENT OF TITHES.
The seventeenth Injunction is this:
“Of giving tithes, as it is written in the law. Thou shalt bring the
tenth part of all thy crops or first fruits into the house of the Lord
thy God. Again, by the prophet: ‘Bring,’ he says, ‘all the tithe into My
barn, that there may be meat in My house, and prove Me upon this if I
shall not open unto you the windows of heaven, and pour out a blessing
even to abundance, and I will rebuke the devourer for your sake, who
eats and spoils the fruit of your land, and your vineyard shall no more
be barren.’ As a wise man says, ‘No man can justly give alms of what
he possesseth, unless he had first separated to the Lord what he from
the beginning directed to be paid to Him.’ And on this account it often
happens that he who does not give a tenth is himself reduced to a tenth.
Wherefore we solemnly enjoin that all be careful to give tithes of all
that they possess, because it is the special part of the Lord God; and
let a man live on the nine parts and give alms, and we advise that these
things should be done secretly, because it is written, ‘When thou doest
thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee.’”[74]
“The terms of this article,” says Lord Selborne, “speak for themselves;
their character is evident, being that of a _pastoral precept, not legal
enactment_.”[75] He therefore rejects this as a civil enactment for
payment of tithes.
“There can be no doubt,” says Haddan and Stubbs, “that the legatine
canon, approved by the kings and Witan, had the force of law, although
it is uncertain by what means the law was enforced, or whether it was
enforced at all.”[76]
And Bishop Stubbs says in his history, “In 787 tithe was made
_imperative_ by the legatine councils held in England, which, being
attended and confirmed by the kings and ealdormen, had the authority of
Witenagemóts.”[77]
On the legal aspect of this question, Bishop Stubbs and Mr. Selden
are correct. The tithe Injunction was not made legal or imperative by
legatine councils _quâ_ legatine councils, but because these councils
were actual Witenagemóts, whose consent gave it the force of law in the
respective kingdoms of the two kings. They made _legal_ what was before
_customary_, without attaching any punishment to its non-fulfilment. It
will be seen as we proceed that the Anglo-Saxon laws had only endorsed
the custom which previously existed of paying tithe. And as this
custom became general, so the law enforced its payment. But this penal
enforcement was not carried out in the laws of 787, because the custom of
paying tithe was not then general.
It is important to notice here that the Anglo-Saxon ceorls, or churls,
or freemen, occupying the social position between the thane and slave,
had no voice whatever in the passing of the laws. The Witenagemóts, which
sanctioned the payment of tithe, and granted away the national property,
called folcland, to bishops, cathedral churches, and monasteries, were
composed of archbishops, bishops, aldermen, abbots, priests, deacons,
princes, dukes, earls, and thanes. In these assemblies, both secular and
ecclesiastical laws were enacted, and charters embodying grants of public
lands by kings were confirmed and ratified.
In the 17th Injunction, quoted above, there are references to Scripture
in support of tithes. The two main positions taken up by Selden in
his history of tithes are (1) that the tithes of the Christian Church
are not the continuation of the tithes of the Levitical law as put
forth by the Church in support of payment, and (2) that tithes had a
legal as opposed to a Divine origin in the Christian Church. These two
positions are impregnable, and can never be overthrown. The Levitical
tithes were given to the Levites, “for the service of the tabernacle
of the congregation.”[78] But charity was at the very root of all
primitive references to the payment of tithes in the Christian Church.
Some writers assent to Selden’s second position as stated above, but
will not admit that they were given for different purposes to those
given to the Levites, and yet they were. In this respect they indicate
inconsistency. They would be consistent if they should assert, which they
do not, that the English parsons receive their tithes by _Divine right,
and in continuation of the Levitical law_; then all the tithes would go
to the parson as they went to the Levites. But the history of the origin
of tithes in the Christian Church is quite opposed to all this. Those
who uphold the Divine right consider the tithes as private professional
incomes, and not as trust funds to be used for the benefit of the people.
Most of the sermons preached in the eighth century placed the summit of
Christian perfection in the payment of tithes. The people in England
reluctantly submitted to a general permanent tribute in the shape of
tithes.
The obligation of paying tithes was originally confined to predial or the
fruits of the earth. But about A.D. 1200 the obligation was extended to
every species of profit, and to the wages of every kind of labour. I have
already stated the passage from the Old Testament on which the Christian
clergy base their claim to personal tithes.
OFFA’S SUPPOSED LAW OF TITHES IN A.D. 794.
Dr. Humphrey Prideaux, Dean of Norwich, published a work on Tithes in
1709, 2nd ed. 1736. The title is, “The Original and Right of Tithes for
the maintenance of the ministry in a Christian Church.”
His main object was to prove the Divine in opposition to the legal right
of tithes. He quotes questionable authorities in support of his views.
In reference to King Offa, he says, “And in imitation [of Charlemagne’s
Capitulars] Offa made a law about the year 794, whereby he gave to the
Church the tithes of all his kingdom, which the historians tell us was
done to expiate for the death of Ethelbert, king of the East Angles, whom
in the year preceding he had caused basely to be murdered on his coming
to his court to marry his daughter.”[79] He quotes as his authority for
this story the chronicle of Bromton, abbot of Jervaulx, in Yorkshire,
who lived towards the end of the 14th century. Now, in referring to this
chronicle, I find that Prideaux made two wrong quotations, viz. (1) that
Offa made a law; (2) that he gave tithes of all his kingdom of Mercia.
Let John Bromton speak for himself. “This Offa, by the wicked advice of
his wife, treacherously (prodicionaliter) put to death St. Ethelbert,
king of the East Angles, who was on a visit to him for the purpose of
marrying his daughter; in atonement for which sin he brought down his
pride to such a degree of humility and penitence that he gave to _Holy
Church a tenth of all that belonged to him_.”[80]
Roger of Wendover gives a very graphic account of the murder of King
Ethelbert by Offa’s wife in 792, in order to add his kingdom to Mercia.
After his death Offa annexed it to his own.[81]
Polydore Vergil followed Bromton, and Holinshed followed Polydore. Selden
quotes from Polydore thus: “Offa’s giving the tithe of his estate _to the
clergy and the poor_.”[82]
Bromton says that he gave the tithe to Holy Church. Polydore explains
what Bromton meant by Holy Church; viz., “The clergy and the poor.”
Polydore was an Italian priest sent to England by the Pope to collect
Peters pence. He was archdeacon of Wells, and wrote a history of England,
which he dedicated to Henry VIII. In this history he explains what was
meant by “Holy Church” thus: “He (Offa) gave the tenth part of all his
goods to priests and other poor men.”[83] Holinshed says, “He granted the
tenth part of his goods unto churchmen and poor people.”[84]
The poor were always considered in grants of tithes or offerings, because
charity was, and is, the basis of the Christian religion. And this
fundamental principle of Christianity runs through all donations to Holy
Church in Anglo-Saxon and Norman times.
Lord Selborne considers Bromton’s statement as regards Offa’s grant of
tithes, as a “mythical story,”[85] because other chroniclers do not
mention it. Is Lord Selborne consistent in pushing on this theory of
ignoring any statement which is not confirmed by some other independent
writer? Let us take for example, the Ordinances made at Habam about A.D.
1012. They are found only in Bromton’s work. They are not confirmed by
any other writer, but are copied by writers from this source. Does Lord
Selborne state that they are “mythical,” because other chroniclers do not
mention them? No. He admits them as genuine.[86] So does Mr. Thorpe.[87]
If Lord Selborne were consistent, he would have rejected them, because
they are not confirmed by other independent writers. No one knows from
what source Bromton had taken his text.
Lord Selborne admits the other two statements made by Bromton; viz., (1)
King Ethelbert’s murder. (2) The grant of Peter’s Pence.
Now, it appears to me that this so-called “mythical story” was not
unreasonable, (1) because King Offa enacted the payment of tithes in his
own kingdom in 787; and (2) because it was a tenth of his own property
which was granted. It certainly was not a general enactment for the
payment of tithes throughout his kingdom.
Kemble says on this point, “I think that in this case he [Bromton] has
probability on his side, if we restrict the grant to Offa’s demesne
lands, or to a release of a tenth of the dues payable to the King on
folcland.”[88] This is exactly my opinion also.
Dean Prideaux is not correct when he states, “This law of Offa was that
which first gave the Church a civil right in tithes in this land, by way
of property and inheritance, and enabled the clergy to gather and recover
them as their legal due by the coercion of the civil power.”[89] This
dignitary of the Church, so often quoted, polluted the tithe question
with so much fiction and ill-digested conclusions that he has made the
true history of tithes very embarrassing. But there is one comfort that
the light which the latest researches have thrown upon the whole tithe
question has completely dissipated the numerous fictions which surround
it.
It is erroneously stated that when tithes originated in England there
were no poor, although our Lord says we should always have the poor among
us; and that the owner of the soil was bound to support all that were
born on his soil; that they worked and lived for him, and therefore there
was no necessity for making provision for the poor out of the tithes.
Now on this special point we have overwhelming genuine documentary
evidence that provision was distinctly made for the poor in the first
mention of tithes being paid in England. “It is not lawful,” says
Archbishop Theodore, “to pay tithes except to the _poor and strangers_.”
This is the first instance in which tithes are mentioned in English
writings. It is therefore wrong to say that there were no poor in this
country when the custom of paying tithes commenced in England. Theodore’s
statement was written not later than A.D. 686. The second reference to
tithes is in Bede’s “Eccl. Hist.,” where he states that Bishop Eadbert
gave (A.D. 686) _one-tenth of his own goods to the poor_.[90] “Not
tithes in particular,” says Lord Selborne, “but all church property
of every kind was from early times, and down even to the fourteenth
century, described as _the patrimony of the poor_. The poor were always,
and almost must be in an especial degree, objects of the Christian
ministry.”[91]
In Anglo-Saxon times the State did not provide for the poor. It
demanded that every man should be answerable for himself in a mutual
bond of association with his neighbour, or should place himself under
the protection of some lord. The man without means or protection was
treated as an outlaw. This was heathenism and not Christianity. The
grand humanitarian, philanthropic principles of the Christian religion
were taught the Saxon heathen from the very first by the Christian
missionaries. Unquestionably these missionaries found poor, outcast
Anglo-Saxons to whom they preached the Gospel, and assisted them
with their charity and protection. This was the special function of
the bishops and their clergy in their dioceses, and monks in their
monasteries. When they appealed to the people for their voluntary
offerings of tithes, the strongest point in that appeal was for means
to help the poor and strangers, and so tithes went partly towards poor
rates, partly towards a church rate to repair the edifice, and partly
towards the clerical sustentation fund. These were originally the three
distinct functions of tithes in England. There is sufficient evidence for
a reasonable conviction on this much-disputed point of the division of
tithes.
CHAPTER VII.
_KING ETHELWULF’S ALLEGED GRANT OF TITHES._
“But this establishment,” says Prideaux, “reached no further than the
kingdom of Mercia, over which Offa reigned, till Ethelwulf, about sixty
years after, enlarged it for the whole realm of England. And because
hereon the civil right of tithes in this land had its main foundation,
and this matter hath been much perplexed by those who have wrote of it,
both _pro_ and _con_, I shall for the clearing of it from all objections
and difficulties raised about it, here give a thorough and full account
of the whole matter,” etc.[92] This erroneous view has been long exploded.
It is amusing to read what Prideaux calls Selden’s able and learned
history of tithes: “Mr. Selden’s wild chimera,” and again, “his
wild conceit”; but nothing could be wilder than his own _conceit_
on the Divine origin of tithes in the Church of England. Another
Dean—Comber—also wrote strongly against Mr. Selden’s “Tithes.”[93]
Mr. Selden had taken Ethelwulf’s charter passed in a Witenagemót, A.D.
844, as the first legal title-deed of granting tithes to the clergy. In
this view he was followed by Prideaux, Hume, Collier, Rapin, Milman,
Echard, and others.
Sir Henry Spelman had taken another view, and supposed the grant to have
been the origin of the glebe-lands of the Church; but this opinion was
wrong, because churches had been endowed with glebe lands prior to these
grants.
The great question at issue is, “Did Ethelwulf’s charters grant a tithe
of yearly increase?” They did not.
I have consulted the following chronicles on this matter:—
(_a_) The Saxon Chronicle under the year A.D. 855 writes: “In this year
Ethelwulf, inscribing in a book the tenth part of the land and also of
his whole kingdom, dedicated it to God’s praise, and thereby seeking also
his own eternal salvation.” [“Decimam terræ suæ et regni quoque totius
partem libro inscribens, in laudem Dei, suæque etiam æternal saluti
consulens, dicavit.”]
(_b_) Simeon has under A.D. 855: “At this time King Ethelwulf tithed all
the empire of his kingdom for the redemption of his own soul and the
souls of his ancestors.” [“Quo tempore rex Ethelwulfus decimavit totum
regni sui imperium, pro redemptione animæ suæ et antecessorum suorum.”]
(_c_) Huntingdon, under A.D. 854, writes: “Ethelwulf in the nineteenth
year of his reign tithed all his land to the uses of the Churches for
God’s love and his own redemption.” [“Ethelwulfus decimo nono anno regni
sui totam terram suam adopus ecclesiarum decimavit, propter amorem Dei et
redemptionem sui.”]
(_d_) Wendover, A.D. 854: “In this same year the magnificent King
Ethelwulf conferred upon God and the blessed Mary and all the saints the
tenth part of his kingdom free from all secular services, exactions, and
tributes.” [“Eodem anno rex magnificus Athelwulfus decimam regni sui
partem Deo et Beatæ Mariæ et omnibus sanctis contulit, liberam ab omnibus
servitiis sæcularibus exactionibus et tributis.”]
(_e_) Malmesbury says: “Ethelwulf granted to Christ’s servants the tenth
part of all the ploughlands within his kingdom, free from all duties,
and discharged from all liability to disturbance.” [“Ethelwulfus decimam
omnium hidarum infra regnum suum Christi famulis concessit, liberam ab
omnibus functionibus absolutam ab omnibus inquietudinibus.”]
(_f_) Asser, surnamed Menavensis, from the place of his birth, writes,
under A.D. 855: “In the same year Ethelwulf released the tenth part
of his whole kingdom from all royal service and tribute, and by a
perpetual inscription offered it as a sacrifice on the cross of Christ
to the Trinity for the redemption of his own soul and the souls of his
ancestors.” [“Eodem anno Æthelwulfus decimam totius regni sui partem ab
omni regali servitio et tributo liberavit, in sempiternoque graphio in
cruce Christi pro redemptione animæ suæ et antecessorum suorum, uni et
trino Deo immolavit.”]
Asser was well acquainted with the traditions of the king’s house, having
been tutor and biographer of Alfred, Ethelwulf’s son.
(_g_) Ingulphus, A.D. 855: “It added to the prosperity of the old age
(of Guthlæ, Abbot of Crowland) that Ethelwulf, the famous king of the
West Saxons, when he recently returned from Rome (where, with his younger
son Alfred, he had visited abroad the thresholds of the Apostles Peter
and Paul and the most holy Pope Leo), with the free consent of all his
prelates and princes who ruled under him, the various provinces of all
England, then first endowed the whole English Church throughout his
kingdom with the tithes of the lands and other goods and chattels, by
a writing under his own hand in this form,” then follows the charter.
[“Accessit ad prosperitatem senii sui, quod inclytus rex west saxonum
Ethelwulphus cum de Roma, ubi limina Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, ac
sanctissimum Papam Leonem, multa devotione una cum juniore filio suo
Alfredo peregre visitaverat, noviter revertisset, omnium Prælatorum ac
principum suorum, qui sub ipso variis provinciis totius Angliæ præerat,
gratuito consensu, tunc primo cum decimis omnium terrarum, ac bonorum
aliorum sive catallorum, universam dotaverat ecclesiam Anglicanam per
suum regium chirographum confectum inde in hunc modum.”][94]
(_a_) Refers to grant of lands, and not tithes; (_b_, _c_) use the word
decimavit; (_d_, _e_, _f_) refer to a grant of lands freed from secular
services, exactions, and tributes; (_g_) refers to tithes.
The word _decimare_ had been often used as regards gifts in tenths quite
apart from the idea of tithes. The whole difficulty in reference to
Ethelwulf’s grants, turns upon his use of the word tenth as a convenient
measure for ecclesiastical and other benefactions. This fact testifies
to another fact; namely, the growing recognition of the tithe as the
clerical portion.[95]
In order to get a correct idea of the application of the charters, it is
essentially necessary to make oneself familiar with the proper meanings
of “Folcland” and “Bocland.”
FOLCLAND AND BOCLAND.
_Folcland_ was the general property of the community—_i.e._, Anglo-Saxon
national property—_terra fiscalis_, and its possessors were bound to
assist in repairing royal vills and in other public works; and were also
liable to have travellers quartered upon them for subsistence. They were
required to give hospitality to kings and great men in their progresses
through the country; to furnish them with carriages and relays of horses,
and to extend the same assistance to their messengers, followers, and
servants, and even to persons who had charge of their hawks, horses,
and hounds. Such are the burdens from which lands were liberated when
converted by charter into bocland. For breach of these conditions they
were liable to forfeiture or witeraeden; that is, fines. Freemen of
all ranks and conditions, as well as common people, held folcland. The
possessor had only a life-interest in it. On his demise the king could
dispose of it to another. The holder may also possess bocland. Every one
was desirous of having grants of folcland, and to convert as much as
possible of it into bocland.
_Bocland_ was land held by book or charter. It had been land severed by
an act of the government from the folcland, and, by a written instrument
was converted into an estate of perpetual inheritance. The possessors
of bocland were released from all services to the public except the
_trinoda necessitas_; that is, contributing to military expeditions,
repairs of castles and bridges. The Church contrived in some cases to
obtain exemption from them, but in general its lands, like those of
others, were subject to them. The greater part of the charters granting
exemptions to the Church, are forgeries. The estates of the higher
nobility consisted chiefly of bocland. Bishops and abbots had bocland
of their own in addition to what they held in right of the Church. _The
Anglo-Saxon kings had private estates of bocland, and these estates
did not merge in the crown, but were devisable by will, gift, or sale,
and transmissible by inheritance in the same manner as bocland held by
a subject._ Among the Anglo-Saxons royalty was elective. It sometimes
happened that on the demise of the king his nearest blood did not succeed
to the throne. The former king’s private estate did not then pass to his
successor, but to his own children. Hence the advantage of a private
estate in addition to the demesne or crown lands. The folcland could not
be converted into bocland without the consent of the king by and with
the advice of his Witenagemót, an expression of the national will in its
distribution. There is hardly a Saxon charter creating bocland, which is
not said to have been granted by the king with the consent and leave of
his nobles and great men. “Cum consilio, consensu et licentia procerum,”
or similar expressions. If that consent were withheld, the king’s grant
would be invalid. There was a case of this sort. Baldred, king of Kent,
had given to Christ Church, Canterbury, the manor of Malling, in the
county of Sussex; but the king having offended his nobles, they refused
to ratify his grant, and therefore the grant had not taken effect until
King Egbert, in 838, with his counsel assembled at Kingston-upon-Thames,
restored the manor to the Church through the action of Archbishop
Ceolnoth.[96]
If the king himself received a grant of folcland, he had first to receive
the consent of his Witan. Ethelwulf booked twenty hides of folcland to
himself in his private capacity, but he had the consent of his Witan;[97]
Offa did the same.
When folcland was appropriated to the king’s subsistence, that is, to
the maintenance of his household, court, etc., it was said to be held
_in demesne_, or let out to farm; afterwards called Terra Regis, or
crownland. A great part of the “Terra Regis” of Domesday was folcland,
or public property of the State, and the king was only the usufructuary
possessor. We have an important definition of Terra Regis at page 75
of the “Exon Domesday,” viz., “The demesne land of the king _belonging
to the kingdom_,” and we find a similar definition in the “Exchequer
Domesday.”[98]
In dealing with Ethelwulf’s charters, it is essentially necessary to
state Mr. Kemble’s six canons of tests by which the Saxon charter may not
only be distinguished from a will or the record of a synodal decree, but
whether it is spurious.
These canons are (1) The Invocation; (2) The Proem; (3) The Grant; (4)
The Sanction; (5) The Date; (6) The Teste.
(1) The Invocation is a short ejaculation which usually forms the first
member of the document. (2) The Proem is a general observation on the
virtue of charity to the Church, the nothingness of earthly possessions,
and the advantage of purchasing with them heavenly treasures. (3) The
Grant, which is the important part of every charter. (4) The Sanction,
by which is meant the punishment attached to the violation of the
premises. It is called the “Si quis” clause. (5) The Date. (6) The Teste
or Subscriptions. In almost all ecclesiastical documents the witnesses
subscribed with their own hands.[99]
ETHELWULF’S CHARTERS.
In Ethelwulf’s Charters we have all these points. I shall omit 1, 2, and
4, and give here 3, 5, and 6.
(3) Charter A.—“Wherefore I Ethelwulf, king of the West-Saxons, with the
consent of my bishops and princes, have resolved on a salutary council
and uniform remedy and have determined to make a gift of a certain
hereditary portion of land to all ranks _already in possession_ of it,
whether monks or nuns serving God, or laypeople, always the tenth hide,
where it may be the least yet the tenth part perpetually enfranchised
so as to be free and protected from all secular services, royal dues,
tributes, greater and lesser taxes, which we call ‘Witereden’ and that
it be free from all things for the deliverance of our souls and sins,
for serving God only, without military expedition and bridge-building and
castle fortification, so that they may more diligently without ceasing
pour forth their prayers to God for us, for which we in some degree
lighten their secular services,” etc.
(5) “Now this Charter of donation was written in the year of the
incarnation of our Lord 844, in the seventh Indiction, on the day of the
nones of November, in the city of Winchester, in the church of St. Peter,
before the high altar.”
(6) It was signed by King Ethelwulf, by bishops Elmstan and Aelstan, 6
dukes, 3 abbots, and 16 thanes.
(3) Charter A.—“Quamobrem ego Ethelwulfus, rex Occidentalium Saxonum
cum consilio episcoporum ac principum meorum, consilium salubre atque
uniforme remedium affirmavi, ut aliquam porcionem terrarum hereditarium
antea possidentibus gradibus omnibus, sive famulis et famulabus Dei
Deo servientibus, sive laicis, semper decimam mansionem ubi minimum
sit tum decimam partem in libertatem perpetuam perdonare dijudicavi
ut sit tutus atque munitus ab omnibus secularibus servitutis, fiscis,
regalibus tributis majoribus et minoribus, sive taxationibus quod nos
dicimus Witereden; sitque liber omnium rerum pro remissione animarum et
peccatorum nostrorum Deo soli ad serviendum, sine expeditione, et pontis
instructione, et arcis municione, ut eo diligencius pro nobis ad Deum
preces sine cessacione fundant, quo eorum servitutem secularem in aliqua
parte levigamus pro honore Sancti Michaelis Archangeli et Sancte Marie
Regine gloriose Dei genetricis.”
(5) “Scripta est autem hæc donacionis cartula anno Dominicæ Incarnacionis
DCCCXLIIII., Indictione vii., die quoque nonas Novembris. In civitate
Wentana in ecclesia, Sancti Petri ante altare capitale, et hoc fecerunt.”
This Charter is printed by Kemble in the “Codex Diplomaticus,” vol. v. p.
93, No. 1048, from a Malmesbury cartulary of the 14th century, Lansd.,
417, f. 6, which Haddan and Stubbs collated with a Malmesbury cartulary
in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Wood., donat. 5, of the thirteenth
century, see “Councils,” iii. p. 630, etc. The rubric in the Bodleian
cartulary stands thus: “Quomodo Æthelwulfus Rex decimavit terram suam Deo
et sanctæ Ecclesiæ; et quota parte hujus decimæ Meldunensem Ecclesiam
ditaverit,” etc. [“In what way King Ethelwulf decimated his land to
God and Holy Church, and with what part of that tenth he enriched the
Church of Malmesbury, for the honour of St. Michael the Archangel and
St. Mary.”] I have taken the orthography of the charter from Mr. Birch’s
“Cartularium Saxonicum,” ii. No. 447, p. 26.
I have translated _decimam mansionem_ as the tenth hide.
It appears from this Malmesbury cartulary that annexed to it was
a statement of particular lands already in possession (_antea
possidentibus_) of the monastery which by this charter were enfranchised.
But in the copies of this charter the schedule of enfranchised land is
omitted except in this particular case of Malmesbury.
As regards the date of this charter, Helmstan, whose name appears in it,
was bishop of Winchester from 838 to 852. Swithun succeeded him in 852.
If, therefore, the charter be dated 854 with Helmstan’s name in it, the
date is spurious. I have taken the episcopal dates from Bishop Stubbs’s
“Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum,” ed. 1858.
Wilkins gives the general provisions of this grant with the date A.D.
844, Indiction iv., but makes a serious blot by inserting Swithun’s name
instead of Helmstan’s.[100]
Selden says, “In Malmesbury the date of the first charter is DCCCXLIV,
Indict. iv., v. Nonas Novembris; plainly it is false, neither could that
Indiction be in the charter of the year DCCCXLIV, which fell in the
seventh Indiction.”[101]
ETHELWULF’S SECOND CHARTER OF GRANTS.
Recital of the grant of Ethelwulf, king of the West-Saxons, to the Church
of England, of a tenth of lands, etc. Grant by the same to Huntsige, the
thane of land at Worthy, _county of Hants_, Easter, 22 April, 854.
Charter B.—“Wherefore I, Ethelwulf, by the grace of God, king of the
West-Saxons, in the holy and most solemn feast of Easter, for the health
of my soul and prosperity of my kingdom and of all the people by Almighty
God committed to my care, with my bishops, earls and all my nobles, have
resolved on a salutary counsel, that I have not only given the tenth part
of the lands through our kingdom to Holy Church, but also have granted
to our ministers placed in the same to enjoy them in perpetual liberty;
so that such grant shall remain firm and immutable, freed from all royal
services, and from all other secular services whatsoever.”
Here follows a statement that it had pleased Ælthstan, bishop of
Sherborne, and Swithun, bishop of Winchester, with all those serving God,
to agree that on every Saturday in each church five psalms shall be sung,
and every presbyter shall sing two masses—one for King Ethelwulf and the
other for the bishops and nobles, etc.
Then follows the date. “This charter was written in the year of the
incarnation of our Lord 854, in the second Indiction, on Easter Day, in
our Palace at Wilton.”
Charter B.—“Quapropter ego Æthelwulf gratia Dei Occidentalium Saxonum
rex, in sancta ac celeberrima Paschale sollempnitate, pro meæ remedio
animæ et regni prosperitate et populi ab omnipotente Deo michi conlati
consilium salubre cum episcopis, comitibus, et cunctis optimatibus meis
perfeci ut decimam partem terrarum per regnum nostrum non solum sanctis
æcclesiis darem verum etiam et ministris nostris in eodem constitutis
in perpetuam libertatem habere concessimus. Ita ut talis donatio fixa
incommutabilisque permaneat ab omni regali servitio et omnium sæcularium
absoluta servitute.”
“Scripta est autem hæc cartula, Anno Dominicæ incarnationis DCCCLIIII.;
Indictione ii. die vero Paschali in palatio nostro quod dicitur Wiltun.”
Then follow the names of the king, two of the king’s sons, bishops
Alhstan and Swithun, six dukes, two abbots, sixteen thanes.
This is found in Kemble’s “Codex Diplomaticus,” No. 1054, and he takes
his text from the Codex Wintoniensis, MS. Brit. Mus., Add. 15,350, fol.
89.
Mr. Kemble marks this charter as doubtful, but Haddan and Stubbs remark:
“This doubt lies on a very large portion of the charters contained in the
Codex Wintoniensis. The above is, however, the best specimen of the class
of charters which it represents.”[102]
Mr. Kemble thinks that Ethelwulf’s first grant in 844 does not refer to
tithing in the legal sense of the term. The passages found in the ancient
chronicles, as quoted above, refer, in his opinion, to two several
transactions; one which took place in 854 (844?) before the king’s
visit to Rome; the second in the year 857, after his return to England.
“Ethelwulf,” Mr. Kemble says, “being humbled and terrified by the
distress of wars and the ravages of barbarous and pagan invaders, devised
as a useful remedy thus: he determined to liberate from all those various
exactions and services, which went by the general name of ‘Witereden,’
the tenth part of the estates which, though hereditary tenure had grown
up in them, were still subject to the general obligations of folcland,
whether they were in the hands of laics or clergy; that when the
estate amounted to ten hides, one was to be free; when it was a very
small quantity, at all events a tenth was to be enfranchised; and as
the greater part of this land was either in the hands of the clergy,
or was very likely ultimately to come there, he granted this act of
enfranchisement that on these estates the holders might be the better
able to devote themselves to the services of God, all other services
being discharged except indeed the inevitable three.”[103]
Mr. Kemble further adds, “Ethelwulf did three distinct things at
different times:—
“(1) He first released from all payments, except the inevitable three,
a tenth part of the folclands or unenfranchised lands, whether in the
tenancy of the Church or of his thanes. In this tenth part of the lands,
so burdened in his favour, he annihilated the royal rights, regnum or
imperium, and as the lands receiving this privilege were secured by
charter, the chronicle can justly say that the king booked them to the
honour of God.[104]
(2) “The second thing he did was his giving a tenth part of his
own private estates of book-land to various thanes or clerical
establishments.[105]
(3) “And, lastly, upon every ten hides of his own land, he commanded that
one poor man, whether native born or stranger, that is, whether of Wessex
or some other kingdom, should be maintained in food or clothing.”[106]
This is remarkable as the beginning of secular provision for the poor,
a proof that there were poor in Anglo-Saxon times, which some deny, in
order to show there was no need of a provision for them out of the tithes!
“Mr. Kemble’s views,” say Haddan and Stubbs, “of the several cartularies,
and his interpretation of them, may be regarded as provisionally
satisfactory.”[107]
Charter C.—Here is an abridgment of the charter given by William of
Malmesbury, with altered date A.D. 855, November 5th, written at
Winchester. I give only the grant, so that it may be compared with
Charters A and B.
“Wherefore I, Ethelwulf, king of the West Saxons, with the consent of my
bishops and princes, resolved on a salutary counsel and also a uniform
remedy; viz., to give _a certain portion of my land_ to God, the blessed
Mary and all the saints, possessing it by a perpetual right; viz., the
_tenth part of my land_, so as to be safe, protected and free from all
secular services, and also from royal tributes, the greater and less, or
from the taxes which we call ‘Witereden,’”[108] etc. Attention is drawn
to the words in italics.
SELDEN’S CONCLUSION ON ETHELWULF’S CHARTER.
“If we well consider the words of the chiefest of these ancients, that
is, Ingulphus, we may conjecture that the purpose of the charter was to
make a general grant of tithes payable freely and discharged from all
kind of exactions used in that time.”[109] Selden is not correct in this
conclusion; for if we take the collateral evidence of the chronicles, we
shall find that the king’s grant referred to land and not to tithe of
increase.
Selden says, “In Matthew of Westminster no other _decima_ is mentioned
in it than _decima terræ meæ_. Out of the corrupted language [of the
charter] it is hard to collect what the exact meaning of it was.”[110]
Here Selden unquestionably expresses a doubt as to the interpretation of
the charter. And we are therefore bound to give him credit as having been
the first to doubt Ingulph’s interpretation of the charter; namely, that
“Ethelwulf first endowed the whole English Church throughout his kingdom
with the tithes of the lands.” Therefore I agree with Lord Selborne that
Haddan and Stubbs have not done justice to Selden in not having taken
this doubtful statement into consideration.[111]
CHAPTER VIII.
_TITHE LAWS MADE BY ANGLO-SAXON KINGS._
Prideaux says: “For King Alfred, the son of Ethelwulf, about thirty years
afterwards (885), having published a body of laws for the well government
of the realm, in one of them strictly enjoins the payment of these tithes
to the Church.”[112] He quotes as his authority for this statement,
Spelman’s “Concilia,” tome i. p. 360, No. 38: “Decimas, primigenia, et
adulta tua Deo dato.” This is the Vulgate translation of the Saxon.
Thorpe translates the Saxon thus: “Thy tithes and thy firstfruits of
moving and growing things, render thou to God.”[113]
It is important to note that King Alfred placed a long Scriptural preface
to his secular laws. He began with the ten commandments, translated and
transposed them in a strange manner. It is all in Anglo-Saxon, which
Alfred had translated from the Vulgate which they taught him at Rome when
there in his younger days. The passage quoted from Spelman is taken from
Exodus xxii. 29, and this is in Alfred’s Scriptural preface to his laws.
The Vulgate translation is, “Decimas tuas et primitias tuas non tardabis
reddere.” [“Thou shalt not delay to give thy tithes and firstfruits.”]
The renderings of this passage in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and English
Bible, are _paraphrases_ and _not translations_ of the Hebrew text. For
example, “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits
and of thy liquors.”[114] Again, “Thou shalt not delay to offer from thy
abundance and of thy liquors.”[115]
This passage in his preface was not one of his laws on tithes, as
Prideaux states. “In King Alfred’s laws,” says Lord Selborne, “there
is nothing about tithes. He made a treaty of peace with Guthrum; in
that treaty there was nothing about tithes.”[116] I quote his lordship
because recently the Rev. M. Fuller has dedicated “Our Title Deeds” to
him. Should his lordship take the trouble to read through that book, he
would be astonished at some of the statements made in it; _e.g._, Mr.
Fuller says that King Ethelbert of Kent passed laws for the payment of
tithes, and that King Alfred passed a law for their payment, quoting, of
course, for the second case, Dean Prideaux, who has misled so many on
the subject of tithes. “In a code of laws,” says Mr. Fuller, “published
during Alfred’s reign, he in one of them strictly enjoins the payment of
these tithes to the Church.”[117] And adds, “In this Digest of the laws
of his predecessors, Alfred made not a _new_ law for tithes; he merely
copied from them whose laws have long since been lost.”[118] Now, the
only reference to tithes in Alfred’s laws is the above quotation, which
he made in his preface from the Vulgate translation of Exodus xxii. 29.
“No legislative enactment,” says Mr. Kemble, “can be shown on the subject
of tithes in the codes of Alfred, Ini, or the Kentish kings.”[119]
“It is not easy to say,” says Johnson, “with what view Alfred put this
Scriptural preface to his laws, if it were not to show his great esteem
for God’s word. There is no hint given that he expected his people should
make the judicial precepts of Moses the rule of their action,”[120] etc.
Again, Mr. Fuller says, “Alfred, with the consent of his Witan, entered
into a treaty with Guthrum, by which the former ceded to the latter the
provinces of East Anglia and Northumberland upon six conditions, the
sixth being, ‘If any man withhold tithes, let him pay lah-slit (a fine of
twenty shillings) among the Danes, and wite (a fine of thirty shillings)
among the English.’”[121] Those Danes were heathen, and it seems strange
that they were compelled to pay tithes to the Christian Churches. But
this treaty was not concluded between Alfred and Guthrum I., but between
his son Edward and a Guthrum II. “Our Title Deeds” must have been very
loosely prepared. The rubric to this law states, “This is the ordinance
which King Alfred and King Guthrum, and afterwards King Edward and King
Guthrum, chose and ordained.”[122] “The rubrics to these laws,” says Mr.
Thorpe, “are very defective in the manuscripts.”[123] “The party,” adds
Mr. Thorpe, “to this treaty with Edward was apparently a second Guthrum,
who, according to Wallingford, was living in Edward’s time, and probably
succeeded Eohric, the immediate successor of Guthrum I.”[124] Edward the
Elder succeeded his father in 901, and died in 924. The treaty was made
in 907. Guthrum I. received East Anglia and Northumberland in 880, and
died in 891.
Selden says, “It may be seen by this that some other law preceded for the
payment of tithes, or else that the right of them was otherwise supposed
clear.”[125] There may have been some previous secular law which is now
lost. As I have stated before, we have lost most valuable Anglo-Saxon
charters and laws during the incursions of the Danes and the disturbed
state of the whole country. There is a dead silence as regards tithes
for 120 years between the Council of Chelsea, A.D. 787, and the treaty
between Edward and Guthrum, A.D. 909. “What we now possess,” says Thorpe,
“of Anglo-Saxon laws is but a portion of what once existed.”[126]
ATHELSTAN’S LAW ON TITHES.
Athelstan succeeded his father in A.D. 924, and in 927 published the
following Ordinance:—
“I, Athelstan the king, with the counsel of Wulfhelm, archbishop, and of
my other bishops, make known to the reeves at each burgh, and beseech you
in God’s name, and by all His saints, and also by my friendship, that
ye first of my own goods render the tithes both of live stock and of
the year’s earthly fruits, so as they may most rightly be either meted
or told or weighed out; and let the bishops then do the like from their
own goods, and my ealdormen and my reeves the same. And I will that the
bishops and the reeves command it to all those who ought to obey them,
that it be done at the right term. Let us bear in mind how Jacob the
patriarch spake, ‘Decimas et hostias pacificas offeram tibi’; and how
Moses spake in God’s law, ‘Decimas et primitias non turdabis offerre
Domino.’ It is for us to think how awfully it is declared in the books:
if we will not render the tithes to God, that He will take from us the
nine parts when we least expect; and moreover we have the sin in addition
thereto.”[127]
This is unquestionably the first general law in England for the payment
of predial and mixed tithes. I admit, and have stated, that tithes were
paid by Edward’s treaty with Guthrum, and that clause in the treaty
implied that they were paid previously, but there was no public law
recorded like Athelstan’s, which set forth the payment of predial and
mixed tithes.
Now, Lord Selborne states that Athelstan’s ordinance is not in form a
public legislative Act, but merely a royal message addressed to his
reeves, bishops, and ealdormen.[128] Against this opinion, I place the
opinions of Selden, Kemble, Bishop Stubbs, and Dean Prideaux.
(1) Selden says: “King Athelstan, about the year 930, by the advice and
consent of the bishops of the land made a general law for predial and
mixed tithes.”[129]
(2) Kemble says: “It is well known that the earliest legislative
enactment on the subject of tithes in the Anglo-Saxon laws is that of
Athelstan, bearing date in the first quarter of the tenth century.”[130]
Kemble further adds: “The tithes mentioned by Athelstan is the predial
tithe, or that of the increase of the fruits of the earth, and increase
of the young of cattle. The nature of the sanction of tithes is obvious;
it is the old, unjustifiable application of the Jewish practice, which
fraud or ignorance had made general current in Europe.”[131]
(3) Bishop Stubbs says: “The formula by which the co-operation of the
Witenagemót was expressed is definite and distinct. Alfred issues his
code with the counsel and consent of his Witan; Athelstan writes to the
reeves with the counsel of the bishops.”[132]
Here Bishop Stubbs _includes_ Athelstan’s law among the examples he
gives as regards the definite and distinct formula used to indicate the
co-operation of the Witenagemót. And the Bishop’s opinion is the most
important because Lord Selborne’s objection is founded on a technical
point, viz., the _formula_ used. But the Bishop admits that the
formula used in this case was an indication of the co-operation of the
Witenagemót.
(4) Dean Prideaux says, “This law was passed in a Parliament of all
England, assembled at Grately, about the year 928, etc.”[133]
Dr. Lingard calls the law a “Circular letter which the king sent to
his officers. From the tenour of this circular it seems probable that
numerous pleas of exemption had been set up in favour of the lands
belonging to the Crown, the bishops and the ealdormen, and also of lands
held under them by others.”[134]
Lord Selborne then agrees with Dr. Lingard; the former calls it “a royal
message to his reeves,” the latter, “a circular letter from the king to
his officers.” If so, why should the Parliamentary _formula_ have been
used?
(5) Mr. Thorpe may also be added to the four. He clearly lays down the
rule by which he was guided in classifying and separating the Laws from
the _Monumenta Ecclesiastica_. “All ordinances,” he says, “proceeding
from the king and Witenagemót, whether of a secular or ecclesiastical
character, _are considered as Laws_. Those without such sanction, and
of a nature strictly ecclesiastical, are placed among the _Monumenta
Ecclesiastica_.”[135] He placed it among the Laws.
The question here is, What constitutes a Witenagemót? The word means
a meeting of the Witan or wise men. It was a counsel of wise men. Our
information is indeed very vague as to its constitution. There is no
law extant prescribing or defining the constitution of the Witenagemót.
A synod with the king present would constitute a Witenagemót. There is
no trace whatever that it was representative or elective, or that there
was a property qualification. It is on record that the king named the
members who were to attend.[136] But the members were the leading men
of the country, viz., the archbishops, bishops, abbots, presbyters and
even deacons (the priests and deacons doubtless attended on the bishops),
princes, ealdormen and thanes.
The formula used in this law is, “The king, with the council of his
archbishops and other bishops.” This was a council of wise men presided
over by the king. And whether it was called a synod or a council, the
laws passed by such a meeting formed the general laws of the kingdom.
The objections raised by some writers to the formula used in making
Anglo-Saxon laws, and to the words Ordinance, Council and Synod, are
groundless and have no force. Mr. Fuller in “Our Title-Deeds” is
conspicuous for this sort of objections. He says, “It was _not_ an act of
the Witan, but was an Ordinance made at a council or synod only, at the
council of Greatanlea,” etc.[137]
Let us examine the formula used in other laws generally admitted to be
laws.
(1) “The Laws of King Edward.” “Edward’s Ordinances,” “King Edward
commands all his reeves,” etc.[138] There is not a word here about the
Witan, archbishop, bishop, etc., yet they are admitted as laws.
Athelstan’s secular ordinances passed at the council of Greatanlea,[139]
had been enacted by the same Witan which enacted the King’s Ordinance to
his reeves as regards tithes. If one is a “Royal message” or “Circular
letter,” so are the secular Ordinances. But the latter are admitted to be
laws, so therefore are the former.
To carp about the words “council” and “synod,” shows ignorance of the
Latin translation of Witenagemót, viz., _concilium_, _conventus_,
_synodus_, etc.
“Although synods,” says Kemble, “might more properly be confined to
ecclesiastical conventions, _the Saxons do not appear to have made any
distinction_, probably because ecclesiastical and secular regulations
were made by the same body, and at the same time.
“But it is very probable that the Frankish system of separate houses for
the clergy and laity prevailed here also, and that merely ecclesiastical
affairs were decided by the king and clergy alone. There are some Acts
in which the signatures are those of clergymen only; others in which
the clerical signatures are followed by those of the laity; and in one
remarkable case of this kind, the king signs at the head of each list,
as if he had in fact affixed his mark successively in the two houses as
president of each. This is in Codex Diplomaticus, No. 116.”[140]
THE LETTER OF THE KENTISH MEN TO KING ATHELSTAN.
Dr. Lingard makes the following remark on the thankful acknowledgment
which the Kentish men sent the King on the promulgation of his Ordinance
dated A.D. 627.
“The meaning is evident; in consequence of the King’s admonition, they
promised to pay tithes.”[141]
Mr. Freeman makes some very important observations on the above letter.
“As the other kingdoms merged in Wessex, the Witan of the other kingdoms
became entitled to seats in the Gemót of Wessex, now become the common
Gemót of the Empire. But Gemót of the other kingdoms seem to have gone on
as local bodies, dealing with local affairs, and perhaps giving a formal
assent to the resolutions of the central body. The letter of the Kentish
men to Athelstan reads like an act of acceptance on the part of a local
Gemót, of resolutions passed by the general body.”[142]
Mr. Freeman then opposes Dr. Lingard’s theory and also Lord Selborne’s,
“for the resolutions of the general body” were those of “the common Gemót
of the Empire.” He therefore sides with Selden, Kemble, Stubbs, etc.,
that the Ordinance passed at Greatanlea was a general law.
But I shall quote the most conclusive evidence to show that the
Ordinances passed at Greatanlea were legal enactments, viz., “That they
would all hold the frith (peace) as King Athelstan and his Witan had
counselled at Greatanlea.”[143]
DEFINITION OF TITHE.
Tithe was the tenth part of the increase yearly arising and renewing from
the profits of lands, the stock upon lands and the personal industry of
the inhabitants.[144]
Tithes were (1) Predial, (2) Mixed, and (3) Personal.
(1) Predial tithes were the crops and wood which grew and issued from the
ground. (2) Mixed tithes were wool, sheep, cattle, pigs and milk. They
were called _mixed_ because they were predial in respect of the ground
on which the animals were fed, and personal from the care they required.
(3) Personal tithes were the tenth part of the clear gain after charges
were deducted; in other words, on net profits of artificers, merchants,
carpenters, smiths, masons, and all other workmen. Even the servant-girls
paid a tenth of their wages. The Scriptural passage quoted in support of
personal tithes is Deuteronomy xii. 6. “And thither ye shall bring your
tithes and heave offerings of your hand.”
By 2nd and 3rd Edward VI., c. xiii. s. 7, “Every person exercising
merchandizes, bargaining and selling clothing, handicraft, or other art
or faculty, by such kind of persons and in such places as heretofore
within these forty years have accustomably used to pay such personal
tithes, or of right ought to pay, other than such as be common day
labourers, shall yearly, before the feast of Easter, pay for his
personal tithe the tenth part of his clear gains, his charges and his
expenses, according to his estate, condition or degree, to be therein
abated, allowed and deducted.” Sec. 9. “And if any person refuse to pay
his personal tithes in form aforesaid, that then it shall be lawful to
the ordinary of the diocese, where the party that ought to pay the
said tithes is dwelling, to call the same party before him, and by his
discretion to examine him by all lawful and reasonable means otherwise
than by the party’s own corporal oath, concerning the true payment of
the said personal tithes.” Sec. 12. “Except the inhabitants of the city
of London, Canterbury, and the suburbs of the same, and also those of
any other town or place that used to pay their tithes by their houses,
otherwise than they ought or should have done before the making of this
Act.”
THE LAWS OF KING EDMUND.
He succeeded his brother Athelstan A.D. 940.
The Laws Ecclesiastical. “King Edmund assembled a great synod at London,
during the Holy Easter-tide (about A.D. 994), as well of ecclesiastical
as of secular degree,” etc.
“Of Tithes and Church-Scots.”
Act 2. “A tithe we enjoin to every Christian man by his Christendom, and
Church-scot and Rome-feoh, and plough-alms. And if any one will not so
do, let him be excommunicated.”
Act 5. “We have also ordained that every bishop repair the houses of God
in his own [district], and also remind the king that all God’s churches
be well conditioned as is very needful for us.”[145]
Church-Scot = _Cyriesceat_ = Firstfruits, _primitiæ seminum_. The Jews
had been commanded to give firstfruits[146] as well as tithes. Here again
the Levitical legislation was taken to be applicable to the Christian
ministry, and hence we find firstfruits as well as tithes given to them.
This impost remained a fixed charge upon the land till the time of the
Conquest, when it ceased to be generally paid.[147] The first instance of
this payment in Anglo-Saxon law is found in the laws of King Ina [A.D.
690]: “Let church-scots be rendered at Martinmas. If any one do not
perform that, let him forfeit 60 shillings and render the Church-scot
twelve-fold.”[148] This Act was passed more than 200 years before the
legal enactment of tithes. It is strange that we should find firstfruits
but not tithes enacted by King Ina. The omission proves that tithes
were not then paid in Wessex. In Athelstan’s law passed at Greatanlea,
it is stated, “I will also that my reeves so do that there be given the
church-scots.”[149] Between the laws of Ina and that of Athelstan, there
is no mention of church-scots in Anglo-Saxon laws.
There must have been a large number of landowners’ churches erected
in the country at the time the above law was passed, for the priests
received only one-third of the tithes, the remaining two-thirds was paid
to the baptismal churches of the diocese and placed at the bishop’s
disposal; one-third of the two-thirds was for the repairs of churches.
The bishop who had the control of these funds must have neglected their
repairs, and this law commanded the bishops not only to repair the
churches but also “to remind the king that all God’s churches be well
conditioned.”
If there had been no customary appropriation of tithes, as some assert,
why should this law place the expenses of repairing the churches upon the
bishops?
We are gravely told by Mr. Fuller that this law passed in A.D. 940 is no
law, although presided over by the king, because the meeting was called a
“_Synod_” and not a “_Witan_”![150]
Prideaux calls it a law.[151] Selden says: “About 940, Edmund, king of
England, in a great synod or council, a kind of Parliament both of lay
and spiritual men held in London, made this Act.”[152] Kemble, Freeman,
Bishop Stubbs, and every writer of distinction admit this to be a proper
legislative enactment.
KING EDGAR’S LAWS.
Edgar succeeded his brother Edwig, or Edwy, in 959; died 975.
In the following law, Mr. Thorpe takes his text from a collection of two
important manuscripts; (1) Corpus Christi MS. 265 (K. 2); (2) Cott. Nero,
A. 1, both apparently written in the middle of the 11th century.
“This is the Ordinance[153] that King Edgar, with the counsel of his
Witan, ordained, in praise of God and in honour to himself and for the
behoof of all his people.”
Act 1. “These then are first, that God’s churches be entitled to every
right; and that every tithe be rendered to the old minster to which
the district belongs, and that be then so paid, both from a thane’s
inland[154] and from geneat-land[155] so as the plough traverses it.”
Act 2. “But if there be any thane who on his bocland has a church at
which there is a burial place, let him give the third part of his own
tithe to his church. If any one have a church at which there is not a
burial-place, then of the nine parts, let him give to his priest what he
will; and let every church-scot go to the old minster according to every
free hearth; and let plough-alms be paid when it shall be fifteen days
over Easter.”
Act 3. “And let a tithe of every young be paid by Pentecost; and of the
fruits of the earth by the equinox; and every church-scot by Martinmas
on peril of the full wite which the doom-book specifies; and if any one
will not then pay the tithe, as we have ordained, let the King’s reeve go
thereto, and the bishop’s, and the mass-priest of the minster, and take
by force a tenth part for the minster to which it is due; and assign to
him the ninth part; and let the eight parts be divided into two; and let
the landlord take possession of half, half the bishop; be it a king’s
man, be it a thane’s.”[156]
In these laws there is a threefold division of churches. (1) The “old
minster,” that is the senior church, which name was anciently given to
the monastic or cathedral church. (2) A church with a burial place. (3)
A church without a burial place. “The old minster,” says Selden, “was
the ancientest church or monastery where he hears God’s service, which
I understand not otherwise than of any church or monastery, that is his
parish church or monastery. They were in many places the only oratories
and auditories that the near inhabitants did their devotions in.”[157]
This is the first English law which expressly appropriates tithes. They
were previously appropriated according to custom. In the first mention of
tithes which is found in Theodore’s “Penitential,” it is a customary and
not a legal appropriation.
CHAPTER IX.
_ORIGIN OF OUR MODERN PARISH CHURCHES AND BOUNDARIES._
The church with burial-place, as stated in Art. 2 of King Edgar’s laws,
clearly indicates the transition which had been going on from the old
minster to the landowner’s church, from which originated our modern
parish churches.
There is the old minster or parish church, then the landowner’s church,
with burial-place, erected on his private estate for the convenience of
his family, tenants, and labourers. This becomes a new parish church
within the district of the old minster. Edgar’s laws are the first to
mention these churches. But since A.D. 675 chapels of ease had been
built, but no district, no parish boundary, was assigned to any of
them. The slow and gradual manner in which parochial churches became
independent, appears of itself an efficient answer to those who ascribe a
great antiquity to the universal payment of tithes.[158]
It is impossible to state precisely when parishes in England were formed.
There is no record or evidence to show it. They gradually commenced in
the latter quarter of the seventh century and increased very much in the
eighth century. It is too late to assign the origin of our modern parish
churches to the reign of King Edgar. It would be nearer the truth to say
that the modern parish churches gradually grew up from Bede’s account
in A.D. 686, but were not then called parishes. It is evident that the
two churches recorded by Bede were built for the accommodation of those
residing on each of the earls’ estates. So when churches increased,
the jurisdiction of the incumbent of each manorial church was limited
by the extent of the landowner’s estate. Hence the estate on which the
church was built, with burial ground, became the parochial boundary.
Some estates were larger than others; hence the parochial areas are very
unequal.
The church had a boundary conterminous with the landowner’s estate. And
by Edgar’s law the incumbent received one-third of the tithes of the
estate on which the church was built, free from all incidental expenses.
The old minster received the remaining two-thirds for the purpose of
repairing the churches and relieving the poor and strangers.[159] Edgar’s
law points out a division of the tithes. But the most important question
in reference to Edgar’s appropriation is “Why was one-third specially
assigned to the priest of the manorial church?” Because that part was the
well-recognised priest’s share of the tithes.
In Domesday we find several churches in possession of only this one-third
of the tithes from the manor or township. Let us take the properties of
St. Paul’s, London. The Vicar of Cadendon, in Herts, received a third
part of the tithe of the demesne; the Vicar of Tillingham, in Essex,
assessed at 20 hides in Domesday, had a third part of the great and
small tithes of the demesne. The Vicar of Nastock, in Essex, had a third
sheaf of the tithe of the demesne; the Vicar of Drayton, in Middlesex,
had one-third of the tithe of the demesne; the Vicar of Sutton, which is
not in Domesday, had one-third of the tithe. On the other hand, we find
vicars on the Chapter estates receiving ALL the tithes. But the fact
existed of Edgar’s one-third appearing in the Domesday Survey, which
did not record one-third of the churches which were then on the lands
surveyed; and if we had in that survey a complete record of the number of
churches, we should find a large number of vicars in receipt of Edgar’s
one-third part of the tithes.
We sometimes find the tithes of a portion of land in one parish, paid
to the parish priest of the church of another parish, for this detached
piece of land may have belonged to the manorial owner, who built the
church on his estate and endowed it not only with the tithes of the lands
of the manor but also with the tithes of the land which he possessed in
other parishes.
The modern parish system has been erroneously traced back by some[160] to
Archbishop Honorius in A.D. 630. Mr. Selden refutes this opinion.[161]
“Honorius primus provinciam in parochias divisit,” meant that Honorius
was the first to divide his province into bishoprics and not into
parishes. The error originated out of a confusion of the original and
subsequent meanings of the word “parochia.” Originally, “parochia” meant
a diocese and also a parish. But in Edgar’s reign the words “diocese” and
“parish” had two distinct and separate meanings. The distinction had not
originated in his reign, but previously and gradually. The _germ_ of the
modern parish appeared in A.D. 686.[162]
It is important to observe that in speaking of a clergyman’s sphere of
duty the word “provincia” and not “parochia” was used; _e.g._, “Quicunque
enim presbiter in _propria provincia_ aut in aliena,” etc.[163]
Selden makes some weighty remarks on Edgar’s law. “But as the first
part,” he says, “of his law that gives all tithes to the mother Church of
every parish, meant in them a parochial right to incumbent; so also the
second part, that permits a third portion of the founder’s tithes to be
settled in a church new built, whereto the right of sepulture is annexed,
makes a dispensation for a parishioner that would build such a church in
his bocland.... _I doubt not that such new erections within old parishes
bred also new divisions, which afterwards became whole parishes_, and
by connivance of the time took (for so much as was in the territory
of that bocland) the former parochial right that the elder and mother
Church was possessed of. For that right of sepulture was, and regularly
is, a character of a parish church, and as commonly distinguished from a
capella.”[164]
Edgar’s law was of great importance. If it were carried out at the
present day, the several daughter Churches which have burial grounds
would receive a share of the parochial tithes. These district or daughter
Churches relieve the mother or parish Church of a large part of the
spiritual duties without receiving any part of the spiritual endowments.
At no time was this neglected condition so keenly felt as before the
creation of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Some private patrons were, and
are still reluctant to divide a portion of the parochial tithes among
the incumbents of the daughter Churches. But public patrons do so. At
the present time, when some well-endowed parishes become vacant, public
patrons and some private patrons also, redistribute the tithe endowments
among the poorer incumbents of the same parish. But these commendable
changes have been brought about by Acts of Parliament and Orders in
Council.
In reference to the one-third to the priest of the manorial church,
Bishop Kennett says: “Another fair pretext of the religious to regain
appropriations, was to desire no more than two parts of the tithe and
profits, leaving a third to the free and quiet enjoyment of the parish
priest, whom at the same time _they eased from the burthen of repairing
the church and relieving the poor, and took that charge upon themselves_.
This again was a colour that looked well, for it was but a _returning
to the old institution of dividing the profits of a parish into three
parts_: one to the priest, one to the church, and a third to the poor.
The one-third was called the church’s part, and was expressly excepted
as belonging to the priest, and was frequently described as a portion
separate from the share of the monks and pertaining to the parish church.
It was on this account that the patron’s charter of consenting to an
appropriation, did sometimes expressly reserve a third part to the
bishop, and for the same reason the bishops of Man had their _Tertiana_,
or third part of all churches, in that island. The bishops provided
perpetual vicars, who enjoyed a full third of the tithes, and in addition
he had oblations and perquisites, which all made his portion often equal
to, if not exceeding that of the convent.”[165] These are the words of a
bishop of the Church of England. He fully admits the existence of “the
old institution of dividing the profits of a parish into three parts,”
etc. This old division was not questioned until fifty-eight years ago
by Archdeacon Hale, of London, and recently revived by Lord Selborne. I
shall presently deal with the opinions of these two writers.
Bishop Kennett further adds, that although there was a threefold division
of tithes and oblations in England, yet the whole product of tithes and
offerings was the _bank of each parish church_, and the minister was
the _sole trustee_ and _dispenser_ of them according to the stated rules
of piety and charity. This is a most remarkable and vital observation,
because in course of time this sole trustee kept all the tithes and
oblations to his own personal use, in the same manner as the monks acted
in respect to all the profits of the churches appropriated to them after
the Norman Conquest.
It may be observed that at one time lay patrons had kept to themselves
the two parts for the poor and repairs of the churches, and gave the
priest the remaining one-third. This arrangement led to great disorders,
because they kept the two parts to their own use and had them infeoffed
in them and their heirs, leaving the altarage or small tithes to the
parish priest. By conscientious scruples, however, they restored in
course of time the two parts to the parochial priests, or religious
houses, for distribution to the poor and for repairing the churches.
CANONS ENACTED UNDER KING EDGAR.[166]
Canon 55. “And we enjoin that the priest so distribute the people’s alms,
that they do both give pleasure to God and accustom the people to alms.”
The following is a gloss on this canon:—“And it is right that one part be
delivered to the priest, a second part for the need of the church, and a
third part for the poor.”
The text is taken from MS. 201 in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. The
gloss is taken, by Mr. Thorpe, from a Bodleian MS., Junius 121, fol.
25_b_, which he calls “X” in a page between his Preface and Table of
Contents. He says the Bodleian MS. is of the tenth century. Mr. Thorpe’s
commanding position as an Anglo-Saxon scholar is generally admitted;
yet Lord Selborne questions his opinion as to the date of the Bodleian
MS. He says it must have been written in the eleventh century, and was
copied from the Church Grith; thus dating the MS. a century later than
Mr. Thorpe.[167] That could not have been, for the Church Grith law deals
only with the tithe, but Edgar’s canon deals with all alms, including
tithe. And as to the date of the MS., I should prefer the opinion of a
disinterested Anglo-Saxon scholar and expert like Mr. Thorpe.
It is probable that the Cambridge MS. is a late copy made in Cnute’s
reign, and that the Bodleian MS. was a gloss made in the tenth century
on the original copy of the canons. The force of the gloss is that the
priest was entitled only to one-third part of the people’s alms, which
included the tithe. The Church Grith law deals only with the tithe, of
which a third part was the priest’s. The gloss gives the general custom
of all the churches of giving the priest only one-third part of all alms,
oblations, tithes, etc., and not ALL the alms and oblations in addition
to one-third part of the tithes. In principle, the words of the gloss do
not differ from the wording of Ethelred’s law.
Canon 56. “And we enjoin that priests sing psalms when they distribute
the alms, and that they earnestly desire the poor to pray for the
people.” Why pray for the people? Because they gave alms to them.
ODO, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
He was of Danish birth. His father was one of the Danish chiefs who were
engaged in the invasions of England in A.D. 870. Odo was first a soldier
in the wars of Edward the Elder. In 926 he was appointed bishop of
Ramsbury. He was three times engaged on the battle-field after he became
a bishop. In 942 he was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury.
Odo’s canons were compiled from Egbert’s Excerptions and Legatine
Injunctions; the former I have shown not to be Egbert’s production. Odo’s
tenth canon on tithes is the seventeenth Injunction passed at the Council
at Calchyth, _i.e._, Chelsea, in 787.
THE MONKS.
It gives great pleasure to a certain class of writers to blacken the
characters of the monks, and to extol Henry VIII. and the favourites and
courtiers who surrounded him. But the present age is too critical and
well-informed to be misled by the prejudiced and bigoted statements which
have no foundation in fact. The monks were no doubt superstitious, and
so were the parochial clergy; but the former were not ignorant men, as
Judge Blackstone states in his Commentaries. He was much indebted to them
for the preservation of ancient charters, laws, and historical annals,
which form so important a part of his Commentaries. The various charters
of English liberty, wrung from English sovereigns from time to time, were
deposited in the monasteries by the barons for safe keeping, where they
were carefully and faithfully preserved by the so-called “ignorant and
superstitious monks.”
In every great abbey there was a large room called the “Scriptorium,”
where several writers made it their sole business to transcribe books for
the use of the library. They were generally engaged upon the Fathers,
Classics, Histories, etc., etc. There was then no printing press. So
zealous were the monks in general for this work, that they often had
lands given to them and churches appropriated to them for carrying on
the work. In all the great abbeys persons were appointed to take notice
of the principal occurrences of the kingdom, and at the end of every
year to digest them into annals. The constitutions of the clergy in
their national and provincial synods, and even Acts of Parliament, were
sent to the abbeys, in order to be duly recorded. The choicest records
and treasures of the kingdom were preserved in the monasteries. A copy
of the charter of liberties granted by Henry I. was sent to some abbey
in every county to be preserved. The abbeys were schools of learning
and education, for every convent had one person or more appointed for
this purpose, and all the neighbours that desired it, might have their
children taught certain branches of education free of charge. In the
nunneries, also, young women were taught to work, and to read English and
Latin also. Most of the daughters of noblemen and gentlemen were educated
in those places.
Again, the monasteries were great hospitals, and most of them were
obliged to relieve poor people every day. They served the same purposes
of relieving the poor and strangers as the workhouses which originated in
the reign of Queen Elizabeth did. When the monasteries were dissolved,
and all their properties handed over as a free gift by Parliament to
Henry VIII., to do with them as he pleased, there were no longer any
places where the poor and strangers could be relieved. If all the
monastic properties had then been placed under a Board of Commissioners
to be utilized towards the relief of the poor, an annual income would
now be at the command of such Commissioners as would be sufficient to
cover the eight and a half millions per annum, the present cost of the
relief of the poor of England and Wales, and thus the ratepayers of the
kingdom would be relieved of the payment of poor rates. The annual value
of all the property was £250,000, including the tithes possessed by the
monastic bodies. If we take into account the valuable landed estates
which the bishops and chapters were forced to exchange for the monastic
appropriated tithes, firstfruits, and tenths, we shall get a revenue of
at least £300,000 per annum, which, at the present time, would realize
eight and a half millions per annum. To place such vast properties at the
_free disposal_ of Henry VIII. and his successors on the throne, is the
most convincing proof of the subservient and even slavish Parliaments of
the Tudor sovereigns.[168]
It is important to observe that we have no trustworthy record of any
single event of English history previous to the arrival of Augustine. We
have tradition, but nothing more. No great power of writing existed up
to that period. But Augustine and his companions did more than introduce
Christianity among the Saxons. They also introduced writing, annals,
and other forms of Roman civilization. The first Anglo-Saxon charter
is dated April 28, A.D. 604, by which Ethelbert, king of Kent, granted
to the Cathedral church of Rochester, lands at Southgate. This charter
was granted by the advice of Bishop Laurence and of all the king’s
princes.[169] There are no signatures, but ends with “Amen.” The second
charter, dated A.D. 605, granting land in Canterbury to found an abbey,
is signed by King Ethelbert, Archbishop Augustine, Edbald the King’s son,
Duke Hamigisil, Angemund referendarius, Hocca comes, Grafio comes (count
or comites of the King), Tangilisil regis optimas, Pinca, and Geddi.
The first charter is remarkable, in which Laurence is styled “bishop.”
Augustine had not died until the 26th May, 605,[170] so he must have
consecrated Laurence as Archbishop more than thirteen months before his
death. Augustine signed the Charter dated 9th January, 605, as a member
of the Witenagemót.
POPULATION.
Mr. Walter de Gray Birch, of the MSS. Department of the British Museum,
had discovered in 1883, in the British Museum, a MS. in Anglo-Saxon
of the late tenth or early eleventh century. It is the only extant
Anglo-Saxon copy. It is the oldest and best text. There is internal
evidence that the MS. is a copy of an older one now lost. It is in the
Harley Collection of MSS. 3271 f. 6B. It is the earliest census return
of the Anglo-Saxon population.[171] There are thirty-four divisions
or territorial names which are very ancient. The total is 243,600
hides, which mean families, throughout England. Allowing five to each
family, the population of England in A.D. 1066 was 1,218,000. As the
sanitary arrangements and medical science were little known among the
Anglo-Saxons, I take 10 per 1,000 as the excess of births over deaths.
From these data I conclude that in A.D. 597, when Augustine landed
in England, the population was 80,000; in A.D. 700, the population
was 160,000; in A.D. 800, population 300,000; in A.D. 900, population
600,000; in A.D. 1,000, population 900,000. The population of Kent in
A.D. 597 was about 5,500. There is a statement in Bede’s Ecclesiastical
History that the population of Kent was 10,000 when Augustine landed,
but this was an exaggeration. There were then 21 monasteries in England.
Between A.D. 600 and 700, 100 monasteries were built and endowed.
Therefore in A.D. 700 there were 121 monasteries for a population of
160,000. Only 29 monasteries were built between 700 and 800, 22 between
800 and 900, 38 between 900 and 1000, and 43 between 1000 and 1066, or
253, but one-half of them were in ruins through Danish invasions, at the
time of the Conquest.
I shall now give the population of the country at the periods when tithes
were ordered to be paid by civil or ecclesiastical law.
In 787, when the Pope’s two legates came to England, the population was
about 260,000. The Injunctions read to the Northern Synod were attested
by the King of Northumberland, Archbishop of York, Bishops of Hexham,
Lindisfarne, Whitherne, Mayo in Ireland, Ethelwin of Bangor, two dukes,
two abbots, some presbyters, deacons and thanes.
In the Southern Synod they were attested by the King of Mercia,
Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishops of Lichfield, Lindsey, Leicester,
Elmham, London, Winchester, Dunwich, Hereford, Selsey, Rochester,
Sherborne, Worcester (13 bishops); 3 abbots, 3 dukes, and 1 comes, _i.e._
16 ecclesiastics and 5 laymen.
It will be seen from these facts that not only was the population small,
but ecclesiastics formed the majority in the synods or councils who
framed laws and canons for the payment of tithes to the Church. King
Athelstan’s law made in 927 for the payment of tithes runs thus:—
“Athelstan, king, with the council of Wulfhelm Archbishop, and of my
other bishops, make known to the reeves, etc.” Here is the King with a
council of bishops making a law for the payment of tithes to bishops
themselves and to their clergy. And this is considered the first general
law in England for setting forth the payment of predial and mixed tithes.
The population then was about 700,000.
In 960, King Edgar passed his tithe laws with and by the advice of his
Witan, who included the Archbishop of Canterbury, and bishops. The
population then was about 800,000.
Let us now take a glance at the number of bishops in England and Wales up
to the time of the Norman Conquest.
Kent had Canterbury and Rochester.
East Saxons: London. East Angles: Dunwich and Elmham.
West Saxons: Dorchester (transferred to Winchester), Sherborne, Mercia
(including eight counties), Lichfield, Leicester, Sidnacester (or
Lindsey), Worcester, Hereford.
South Saxons: Selsey.
Northumberland: York, Lindisfarne, Hexham.
Sixteen bishops in England and 4 in Wales in A.D. 705, when the
population was only 160,000, _i.e._ a bishop for every 8,000. By
absorption only 14 bishops in England, 4 in Wales, and 1 in the Isle of
Man in 1066, or one bishop for every 66,000 of the population.
Lord Selborne, Bishop Stubbs, and Mr. Haddan[172] say the
manorial churches, to which Edgar’s laws granted one-third of
the tithes, were the type of our own modern parish churches.
This I grant. It is _the first Act_ of Parliament by which they
received tithes. By _custom_ the _mother churches_ originally
received tithes. But it was not by custom, but by an Act of
Parliament passed at Andover in A.D. 960, that the type of
our modern parishes received one-third of the tithes of the
parochial limits.
Up to A.D. 1180, the owners of lands from which tithes arose
might give them, as they please, to bishops, chapters,
monasteries, or _to the parish churches on their own estates_.
Hence, churches erected by landowners after 960 received in
_many_ cases, up to 1180, _all the tithes_ of the new parochial
boundaries, and not one-third.
But I disagree with them in limiting the origin of the type of
our modern parishes to A.D. 960. I trace the GERM of our modern
parishes back to the two earls’ churches, consecrated in A.D.
686.[173] Soames, Lappenberg, and Dean Hook refer the origin of
our modern parishes to Archbishop Theodore (668 to 693). That
Bede’s churches were in the north of England does not militate
against my view. _It was but the germ_, which gradually
expanded.[174]
CHAPTER X.
_THE LAWS OF ETHELRED II._
The following nine laws appear in Thorpe’s “Ancient Laws,” etc.[175]
I. _Council of Woodstock._ Thorpe takes his text from Cott. Titus, A. 27.
The MS. is of the thirteenth century, and contains perhaps the best text
extant of the old Latin version of the Saxon laws. Wilkins has it among
his “Saxon Laws,” but omits it in his “Concilia.” Bromton also has it.
II. _The Treaty with the Norwegian Kings_, viz., Anlaf, Justin, and
Guthmund. Thorpe prints his text from the above MS. Bromton has it
Wilkins has it in his “Laws,” but not in his “Concilia.”
III. _The Council at Wantage_ (A.D. 997). Thorpe prints it from the
above. Bromton has it. Wilkins has it in his “Laws.”
IV. _De Institutis Londoniæ_ (prob. A.D. 997). Thorpe prints it from
the above, and remarks that it was a most important law as regards the
commercial and monetary history of England.
V. _Liber Constitutionum_ (A.D. 1008). Thorpe prints it from Cott. Nero,
A. 1. Wilkins has it in his “Laws,” but not in his “Concilia.” Lord
Selborne confounds this with the Ordinances passed at Habam.
VI. _Council of Enham_ (probably “Ensham in Oxfordshire”). Thorpe prints
it from a MS. in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 201, which was
written apparently in the middle of the eleventh century, and which he
collated with Cott. Claud., A. 3. Wilkins has it in his “Laws” and also
in his “Concilia.” Spelman dates the council A.D. 1009.
VII. _Grith and Mund._ Thorpe prints it from Cott. Nero, A. 1, collated
with MS. C.C. 201 (Nasmith). “These manuscripts,” says Mr. Thorpe,
“closely agree together.” Wilkins has it in his “Laws,” but not in his
“Concilia.”
VIII. _The Ordinances of Habam_ (A.D. 1012). Bromton alone gives the
text, from which Thorpe copied his text and collated it with the Macro
and Holkham manuscripts. Wilkins has printed it in his “Concilia” (i.
295), but not in his “Laws”; Spelman has it (“Concilia,” i. 530).
IX. _Church Grith_ (A.D. 1014). Thorpe prints it from Cott. Nero, A. 1.
collated with C.C. 201. He does not state that these manuscripts closely
agree together, as he does the two collated in VII. Wilkins has it in his
“Laws,” but not in his “Concilia.”
N.B.—VI. VIII. and IX. only are in the volume Nero, A. 1.
Bromton has only I. II. III. VIII.
IX. _Church Grith._
Mr. Thorpe takes his text from the so-called Worcester volume of the
Cottonian manuscript, Nero, A. 1, fol. 96 _b_. It begins thus:—
“This is one of the Ordinances which the king of the English composed
with the counsel of his Witan, etc.”
Art. 6. “And respecting tithe, the king and his Witan have chosen and
decreed, as is just, that one-third part of the tithe which belongs to
the Church, go to the reparation of the Church, and a second part to the
servants of God, the third to God’s poor and to needy ones in thraldom.”
Art. 7. “And be it known to every Christian man, that he pay to his Lord
his tithe justly, always as the plough traverses the tenth field, on
peril of God’s mercy, and of the full ‘wite,’ which King Edgar decreed,
that is”:—
Art. 8. “If any one will not justly pay the tithe, then let the king’s
reeve go, and the mass-priest of the minster, or of the ‘landrica’ (the
proprietor of the land, lord of the soil) and the bishop’s reeve and take
forcibly the tenth part for the minster to which it is due, and assign
to him the ninth part; and let the eight parts be divided into two, and
let the landlord take possession of half, half the bishop; be it a king’s
man, be it a thane’s.”
Art. 9. “And let every tithe of young be paid by Pentecost, on pain of
the ‘wite’; and of earth’s fruit by the equinox or at all events by
Allhallow’s Mass.”
“On comparing these articles,” says Lord Selborne, “with King Edgar’s
laws, it will be seen that, if enacted, they would have omitted the
clause in those laws which authorized the payment of one-third of the
local tithes to a manorial church having a burial ground.”[176]
Dr. Lingard says, “But its (Edgar’s) subsequent re-enactment in the reign
of Ethelred, 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
very imperfectly enforced.”[177]
Bishop Stubbs’s references to articles 2 and 44, and to the latter part
of the sixth of this law prove (1) that he read the whole law of Church
Grith in Thorpe’s translation by referring to three articles of this law;
(2) that he referred to the third part in this law for the poor and needy
in thraldom in support of a certain statement which he made about the
poor; (3) that if he thought the law was not genuine or authentic, he
would not have quoted from it; (4) and that the very fact of his having
quoted from it, proves that he admitted its genuineness. Here are the
Bishop’s words: “The case of the really helpless poor was regarded both
as a _legal_ and as a religious duty from the very first ages of English
Christianity. St. Gregory, in his instructions to Augustine, had reminded
him of the duty of a bishop to set apart for the poor, a fourth part of
the incomes of his church. In 1342 Archbishop Stratford ordered that in
all cases of impropriation a portion of the tithe should be set apart for
the relief of the poor. The _legislation of the Witenagemóts of Ethelred
bore the same mark; a third portion of the tithe that belonged to the
church was to go to God’s poor, and to the needy ones in thraldom_.”[178]
Dr. Stubbs cannot go behind what he states above in his published history.
Let us now compare this statement with what he has written since
he became a bishop. “The tripartite division, never was adopted in
England, and that the passages in support of it are either altogether
unauthorized, or merely statements of an ideal state of law conformable
to the uses of some foreign churches.”[179]
Lord Selborne gives the following extract from a printed letter of
Bishop Stubbs to a rural dean of the diocese of Chester, 12th December,
1885: “The claim of the poor on the tithe was a part of the claim of
the Church; and, although this claim _was never made the subject of an
apportionment, tripartite or_ quadripartite, except in unauthoritative or
tentative recommendations, it has never been ignored or disregarded by
the Church or Clergy.”[180]
How can Dr. Stubbs reconcile these statements with an actual quotation
which he had taken from Ethelred’s law, where the threefold division is
stated? It cannot be. Bishop Stubbs and Professor Freeman must be kept
strictly to what they have published in their well-known histories until
they publicly repudiate what they have written. Private letters which
contradict historical statements must be ignored.
SIR ROBERT COTTON’S LIBRARY.
It is essentially necessary, before going further into the discussion of
the manuscript of the Church Grith law, to give a sketch of the origin of
the Cottonian Library.
Sir Robert Cotton, about A.D. 1588, commenced and continued for about
40 years to collect old charters, laws, seals, coins, etc., etc., which
after the dissolution of the monasteries were dispersed through the
country from their invaluable libraries. Many of them were secured by
the nobility and gentry, but a considerable number fell into the hands
of peasants, mechanics, and other persons who were ignorant of their
important value and totally careless of their preservation. Valuable
books of parchments were sold to grocers, soap-sellers, etc., who used
them as they do old newspapers now. Others were sent out of the country
in shiploads to foreign booksellers; the servants used them for scouring
candlesticks and rubbing boots. Two noble libraries were sold for forty
shillings. Sir Robert found no difficulty in purchasing these valuable
documents wherever he could find them. Many of them were loose skins,
small tracts or thin volumes. Sir Robert had several of them bound up
in one cover. He also obtained by legacy and purchase some of the most
valuable manuscripts collected out of the scattered remains of monastic
libraries by Josseline, Noel, Allen, Lambarde, Bowyer, Camden and others.
It was a timely and excellent opportunity for Cotton, Bodley, and
Archbishop Parker. Sir Robert formed his library in one of the best
rooms of his London residence called “Cotton House,” near the House of
Parliament. He permitted persons to consult and copy the manuscripts. It
was in that library John Selden obtained his wonderful stock of ancient
lore, which made his name immortal. Sir Henry Spelman drank deeply from
the same fountain. Other antiquarians were equally indebted to Sir Robert
Cotton. As I have already stated, he had many manuscripts bound up in
separate volumes, and others he arranged in small parcels. Each volume
and parcel contained several parts which were written at different times.
He had a list on the first page of the headings of the manuscripts bound
up in each volume. It is very important to note that fact, because in
the present volume Nero, A. 1, there is the original list made in Sir
Robert’s time, in which ten headings of Anglo-Saxon 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 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. 1, 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. 1? 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. 1, contains
only the same ten Anglo-Saxon headings which appear in the list of 1632.
I conclude 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 “Antiquæ Literaturæ Septentrionalis Liber, etc.” His
preface is dated 28th August, 1704. For the first time the Church Mund
and Church Grith laws appear in Wanley’s Catalogue. He was the first who
named the volume Nero A. 1 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 completeness of the
official catalogue of 1632. They were not then in the library.
I have considered these details as vitally essential in the important
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 Ælfric’s school,
wished to have enacted.... There is indeed now written in the margin
of that manuscript,[181] in a small modern hand, the date ‘Aᵒ. Dom.
1014.’”[182] I have often examined the manuscript, and found the reading
to be “Aⁿᵒ. 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. “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;[183] 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. (1) His first witnesses are Selden, Spelman,
Lambarde, Wheelock, 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 character or the authority of a law.”[184]
“If Lambarde, Wheelock, and John Johnson,” continues Lord Selborne, “were
acquainted with either manuscript—Church and Mund, and Church Grith—(_the
contrary supposition is improbable_), 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.”[185]
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.
1. The fact is that Selden had never seen or heard of the Church Grith
law, otherwise he would unquestionably have referred 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 quotations 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 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
collection 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 _inferential_
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 “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 character 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 ecclesiastical laws of King
Ethelred at pp. 129, 141, 145, which _were altogether unknown_ to
Johnson”[186] 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 Prefatory statement that “Grith and
Mund” and “Church Grith laws” _were unknown_ to Johnson. Yet in the face
of that statement, 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 conclusion 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 Ordinances 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 ecclesiastical documents, it must have found a place there,
which it does not.”[187]
Dr. Wilkins was also the first to publish the laws of the Kentish kings.
Mr. Thorpe says of Wilkins’s “Concilia,” “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.”[188]
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 (1) 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,[189] 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 “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.”[190]
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 knowledge of Anglo-Saxon literature is
not confined to his own university, 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 whatever was due to what
Wilkins had said or thought upon the subject_.”[191] I have always
admired the straightforward manner in which the Archdeacon placed the
whole matter before the public. A prejudiced 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
whatever_ to the second or favourable opinion, although it is printed in
a footnote at the page where Price’s letter appears.[192]
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.”[193]
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 represents 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.”[194]
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 State
in the ancient laws is that to which I have referred in the laws of
Ethelred.[195] 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 enactment, but _a means
prescribed for carrying the enactment into force_. But this is simply
copied from an earlier law of Edgar.[196] And in the law of 1014 it
stands almost alone as a real piece of legislation with a sanction. In
truth these laws, of which I have found something to say elsewhere,[197]
_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 Archbishop 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 threefold
division of tithe. But 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 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 Witenagemót 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 statements he was making
_in support_ of the Grith laws, to the statement, “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 Gemót held on his return,
that the King and his Witan passed the laws which bear the date of
this year.[198] 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 conduct of certain earlier assemblies
held under Athelstan, Edmund, and Edgar, which dealt with ecclesiastical
and temporal affairs conjointly, and they seem to deplore a separation
between the two branches of legislation which had taken place in some
later assemblies.” He then refers to sections 36, 37, and 38 of the
Church Grith, and adds, “cf. sec. 43, where the three kings are named.”
“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._”[199]
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.[200]
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 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.”[201]
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—Ethelbert, Lothere, Edric, and Withred.
King Alfred’s Scriptural Laws, King Athelstan’s Decretum Cantianum and
Decretum Sapientum Angliæ, King Edmund’s Concilium Culintonense, King
Edgar’s Supplemental Laws, King Ethelred’s Liber Constitutionum, 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.”[202] Lord Selborne does not tell us who the Latin
translators were, and what opportunities 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 direction and authority of the
Commission of Public Records.
“The undoubted legislation Acts,” he further adds, “of 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 Witenagemót. But the title of the document numbered IX.[203] by
Mr. Thorpe, is very different.”[204] 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
Witan.”[205] Now, let us compare this title with those of (1) Woodstock,
(2) Wantage, and (3) the Law of A.D. 1008, which Lord Selborne admits to
be genuine. (1) “This is the Ordinance which King Ethelred and his Witan
ordained.”[206] (2) “These are the laws which King Ethelred and his Witan
have decreed at Wantage.”[207] (3) “This is the Ordinance that the King
of the English and both the ecclesiastical and lay Witan have chosen and
advised.”[208] 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 compare 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.[209]
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
elsewhere.”[210] 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 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[211] 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.”[212]
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 charge 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.”[213]
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 disregards Edgar’s law as to the
payment of one-third of the tithes to the manorial church with burial
ground.[214] 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 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 11th
century were too numerous to be deprived of their portions of the tithes,
especially 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 subsequent re-enactment in the reign
of Ethelred,[215] 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.”[216]
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.[217]
“It may be asserted,” says Lord Selborne, “without risk of error, that
_no part_ of the Worcester volume, Nero, A. 1 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, Edmund, Ethelred; and after them Grith and Mund,
and Church Grith:—all in Anglo-Saxon, _without break_, and in that
order.”[218]
Every reader of “Facts and Fictions” cannot consult the Worcester
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 important fact, and see _if it is not possible to
shake its authority and bearing on the case_.”[219] 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 1 to 39 form the first tract in the volume; 42 to 56 the
second; 57 to 68_b_ the third; 71 to 97_b_ 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 16th century, then a common practice to
complete imperfect manuscripts, and the manuscript of Alfred’s laws in
the Worcester volume is very imperfect. Then the laws of Athelstan
and Edmund may be seen at once to be a much earlier hand, of the first
quarter of the 11th 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 10th century, and beginning,
middle, and end, of the 11th. 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. 1, 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 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_.[220] 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[221] 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 (1) a _spurious passage_ in the “Penitential” of Archbishop
Theodore, for proof of which he refers to “Haddan and Stubbs, ‘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, published tentatively, and not recognised as possessing any
legislative 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.”[222]
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 published 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.[223]
Bishop Stubbs, in his history, remarks that in this very “Penitential,”
viz., lib. ii. c. xiv. s. 10, commencing, “Decimas non est legitimum
dare,” _the clergy had not the sole use of the tithes_.[224]
I refer the reader to pp. 20-23 in this book for a full discussion on
this point.
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, (1) Ecclesiastical, (2)
Secular, (3) Constitutiones de Foresta.
The text from which Mr. Thorpe prints (1) and (2), is Cott. Nero., A. 1,
which was written in the middle of the eleventh century. The text of (3)
is from Spelman’s “Glossarium Archæologicum.” There are twenty-six laws
in (1); eighty-five in (2); thirty-four in (3).[225]
In A.D. 1018 at a Witenagemót at Oxford, Cnute confirmed the laws of
Edgar. “The laws of Edgar,” says Lappenberg,[226] “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 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.[227]
Now by rejecting 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.”[228]
It has escaped Lord Selborne’s notice that Cnute’s confirmation 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 contrary to all rules, laws, and customs.
They were never originally given, and would never be given to the priests
on any such condition, 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 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.”[229]
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.”[230]
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 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.[231] 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.
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 charitable 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 dissolved. 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 thus bound by the
sureties of private interest, they might always oppose any return towards
the dominion of Rome.[232]
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-established 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.[233] They would
be any religion, provided they retained their church lands.[234]
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 (increased
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 _parsons_, 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.”[235]
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 Selborne, 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 important 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_ maintenance which the poor should
receive.[236]
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 required 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 17th
century.”[237]
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 kingdom 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 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 to remember that the poor have a share in the tithes
with him_.”[238]
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 therefore be supposed, of the forgeries in the same
collection also.”[239]
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
Pluralities”—published, under the name of Anthony Harmer, “A Specimen
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.”[240]
Dr. Cave, author of “Historia Literaria,” who employed 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.[241]
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 encouraged
me this sixth time to appear in public.” He died in 1704.
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.”[242]
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.”[243] 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 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 (1) The
Act of 1014; (2) 15 Rich. II. c. vi.; (3) 13 Eliz. c. xx.; (4) 18 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 underwoods. 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 property, 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 is £12,006 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.[244]
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_.[245]
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, commanding 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 provincial 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 payment 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 payment of
tithes, was that passed in A.D. 1295 (23 Edw. I.), at a provincial
synod held in London by Robert Winchelsey, Archbishop 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 followed 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 inheritance of the land.
The canon then passed from predial to personal tithes. Artificers 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. 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.[246]
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 contumacious, 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 difficulty 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.[247]
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 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 ecclesiastics 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.[248]
The Commons succeeded, however, in 1371, in limiting the power of the
canon. It was enacted[249] 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 payment of such tithes, a prohibition
should issue. This was the first victory gained by the House of Commons
as regards tithes. 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
becoming 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. Testators 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.[250]
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, 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 subjected to any canons which the clergy made for
their own advantage 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 misleading 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 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,[251] 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
£1,112.” 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 benefactors, of their families and relatives. The benefactors
believed 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 doctrines, 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 endowments from certain benefactors who otherwise would not
have given them. Parliament permitted E to hold the ancient endowments 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 endowments, if it should think proper, to other purposes.
At the period of the Reformation there was no physical transfer of the
endowments from the old to the new trustees; from incumbents who would
not conform to the Acts of Parliament, to those who did conform. 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 successors 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 is that
Parliament has the right, if it should think proper, to convert 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 confiscated 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 properties, 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 endowed
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 dissolved 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 capitular
endowments; the 6 & 7 William IV. c. lxxvii. created the Ecclesiastical
Commission. The commissioners utilized the endowments 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 incumbent’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, 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 31st August,
1890, was £1,722,709; it disbursed that year £1,140,334, leaving a
balance of £582,374.[252]
Fully four-fifths of the properties in the hands of the Ecclesiastical
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 Witenagemóts; 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 (1) saying mass, (2) praying for the dead, and
(3) invoking the saints. But by Acts of Parliament 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, 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 sanctæ Romanæ
ecclesiæ.”[253]
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.[254]
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 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 endowments.
It cannot be stated with truth that the “Roman doctrines 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: (1) 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 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
individuals, for ever?” The Archbishop pointedly stated in the speech
quoted above, that the “certain specific purposes” existed no longer.[255]
It is again stated in the “Brief” that tithes are not endowments(!) and
that they were given “without any specific conditions 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[256] shall fulfil the conditions attached to its original
grant or bequest.” 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.
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 purpose of prayers being perpetually said by the
monks in their respective 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 appropriated, the monastic body had either to
depute one of their 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 conveyance 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 servientibus,”
etc.; others, “Canonicis regularibus ibidem Deo servientibus,” etc.; and,
“Monachis ibidem Deo servientibus,” etc.
The lay patrons sometimes exercised the power of discharging 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.”[257] Four English
bishops sat at this council. The Council gave the death-blow to arbitrary
appropriations of tithes by laymen, 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 endeavoured
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 for his soul.”[258] Not only had laymen appropriated
tithes to episcopal, capitular, and monastic corporations, but, in Lord
Selborne’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 of 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 monasteries,
although according to their rights, was contrary to canon law.[259]
At a national synod held at Westminster in 1125 (25 Henry I.) it was
constituted that no abbot, prior, monk, or clergyman 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 became supreme.
Archbishop Anselm was a very strong supporter of 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 grants of tithes to
monasteries after the date of this council. The council is a landmark
for the following arrangements: (1) 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 appropriated 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 13th 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, (1) 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—(1) Monastical,
(2) Parochial. With reference to (1), 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.
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 themselves, 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 considerable 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 anxious 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
appropriated some of their churches, _i.e._ the rectorial tithes of
their 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.[260]
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
Parliament to pass the following Act in 1392.[261]
“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 such legislation could
have been necessary; nothing would have been wanting, except simply to
_enforce that existing law_.”[262]
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 together. 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, referred 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
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 13_s._ 4_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 12_s._ tithe-rent charge per annum from Horton parish, whilst the
vicar receives £266 12_s._ 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 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[263] 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 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 constitutions of John
Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, made in a provincial council in
London, 10th of October, 1342.
“Whereas ecclesiastical men are entrusted with dispensing of tithes and
other things belonging to the church, _that the poor by their prudent
management may not be defrauded_; yet the religious 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 indevout, but invaders, destroyers and disturbers,
to the danger of their own souls and theirs, and to the scandal of many;
therefore 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.”[264]
The inference to be drawn from this canon, and from the subsequent
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 retained all the tithes to their own use. But the
inference above is generally applicable to all tithes. If not, what right
had a provincial 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 confounded 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, (1) permanently
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.[265] 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.
CHAPTER XIV.
_INFEUDATIONS—EXEMPTIONS FROM PAYMENT OF TITHES._
Infeudations are the conveyances of the perpetual 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 dissolution 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 income 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
VIII., 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. 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
confiscation 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 property 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 (1) 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_, because 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 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 originally 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 exemptions. 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.[266] 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 aiding
or assisting therein shall be put out of the king’s protection, 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
_præmunire 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 monasteries, 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
property. 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 building
monasteries commenced. Before his arrival there were about twenty-one
monastic establishments in the island not of the Benedictine 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 μοναχός =
solitary. Nun, Latin _nonna_. The British monks and nuns married until
the Benedictine 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—(1) 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) 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 themselves. 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 were 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, 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 maintain 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, (1) to
rebuild the monasteries which lay in ruins, and (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: (1) 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 Winchester, 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 discipline
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 monasteries were
convents of secular married clergy, whose children kept up a monopoly
of all the valuable appointments in the 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 monastery 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 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 principal 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
endowments 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., Canterbury, 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 powerful patronage and
protection of King Edgar and Archbishop Dunstan. 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 Gundulf, a monk; Bishop Wacelin, in 1070,
commenced to rebuild Winchester, and William of Wickham finished it;
Bishop Wolstan laid the foundation of Worcester in 1084, etc.
The following table of monasteries, taken from Bishop Tanner’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.
| | | |Cistercians.
| | | | |Colleges.
| | | | | |Preceptories.
| | | | | | |Alien Priories.
| | | | | | | |Premonstratensians.
| | | | | | | | |Gilbertines.
| | | | | | | | | |Carthusians.
| | | | | | | | | | |Brigettan
| | | | | | | | | | |order.
| | | | | | | | | | | |Total.
-----------+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------
William I. | 16| 6| 6| | | | 14| | | | | 42
William II.| 7| 2| 4| | | | 9| | | | | 22
Henry I. | 30| 40| 5| 10| 4| 2| 13| | | | | 104
Stephen | 15| 25| 4| 35| 1| 2| 3| 6| 6| | | 97
Henry II. | 22| 30| 6| 20| 3| 6| 8| 8| 4| 1| | 108
Richard I. | 6| 4| | 1| | | 1| 4| 2| | | 18
John. | 7| 11| | 7| | 1| 2| 2| 6| | | 36
Henry III. | 4| 15| 1| 9| | | 1| 1| 1| | | 32
Edward I. | 3| 2| | | 3| 9| 1| | 1| | | 19
Edward II. | 2| 2| | | | | | | | | | 4
Edward III.| 3| 6| | 1| 17| | | | | | | 27
Richard II.| | | | | | | | | | | |
Henry IV. | | | | | 4| | | | | 1| | 5
Henry V. | | 1| | | 6| | | | | 1| 1| 9
Henry VI. | | | | | 8| | | | | | | 8
-----------+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------
| 115| 144| 26| 86| 52| 12| 51| 21| 20| 3 | 1| 531
-----------+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------
To 531, add 130 before the Conquest; total, 661.
ALIEN MONASTERIES.
The governing bodies of the foreign or alien monasteries, to which landed
estates, tenements, tithes, churches, etc., in England were granted,
had built priories in convenient parts of England on their manors, and
sent monks from their own monasteries 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 I.,
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, (1) 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 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 parochial 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.[267]
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 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.[268] Oxford and
Cambridge Universities petitioned Parliament against this Act. Oxford
took the lead and strongly protested against all church reforms and
improvements originating within the Church (which our leading statesmen
then advocated) 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 application 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 eliciting
£4,000,000 from private sources in the shape of contributions, making a
total of £23,000,000, which represents an annual income of £690,000.”[269]
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 31st 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, equivalent 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 benefices 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 £29,179,000.”[270]
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.
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.[271]
If we examine the charters which appropriated tithes to monasteries, 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 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 Langdon the rectories of Oxney and of St.
Mary’s, Liddon, _in pure and perpetual alms_.[272] 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, 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 misappropriation 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 vestræ notum facio me dedisse _in elemosina in
perpetuum_ Deo et S. Mariæ ecclesiæ S. Werburgæ et Rudulpho
abbati et conventui dictæ ecclesiæ pro salute animæ Hugonis
comitis, prædictæ ecclesiæ fundatoris ac pro salute animæ
Randulphi comitis patris mei, et antecessorum meorum, et pro
salute animæ meæ, et Christianorum omnium, omnem decimam
integriter et plenariè omnium reddituum meorum civitatis
Cestriæ,” etc.[273]
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 disadvantage. 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 property which they possessed, and also when some of their property
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.
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 suggested, 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 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 Provisors in 1351 (25 Edward III. c. vi.), and 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
Archbishop 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 endowments
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
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 tithes, 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 dissolving 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 subsequent 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
the 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 monasteries,
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 subject 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 £32,000 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 neighbouring 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 favourites, 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 following remark, “Cranmer
observing that his stately palaces excited the envy of the courtiers,
_passed them away with their estates to the King_.” 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
advowson of Cheshunt in Herts. The Chapter had £702, tithe rent charge
from Otford; there was no vicar; and £806 10_s._ from Shoreham; total
£1,508 16_s._
Hasted says of Knole manor and manor house: “Cranmer observing
_murmurings among the hungry courtiers of the archbishop’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, Northflete, 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 favourites to whom these manors were granted.
An Act was passed, 1 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 Commissioners used threats, and so we
read that the monks of the Charterhouse were committed like common felons
to Newgate, 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 promised
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 property.
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, 110
hospitals, and 2,347 chantries, with all their properties, were handed
over to the King by 1 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 education 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 surrounded 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 VIII., 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 20_s._ a year rental should give to God and the Church, ½_d._ for
every Sunday or Apostle’s day, the vigil of which was a fast. If he paid
only 10_s._ a year rental, he was to give ¼_d._ This amounted in the
former case to 2_s._ 6_d._ in the pound, and 1_s._ 3_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:—
(1) 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, ½_d._
for 20_s._ a year rental, and ¼_d._ for 10_s._ 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 sixpence a year was then the amount of the
_modus decimandi_ 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 _quâ_ 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 2_s._ 6_d._ to 3_s._ 5_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 11_d._ 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 interpretation. But the Pope’s bull
did not pacify the citizens of London. They considered the additional
11_d._ a cheat—a fraud. Besides, the Pope’s bull could not compel them to
pay the additional amount. In 1453, however, it appears, by a record in
the Town Clerk’s office,[274] that Archbishop Arundel’s 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 3_s._
5_d._, 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 2_s._ 9_d._ in the pound. Therefore in the same year an Act
was passed,[275] authorizing the citizens of London to pay their tithes
at the rate of 2_s._ 9_d._ in the pound. Ten years later another Act was
passed,[276] “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 10_s._ rent by the year of all houses, shops, warehouses, cellars,
tables, etc., within the City and Liberty, 16½_d._; and for every 20_s._
rent by the year, 2_s._ 9_d._; and so above the rent of 20_s._ by the
year, ascending from 10_s._ to 10_s._, 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 1670,[277]
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, altering 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 according 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 hereinafter 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 payments.
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 Great Seal, or any 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. lxxxix. (1804).
As the City and Liberties of London are converted into offices, banks,
warehouses, etc., and are almost depopulated, it is important and
instructive to give the names of the parishes which appear in the Fire
Act of 1670, with the 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. Net Income Pop.
in 1890.
£ _s._ £ _s._ _d._ £
1. All Hallows, Lombard
Street 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
2. S. Bartholomew, Exchange 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
3. S. Bridget, alias Brides 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
4. S. Bennet Fink 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
5. S. Michael, Crooked Lane 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
6. S. Dionis Backchurch 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
7. S. Dunstan-in-the-East 200 0 333 6 8 536 442
8. S. James’, Garlickhithe 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
9. S. Michael, Cornhill 140 0 233 6 8 now 935 H 227
10. S. Michael Bassishaw 132 11 220 18 4 250 215
11. S. Mary, Aldermanbury 150 0 250 0 0 250 168
12. S. Martin, Ludgate 160 0 266 13 4 [278]
13. S. Peter, Cornhill 110 0 200 0 0 2,150 H 196
14. S. Stephen, Coleman Street 110 0 200 0 0 750 1,800
15. S. Sepulchre 200 0 333 6 8 536 H 4,570
16. All Hallows, Bread Street,
and S. John Evangelist 140 0 233 6 8 [278]
17. All Hallows the Great, and
All Hallows the Less 200 0 333 6 8 618 92
18. S. Albans, Wood Street,
and S. Olaves, Silver
Street 170 0 283 6 8 680 258
19. S. Anne and Agnes, and S.
John, Zachary 140 0 233 6 8 400 H 273
20. S. Augustin and S. Faith 172 0 286 13 4 638 554
21. S. Andrew, Wardrobe, and
S. Anne, Blackfriars 140 0 233 6 8 320 H 1,118
22. St. Antholin and St. John
Baptist 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
23. S. Bennet, Gracechurch,
and S. Leonard,
Eastcheap 140 0 233 6 8 [278]
24. S. Bennet, Paul’s Wharf,
and S. Peter’s, Paul’s
Wharf 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
25. Christ Church, Newgate
Street, and S. Leonard,
Foster Lane 200 0 333 6 8 461 H 1,386
26. S. Edmund the King and
S. Nicholas Acons 180 0 300 0 0 1,150 H 222
27. S. George, Botolph Lane,
and S. Botolph,
Billingsgate 180 0 300 0 0 380 H 195
28. S. Lawrence, Jewry, and S.
Magdalen, Milk Street 120 0 200 0 0 683 216
29. S. Margaret, Lothbury,
£100; and S.
Christopher £120 220 0 366 13 4 [278]
30. S. Magnus and S. Margaret,
New Fish Street 170 0 283 6 8 [278]
31. S. Michael Royal and S.
Martin Vintry 140 0 233 6 8 235 208
32. S. Matthew, Friday Street,
and S. Peter, Westcheap 150 0 250 0 0 [278]
33. S. Margaret Pattens, and
S. Gabriel, Fenchurch 120 0 200 0 0 now 830 H 178
34. S. Mary-at-Hill and S.
Andrew Hubbard 200 0 333 6 8 400 H 295
35. S. Mary Woolnoth, and S.
Mary Woolchurch 160 0 266 13 4 now 800 H 319
36. S. Clement, Eastcheap,
and S. Martin Orgar 140 0 233 6 8 350 H 238
37. S. Mary Abchurch, and S.
Lawrence, Pountney 120 0 200 0 0 590 H 236
38. S. Mary, Aldermary, and
S. Thomas the Apostle 150 0 250 0 0 [278]
39. S. Mary-le-Bow; S. Pancras,
Soper Lane, and All
Hallows, Honey Lane 200 0 333 6 8 [278]
40. S. Mildred, Poultry, and
S. Mary Colechurch 170 0 283 6 8 [278]
41. S. Michael, Wood Street,
and S. Mary Staining 100 0 200 0 0 255 172
42. S. Mildred, Bread Street,
and S. Margaret, Moses 130 0 216 13 4 280 76
43. S. Michael, Queenhithe,
and Trinity 160 0 266 13 4 [278]
44. S. Mary Magdalene, Old
Fish Street, and S.
Gregory by S. Paul 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
45. S. Mary Somerset, and
S. Mary Mounthaw 110 0 200 0 0 [278]
46. S. Nicholas, Cole Abbey,
and S. Nicholas, Olave 130 0 216 13 4 [278]
47. S. Olave, Old Jewry, and
S. Martin Pomroy 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
48. S. Stephen, Walbrook,
and S. Benet, Sherehog 100 0 200 0 0 774 H 127
49. S. Swithin and S. Mary,
Bothaw 140 0 233 6 8 451 243
50. S. Vedast, Foster Lane,
and S. Michael-le-Quern 160 0 266 13 4 [278]
---------- -------------- ------- ------
Total £7,164 11 £12,240 18 4 £15,702 14,024
========== ============== ======= ======
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., 2_s._ 9_d._ 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. (1) the support of the clergy; (2) the relief
of the poor; and (3) the repairs of the church. Here is the tripartite
division.[279] By the London (City) Tithes Act, 27, 28 Vict. 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.
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 1,350 31
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
------
£5,325
======
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 endowment of its vicar.
The tithes of the following parishes have been commuted by local Acts.
£
S. Andrew, Holborn. 4 George IV. c. cxviii. Fixed annual 700
net sum
S. Giles, Cripplegate. 7 George IV. c. liv. ” 1,800[280]
S. Botolph without, Bishopsgate. 6 George IV.
c. clxxvi. ” 2,500[281]
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., produce 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.[282] 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; population, 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 £100, and S.
Mary, Whitechapel, £500 per annum.[283] Bishop of London, patron; rector,
Bishop Wilkinson; income, £1,500 per annum, including £1,100 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,[284] of which S. Olave’s, Mile End, has £600 per annum,
and house. Church accommodation, 250; population, 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 £350 + £300 = £650; Holy Trinity,
Barking Road, £350; S. Gabriel, Canning Town, £350; St. Luke, Victoria
Dock, £350.
(5) _All Hallows Barking_; fixed tithe, £2,000; church accommodation,
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 avoidance, £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 this tithe are £600 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;
£100 to Holy Cross, S. Pancras. The rector has a gross income of £1,000 a
year.
(10) _S. Giles’, Cripplegate_; commuted tithe, £1,800; subject to
revision every ten years; in 1890 the value = £1,100, with house;
population, 2,473; S. Luke’s, Old Street, has a charge of £200 a year net.
(11) _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 19th March, 1878, for a _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 £100 from the E.C., arising out
of local claim. The minor canons must have received £10,000 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.
(14) _S. Dunstan-in-the-East_; income, £536, from house property 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 payable 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, Bishopsgate_, has been given. Has a house.
(18) _S. Dunstan-in-the-West, Fleet Street._ By 1 Geo. IV. c. lix., the
tithes were commuted to an annual payment by the ratepayers of £359, of
which £5 went to the Crown. By an order in Council dated 16th 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
augmenting 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 £11,350 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 population including children,
of 3,886, or £3 9_s._ per head.
The populations are taken from the census of 1881; and it 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 £13,341 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_.
The City of London Tithes Act of 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. 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 Vict. 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 Vict. 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 ratepayers,
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 1836_[285].
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.”[286]
“The tithe,” says Adam Smith, “is always a great discouragement 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, improvements, 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.”[287]
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: (1) 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 Commissioners, 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,” 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
in 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 1st 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 to go on any other land belonging to the same landowner
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 Commissioners on an average
of seven years’ payment of tithes. Let this be £100; the third of which,
or £33 6_s._ 8_d._, 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, 7_s._ 0¼_d._; for barley, 3_s._ 11½_d._;
for oats, 2_s._ 9_d._ The tithe-payer has to pay in respect of his £100
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 middlemen, 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 5_s._ 1¾_d._ per bushel; barley, 3_s._ 11¾_d._; oats,
2_s._ 8¾_d._, what has the tithe-owner to receive for £100 tithe-rent
charge?
He receives (94·95 × 61¾_d._ + 168·42 × 47¾_d._ + 242·42 × 32¼_d._) = £90
10_s._ 3½_d._
The 80th section of the Act says that “any tenant who shall pay any such
rent-charge 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.” 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 himself 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 agreement, then the 80th
section comes into force. But in the other case the landlord contracts
himself out of the 80th 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 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 £3 per acre, and tithe, 10_s._, 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 hundredfold, 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.
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 Parliament. 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 throughout 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; 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 Commutation Act of 1836 was to prevent tithe-owners from receiving an
increased quantity of tithes from increased agricultural improvements.
So long as this system continued, landlords and tenants were always
unwilling to sink capital in agricultural improvements, 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 expended, 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 improvements. 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 compensation 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 provision 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 carefully 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
provision for redeeming the tithe-rent charge is omitted and postponed.
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: (1) _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 £100 of the “commuted value,” and
put it in the market for sale. The present value (1891) of the £100 is
£73 3_s._ 3¾_d._ Present purchaser will reason thus: Depreciation, £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 × 25 = £1,400 for the £100
of the “commuted value.” Again, there is a powerful body, and 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 = £80, and would not sell
for less than twenty-five years’ purchase on this value, _i.e._, £80 x
25 = £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 £100 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 Appropriators 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 (1) 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 £2¾ per cent.
to this amount to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in trust for the
parochial incumbents 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 _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 composition, 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
gardens in future, liable to increased tithes. Orchards were a precarious
and uncertain description of property, and frequently did not bear in
certain years; and in respect of garden lands, if the Legislature
allowed the question to be opened again from time to time, it would give
rise to incessant disputes.”[288]
Although he thus modified his views in the second reading, yet he was
thoroughly opposed to the principle. And his prophetic 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_s._ 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 since 1862,
the reduction of about £4 5_s._ 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 1_s._ 6_d._ 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 Vict. c. lxii. 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 Vict. 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 Vict. c. liv.) in the preamble 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 land is to be charged
with the payment of an annual rent-charge equal to four per centum
on the capitalized value of the extraordinary 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 subject 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, notwithstanding 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 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 injuring 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 burning
political questions of the day, I shall give a sketch of the value and
appropriation of the tithe-rent charge of Wales, including the parishes
in Monmouth and Salop, which are in Welsh dioceses. The figures are taken
from the official Tithe Commutation Return of 1887.
-----------------------+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| | | St. | St. | | Per-
|Bangor.|Llandaff.|Asaph.|David’s.|Total. |centage.
+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| £ | £ | £ | £ | £ |
Clerical Appropriators | 9,559| 12,297 |31,047| 26,831 | 79,734| 26·9
Parochial Incumbents | 27,939| 31,306 |42,618| 47,307 |149,170| 50·4
Lay Impropriators | 5,941| 9,748 |21,732| 23,389 | 60,810| 20·5
Schools, Colleges, etc.| 2,378| 273 | 1,736| 2,164 | 6,551| 2·2
+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| 45,817| 53,624 |97,133|100,488 |296,265| 100·0
-----------------------+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
By the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when Parliament
vested in them the tithe-rent charges of all the archbishops, bishops,
chapters, etc., a large quantity of rent-charges was annexed to
benefices. The following table indicates the ownerships in 1890:—
-----------------------+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| | | St. | St. | | Per-
|Bangor.|Llandaff.|Asaph.|David’s.|Total. |centage.
+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| £ | £ | £ | £ | £ |
Ecclesiastical | | | | | |
Commissioners | 2,162 | 8,347 |14,118| 18,674 | 43,301| 14·6
Parochial Incumbents |35,781 | 35,376 |58,499| 56,939 |186,595| 63·0
Lay Impropriators | 4,969 | 9,646 |20,565| 21,978 | 57,158| 19·3
Schools, Colleges, etc.| 1,289 | 255 | 1,736| 2,100 | 5,380| 1·8
Chapters | 1,616 | | 2,215| | 3,831| 1·3
+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
|45,817 | 53,624 |97,133|100,488 |296,265| 100·0
-----------------------+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
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 destitution 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.
_Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry_ held £1,456 10_s._ from 4 parishes.
The E. C. annexed to parishes £863 1_s._ 9_d._, and retained to £593
8_s._ 3_d._
_Jesus College, Oxford_, £1,089 9_s._ 10_d._ This college annexed to the
two parishes £239 17_s._ 8_d._
_The principal of this college_ £738 10_s._ 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:—
£ _s._ _d._
Dean 1,020 0 0 from two parishes.
Treasurer 200 0 0
Archdeacon of Merioneth 227 15 11
Prebendary of Penrynydd 434 14 0
---------------
£1,882 9 11
===============
By an Act of 1 James II. (1685), the Dean and Chapter received 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 £6,409 per annum, taken from 44
parishes by the Chapter of Llandaff.
But this is not the end of the depletion of parochial endowments. 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 £8,121 per annum from 23 parishes.
Bishop of St. David’s, £800 from one.
The Dean and Chapter received £1,649 from 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 from 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. 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 £15,000 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.[289]
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 ” 1 parish.
Bishop of Lincoln 400 ” 2 parishes.
------
Total £6,068 for four bishops from
====== 32 parishes.[290]
£
Chanter and Chapter received 6,324 from 34 parishes.
Dean and Canons of Windsor 1,824 ” 5 ”
------
Total £8,148
======
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 ” 1 ”
-------
Total £11,815
Four sinecure rectories £971
_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 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 4,505
In Salop 207
-------
Total amount _commutation value_ in their possession in
the four Welsh dioceses £33,881
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.
£ _s._ _d._
Anglesey 901 0 0 in possession of E. C.
Brecon 2,387 14 0 ” and £603 6 8 on lease, St. David’s
Diocese.
Cardigan 1,117 1 0 ” 450 0 0 ” ”
Carmarthen 3,821 4 4 ” 1,123 6 0 ” ”
Carnarvon 777 11 8 ”
Denbigh 6,714 19 3 ” 581 6 8 ” St. Asaph’s
Flint 2,776 6 8 ”
Glamorgan 4,705 16 9 ”
Merioneth 611 17 9 ”
Montgomery 726 18 1 ”
Pembroke 2,286 3 10 ” 820 16 0 ” St. David’s
Radnor 2,342 12 3 ” 2,192 18 0 ” ”
------- -----------
£29,169 5 8 in poss. £5,772 13 4 on lease in 1891.
of E.C.
In this statement we get the actual amount which was outstanding on
beneficial leases in 1891, viz., in St. David’s Diocese, £5,191 6_s._
8_d._ on the prebendal tithes only; in St. Asaph’s, £581 6_s._ 8_d._
The annual payments out of the Common Fund in 1889 to the Church in Wales
were the following:—
£
Bishops 17,100
Deans 2,800
Canons 5,600
Minor Canons 1,270
Domus and Fabric 1,800
Four archdeacons 1,060
St. David’s College, Lampeter 1,500
Interest on Capital Grants for Cathedral repairs 893
-------
32,023
To parochial incumbents 35,611
-------
Total from the Common Fund £67,634
The net annual income derived by the E. C. for 1888 from property in
Wales was £28,796. Therefore £38,838 was a free grant out of the Common
Fund to the Church in Wales in 1889, and the amount was much larger for
1890.
The value in 1889 of £29,169 commuted tithes in Wales, was £23,014, which
was all that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners can be credited with.
By a parliamentary return, issued 30th June, 1890, the E. C. state that
in 1885 they had £23,798 of depreciated value of the commuted tithes. The
amount in possession of the E. C. varies from year to year on account of
(1) depreciation of value; (2) the falling in of beneficial leases, and
(3) annexations of all or part of this property to parishes to satisfy
local claims when the leases expire.
The total gross revenues from tithes, glebes, Common Fund of E.C., Queen
Anne’s Bounty, etc., of bishops, chapters and incumbents, in the four
Welsh dioceses were in 1890 £325,226; curates, etc., £55,000 additional.
Church population, including children, 350,000. Nonconformist population
= 1,400,000.
The Welsh parochial incumbents receive, gross, £186,595 tithe-rent
charge.
The vicars choral, Domus and Fabric 3,831
Ecclesiastical Commissioners 43,301
--------
Total 233,727
Impropriators 57,158
Colleges, schools, hospitals, etc. 5,380
--------
£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, _net_ £150. 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 of
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 of 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 Rentcharge in
England and Wales.
[54 Vict. 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:
_Liability of owner to pay tithe rentcharge, and modification of
contracts with tenants._
I.—(1) Tithe rentcharge as defined by this Act issuing out of any lands
shall be payable by the owner of the lands, notwithstanding 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 rentcharge 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 rentcharge, 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.
_Recovery of tithe rentcharge through County Court._
II.—(1) Where any sum due on account of tithe rentcharge issuing out
of any lands is in arrear for 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 appointment 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,
1836.[291]
(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 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 consequently 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 thereupon, 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 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 rentcharge, 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, 1888.[292]
(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,
1888,[293] 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.—(1) 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 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 Parliament is then
sitting, or, if not, within forty days after the commencement 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 interest thereon at the rate of four per
centum per annum: Provided 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.—(1) 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 rentcharge._
VI.—(1) 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 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.
_Remission of tithe rentcharge when exceeding two-thirds annual value of
land._
VIII.—(1) Where a sum is claimed on account of tithe rentcharge 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 preceding the day on which the sum
claimed became payable, will exceed 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, 1853,[294] or as certified as
hereinafter 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 determined 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 commissioners 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 rentcharge 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 ascertained 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 apportionment has been
made in pursuance of section fifty-eight of the Tithe Act, 1836,[295]
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 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 apportionment.
(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.—(1) 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 Cornwall; and
(_c_) in any other case, means the same officers or persons as
are mentioned in the Tithe Act, 1836.[296]
(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, 1860,[297] and which
is subject to the like incidents as such tithe rentcharge as aforesaid;
but does not include a rentcharge payable under the Extraordinary Tithe
Redemption Act, 1886,[298] nor a rentcharge payable under the Tithe Act,
1860,[299] 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.—(1) 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 recoverable 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 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._
XI. Section eighty-four of the Tithe Act, 1836, is hereby repealed.
_Extent of Act and short titles._
XII.—(1) 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.
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:
For notice of application { One shilling for every five pounds and
to the Court { fraction above five pounds or any multiple
{ of five pounds of the sum claimed.
{ One shilling and sixpence for every five
For making the order { 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 rentcharge 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 unfortunately the 80th section of that Act, out of which
landlords contracted 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 deducted 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 1, viz. that, “Any contract 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, provided, 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 payment by removing produce and stock from
one field to another.
II. 1. 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 “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 recovered as in
the case of an ordinary action in the County Court. This amendment will
be extremely irritating to the small landowners, 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 21 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 advantages of the
tillage, and keep possession for years without rendering 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 creditors.
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 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
1 subsection 1. 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 arrangements
without any reference to collusion. The Lords, however, thought
differently. But the most important point for consideration 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. 1. 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 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 conduct 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. 1. 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 estimating 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 (1) and (4) at p. 210.
£ _s._ _d._
1. Bishop of Bangor 5,560 11 10 in 3 counties from 17 parishes.
” Bath and
Wells 1,831 11 0 in Somerset ” 11 ”
Archbishop of
Canterbury 30,713 16 7 in 4 counties ” 67 ”
Bishop of Carlisle 7,353 16 2 ” 2 ” ” 13 ”
5. ” Chester 14,702 16 4 ” 8 ” ” 31 ”
Chichester 2,118 18 1 ” 1 ” ” 7 ”
Durham 1,181 16 9½ ” 2 ” ” 6 ”
Ely 16,764 3 4 ” 7 ” ” 48 ”
Exeter 1,027 10 0 ” 2 ” ” 4 ”
10. ” Gloucester &
Bristol 10,191 1 4½ ” 7 ” ” 35 ”
Hereford 8,022 16 4 ” 3 ” ” 38 ”
Lichfield 7,128 12 7 ” 4 ” ” 11 ”
Lincoln 7,676 7 1 ” 3 ” ” 15 ”
London 7,538 4 1 ” 3 ” ” 11 ”
15. ” Llandaff 2,936 7 7 ” 3 ” ” 12 ”
Norwich 7,926 7 4 ” 2 ” ” 20 ”
Oxford 4,844 19 9 ” 4 ” ” 10 ”
Peterborough 140 0 0 ” 1 ” ” 1 ”
Rochester 4,451 9 4 ” 3 ” ” 7 ”
20. ” Salisbury 3,683 14 5 ” 2 ” ” 4 ”
St. Asaph 8,126 0 0 ” 4 ” ” 21 ”
St. David’s 5,363 0 0 ” 7 ” ” 24 ”
Winchester 3,685 0 0 ” 2 ” ” 4 ”
Worcester 1,803 1 6 ” 1 ” ” 5 ”
25. Archbishop of York 24,944 13 7 ” 3 ” ” 36 ”
----------------- ---
£189,718 11 0 from 458 parishes.
It must be noted, that these are commuted tithes; but the tithes were
much higher in value.
APPENDIX B.
CHAPTERS.
£ _s._ _d._
Dean and
Chapter of Bangor 1,616 0 0 in 1 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 7½ ” 3 ” 30 ”
” Chester 1,028 13 5 ” 1 ” 6 ”
” Chichester 8,883 8 2 ” 3 ” 26 ”
” Durham 15,321 19 1½ ” 3 ” 25 ”
” Ely 10,762 16 2 ” 4 ” 15 ”
” Exeter 14,636 17 4 ” 4 ” 51 ”
” Gloucester 6,654 2 3 ” 4 ” 25 ”
” Hereford 10,371 1 2 ” 4 ” 45 ”
” Lichfield 6,738 9 5 ” 5 ” 18 ”
” Lincoln 5,111 3 3 ” 6 ” 19 ”
” Llandaff 4,642 0 0 ” 2 ” 29 ”
” London 10,681 4 11 ” 4 ” 17 ”
” Manchester 2,596 10 11 ” 1 ” 1 ”
” Norwich 11,329 3 8 ” 2 ” 39 ”
” Oxford 39,785 1 10 ” 18 ” 82 ”
” Ripon 1,376 8 3 ” 1 ” 2 ”
” Rochester 15,394 18 4 ” 4 ” 39 ”
” Salisbury 11,282 0 8 ” 5 ” 33 ”
” St. Asaph 3,018 10 10½ ” 3 ” 7 ”
” St. David’s 6,323 12 8 ” 5 ” 37 ”
” Wells 7,382 7 9 ” 3 ” 22 ”
” Westminster 9,794 6 4 ” 8 ” 22 ”
” Windsor 29,887 9 2 ” 16 ” 61 ”
” Winchester 14,988 10 5 ” 7 ” 25 ”
” Worcester 12,033 4 0 ” 6 ” 23 ”
29. ” York 6,357 3 9 ” 3 ” 21 ”
----------------- ---
£314,276 14 3 in 798 parishes.
APPENDIX C.
Dean.
Precentor.
Chancellor.
Treasurer.
Prebendaries.
Total.
£ £ £ £ £ £
1. Chichester 1,439 853 525 891 7,755 11,463
Durham 1,457 3,615 5,072
Ely 3,406 3,406
Exeter 2,505 215 1,054 1,219 2,100 7,193
5. Hereford 843 503 655 479 1,668 4,148
Lichfield 3,320 [300]14,853 18,173
Lincoln 6,478 9 9,310 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
Heytesbury ” 1,288 1,288
Dean of S. Buryan 1,050
15. ” Middleham 232
WALES—
Bangor 1,020 200 435 1,655
Llandaff 185 435 [301]1,098 1,718
St. Asaph’s 1,988 1,585 868 350 1,294 6,085
19. St. David’s 384 326 [302] [301]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 Christian country in the world. It is even shocking when we add
the above to their respective chapters, viz.:—
£ £ £
1. 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
11. 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
_N.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:—
£
Archbishops and Bishops 189,718
£
Chapters 314,276
Separate estates of Principals and Prebendaries 148,492
Vicars-Choral of ten Cathedrals 10,278
-------
473,046
Twenty-two Archdeacons 17,236
Sinecure Rectories in Wales, erroneously inserted
among “Clerical Appropriators” 1,695
--------
£681,695
A very useful lesson is derived from a study of the tithe-rent charges in
possession of the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge in 1836.
APPENDIX D.
_Oxford._
£
1. King’s 357
Corpus Christi 1,333
Exeter 807
All Soul’s 2,355
5. Magdalene 2,886
University College 2,958
Jesus[303] 3,576
Oriel 1,487
Pembroke 292
10. Brasenose 115
Balliol 1,491
Queen’s 2,451
Trinity 2,620
Merton 5,125
15. St. John’s 779
Wadham 955
17. Winchester, or New College 10,311
-------
Total £42,898
_Cambridge._
£
1. King’s 10,408
Catherine’s Hall 430
Jesus 1,543
Christ 2,637
5. Corpus Christi 150
Magdalene 1,318
University College[304] 4,110
Emmanuel 481
Pembroke 3,154
10. Gonville and Caius 1,292
11. Queen’s 10
St. John’s 5,048
Clare 2,004
Downing 5
St. Peter’s 639
Trinity 33,441
17. Trinity Hall 976
-------
£67,646
Oxford £42,898
Cambridge 67,646
--------
Total for 34 Colleges £110,544
Schools, Charities, and Hospitals = £80,520[305]
Companies and Corporations = £10,971
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 property 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 commuted 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-third their rack-rental value, because
the owners had for centuries 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 leasehold property with which the Act of 1840
vested the Commissioners 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 enfranchising 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 Commission, it is
essentially necessary to state that this Commission has cleared away,
as far as public patronage is concerned with 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 Archdeacon’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 Parliament 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 properties, 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 bound to satisfy local claims of hundreds of parishes
with populations 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 Commissioners were opposed to this extension
clause, and it was not in the Bill, but was inserted and carried by
members of Parliament after the Bill was introduced, who had churches
on their own 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.
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.
------------------+---------+---------+---------++-------------
| WHEAT, | BARLEY, | OATS, || Value of
_Per London | per | per | per || TITHE-RENT
Gazette_ |imperial |imperial |imperial || CHARGE of
| bushel. | bushel. | bushel. || £100.
------------------+---------+---------+---------++-------------
|_s._ _d._|_s._ _d._|_s._ _d._|| £ _s._ _d._
To Christmas 1835 | | | ||
on 9th Dec. 1836 | 7 0¼ | 3 11½ | 2 9 || 100 0 0
| | | ++=============
To Christmas 1836 | 6 8½ | 3 11¾ | 2 9 || 98 13 9¾
do. 1837 | 6 6¾ | 3 11¼ | 2 8¾ || 97 7 11
do. 1838 | 6 6¼ | 3 9¾ | 2 8 || 95 7 9
do. 1839 | 6 9 | 3 11¼ | 2 9¼ || 98 15 9½
do. 1840 | 6 11¾ | 4 1 | 2 10¾ || 102 12 5¼
do. 1841 | 7 3¾ | 4 2 | 2 11¼ || 105 8 2¾
do. 1842 | 7 7½ | 4 1¼ | 2 10½ || 105 12 2¼
do. 1843 | 7 7¾ | 4 0½ | 2 9½ || 104 3 5¼
do. 1844 | 7 7 | 4 1¼ | 2 9 || 103 17 11¼
do. 1845 | 7 4 | 4 1½ | 2 9 || 102 17 8¾
do. 1846 | 7 0½ | 4 0 | 2 8½ || 99 18 10¼
do. 1847 | 7 1¼ | 4 1½ | 2 9¼ || 102 1 0
do. 1848 | 6 10¼ | 4 1¼ | 2 8¾ || 100 3 7¾
do. 1849 | 6 7½ | 4 1¼ | 2 8½ || 98 16 10
do. 1850 | 6 5¼ | 4 0 | 2 8 || 96 11 4¾
do. 1851 | 6 2¾ | 3 10¼ | 2 7½ || 93 16 11¼
do. 1852 | 6 0½ | 3 9½ | 2 6¾ || 91 13 5¾
do. 1853 | 6 0 | 3 9½ | 2 6¼ || 90 19 5
do. 1854 | 6 0¾ | 3 7¾ | 2 6 || 89 15 8¾
do. 1855 | 6 6 | 3 8½ | 2 7½ || 93 18 1¼
do. 1856 | 6 11¼ | 3 11¼ | 2 9¼ || 99 13 7¼
do. 1857 | 7 2¾ | 4 3½ | 2 11 || 105 16 3½
do. 1858 | 7 4 | 4 5½ | 3 0¼ || 108 19 6¼
do. 1859 | 7 4½ | 4 6½ | 3 1¼ || 110 17 8½
do. 1860 | 7 4½ | 4 7¼ | 3 2 || 112 3 4¾
do. 1861 | 7 0¾ | 4 7¼ | 3 1 || 109 13 6
do. 1862 | 6 8¾ | 4 7½ | 3 0 || 107 5 2
do. 1863 | 6 3½ | 4 5¾ | 2 11¼ || 103 3 10¾
do. 1864 | 6 0 | 4 3¼ | 2 10 || 98 15 10½
do. 1865 | 5 11½ | 4 2¼ | 2 9½ || 97 7 9¼
do. 1866 | 6 0¾ | 4 3 | 2 9¾ || 98 13 8
do. 1867 | 6 3¼ | 4 3¾ | 2 10¼ || 100 13 3
do. 1868 | 6 5¼ | 4 5¼ | 2 11 || 103 5 8¼
do. 1869 | 6 3½ | 4 6¼ | 2 11¾ || 104 1 0¼
do. 1870 | 6 4 | 4 6¼ | 3 0¼ || 104 15 1
do. 1871 | 6 7½ | 4 7¾ | 3 1¼ || 108 4 0¼
do. 1872 | 6 10¾ | 4 9¼ | 3 1½ || 110 15 10¼
do. 1873 | 7 0¾ | 4 10 | 3 1¾ || 112 7 3
do. 1874 | 6 10¾ | 4 11 | 3 2¼ || 112 15 6¾
do. 1875 | 6 6¾ | 4 10 | 3 2½ || 110 14 11
do. 1876 | 6 6¼ | 4 9 | 3 2½ || 109 16 11½
do. 1877 | 6 8½ | 4 10¼ | 3 3¼ || 112 7 5¼
do. 1878 | 6 6¼ | 4 11 | 3 3 || 111 15 1½
do. 1879 | 6 3½ | 4 10¼ | 3 2¾ || 109 17 9¼
do. 1880 | 6 0½ | 4 8¾ | 3 2¼ || 107 2 10½
do. 1881 | 5 10¼ | 4 6 | 3 0¾ || 102 16 2
do. 1882 | 5 10¼ | 4 4½ | 2 11¼ || 100 4 9¾
do. 1883 | 5 9¼ | 4 3¾ | 2 10¼ || 98 6 2¼
do. 1884 | 5 4¾ | 4 1¾ | 2 9 || 93 17 3
do. 1885 | 5 1¾ | 3 11¾ | 2 8¼ || 90 10 3½
do. 1886 | 4 11 | 3 10 | 2 7½ || 87 8 10
do. 1887 | 4 8½ | 3 8½ | 2 6¼ || 84 2 8¾
do. 1888 | 4 5½ | 3 7½ | 2 5 || 80 19 8½
do. 1889 | 4 2¼ | 3 6¼ | 2 4¼ || 78 1 3½
do. 1890 | 4 0¼ | 3 5¾ | 2 3½ || 76 3 3¾
| | | ++-------------
| | | ||5536 6 5
| | | ++-------------
General average for the last 55 years ||£100 13 2½
APPENDIX F.
Summary of Tithe-rent charges, copied from the Parliamentary Tithes
Commutation Return, 1887.
--------------+--------------------------------------------------------
| RENT CHARGES.
+--------------+-----------+--------------+--------------
Counties. | Payable |Payable to | Payable to | Payable
| to Clerical | Parochial | Lay- | to Schools,
|Appropriators.|Incumbents.|Impropriators.|Colleges, etc.
--------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+--------------
Bedford | £3,599 | 13,276 | £3,429 | £4,224
Berks | 18,978 | 46,726 | 18,763 | 4,011
Bucks | 4,214 | 28,605 | 13,652 | 506
Cambridge | 15,156 | 50,201 | 5,741 | 8,867
Chester | 15,630 | 33,208 | 13,217 | 1,533
Cornwall | 12,218 | 61,175 | 26,834 | 924
Cumberland | 10,517 | 9,965 | 4,425 | 1,313
Derby | 7,193 | 21,000 | 10,096 | 123
Devon | 30,910 | 115,691 | 28,365 | 6,463
Dorset | 9,485 | 62,184 | 13,766 | 3,749
Durham | 11,367 | 28,071 | 13,340 | 4,697
Essex | 15,253 | 159,018 | 53,988 | 22,018
Gloucester | 18,650 | 53,478 | 12,983 | 2,552
Hereford | 20,018 | 47,601 | 6,312 | 1,770
Hertford | 13,156 | 43,667 | 16,217 | 3,594
Huntingdon | 1,065 | 10,860 | 2,109 | 1,051
Kent | 71,048 | 143,881 | 35,217 | 7,729
Lancaster | 13,122 | 36,179 | 20,650 | 4,039
Leicester | 1,461 | 25,244 | 3,809 | 443
Lincoln | 17,695 | 80,295 | 23,208 | 5,334
Middlesex | 4,533 | 16,828 | 5,388 | 74
Monmouth | 6,635 | 17,195 | 5,673 | 413
Norfolk | 31,023 | 203,016 | 33,340 | 13,204
Northampton | 1,671 | 27,027 | 2,473 | 831
Northumberland| 17,187 | 24,634 | 27,881 | 7,835
Nottingham | 10,004 | 20,516 | 6,642 | 3,166
Oxford | 9,614 | 31,997 | 7,054 | 4,207
Rutland | 739 | 6,891 | 606 |
Salop | 3,496 | 66,427 | 34,939 | 3,831
Somerset | 23,141 | 104,994 | 25,749 | 1,856
Southampton | 21,309 | 103,467 | 26,163 | 21,917
Stafford | 20,501 | 33,474 | 20,733 | 773
Suffolk | 7,044 | 155,097 | 37,751 | 5,774
Surrey | 7,465 | 48,287 | 19,247 | 1,301
Sussex | 24,807 | 103,019 | 28,040 | 4,507
Warwick | 2,812 | 29,654 | 10,545 | 7,807
Westmoreland | 756 | 3,155 | 1,907 | 1,827
Wilts | 41,352 | 77,705 | 18,587 | 7,262
Worcester | 11,961 | 42,128 | 8,598 | 1,329
York | 57,247 | 91,697 | 57,727 | 15,043
--------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+--------------
| 614,032 | 2,277,539 | 705,174 | 187,897
--------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+--------------
WALES. | | | |
Anglesey | £2,667 | £12,065 | £2,139 | £1,534
Brecon | 4,616 | 11,722 | 3,270 | 161
Cardigan | 3,251 | 4,979 | 10,475 | 794
Carmarthen | 6,640 | 7,419 | 14,707 | 468
Carnarvon | 2,133 | 11,139 | 3,012 | 1,037
Denbigh | 13,413 | 16,602 | 5,525 | 1,249
Flint | 6,607 | 12,192 | 4,528 | 257
Glamorgan | 7,114 | 16,854 | 5,592 | 40
Merioneth | 2,034 | 6,889 | 542 |
Montgomery | 7,688 | 14,991 | 3,824 | 1,586
Pembroke | 4,779 | 15,243 | 7,206 | 741
Radnor | 6,721 | 7,406 | 348 | 291
--------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+--------------
| 67,663 | 137,500 | 61,168 | 8,159
England | 614,032 | 2,277,540 | 705,167 | 187,897
--------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+--------------
Total | £681,695 |£2,415,040 | £766,335 | £196,056
--------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+--------------
General total of the four items, £4,059,126.
APPENDIX G.
Analysis of the Tithe Commutation Return in Appendix F, showing (1)
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.
1. Parochial Rectors.
2. Appropriated Rectors.
3. Impropriated Rectors.
4. Collegiate School, Hospital, etc., Rectors.
5. Appropriated Vicars.
6. Parishes with Vicars but without Rectors.
7. Total number of Vicars.
8. Total number of Ancient Parishes.
-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Counties. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------
ENGLAND. | | | | | | | |
Bedford | 25 | 3 | 12 | 7 | 21 | 6 | 27 | 53
Berks | 65 | 26 | 33 | 6 | 54 | 7 | 61 | 137
Bucks | 63 | 9 | 42 | 1 | 36 | 10 | 46 | 125
Cambridge | 40 | 19 | 8 | 19 | 32 | 5 | 37 | 91
Chester | 51 | 21 | 18 | | 26 | | 26 | 90
Cornwall | 81 | 28 | 86 | 3 | 103 | 6 | 109 | 204
Cumberland | 31 | 26 | 23 | 2 | 25 | 2 | 27 | 84
Derby | 47 | 16 | 50 | | 51 | 5 | 56 | 118
Devon | 245 | 83 | 104 | 9 | 147 | 8 | 155 | 449
10 Dorset | 167 | 29 | 48 | 3 | 69 | 14 | 83 | 261
Durham | 30 | 20 | 17 | 8 | 29 | 4 | 33 | 79
Essex | 237 | 28 | 99 | 20 | 129 | 7 | 136 | 391
Gloucester | 109 | 49 | 39 | 6 | 69 | 10 | 79 | 213
Hereford | 80 | 80 | 29 | 9 | 98 | 17 | 115 | 215
Hertford | 64 | 15 | 26 | 5 | 42 | 4 | 46 | 114
Huntingdon | 36 | 7 | 11 | 3 | 13 | | 13 | 57
Kent | 176 | 143 | 63 | 13 | 181 | 10 | 191 | 405
Gloucester | 28 | 11 | 31 | 1 | 21 | | 21 | 71
Leicester | 75 | 7 | 33 | 3 | 35 | 11 | 46 | 129
20 Lincoln | 188 | 38 | 67 | 8 | 89 | 32 | 121 | 333
Middlesex | 23 | 8 | 14 | 1 | 17 | 4 | 21 | 50
Monmouth | 44 | 40 | 30 | 4 | 51 | 5 | 56 | 123
Norfolk | 447 | 86 | 102 | 23 | 157 | 9 | 166 | 667
Northampton | 91 | 8 | 16 | 6 | 21 | 11 | 32 | 132
Northumberland| 18 | 16 | 43 | 3 | 43 | 3 | 46 | 83
Nottingham | 41 | 27 | 22 | 8 | 45 | 8 | 53 | 106
Oxford | 74 | 20 | 25 | 11 | 40 | 4 | 44 | 134
Rutland | 24 | 6 | 2 | | 6 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 56 | 5 | 61 | 137
Suffolk | 319 | 16 | 123 | 10 | 93 | 15 | 108 | 483
Surrey | 74 | 13 | 42 | 1 | 35 | 3 | 38 | 133
Sussex | 160 | 59 | 62 | 8 | 104 | 10 | 114 | 299
Warwick | 48 | 7 | 45 | 18 | 53 | 16 | 69 | 134
Westmoreland | 13 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 14 | 27
Wilts | 131 | 69 | 50 | 12 | 101 | 12 | 113 | 274
Worcester | 73 | 31 | 16 | 1 | 36 | 7 | 43 | 128
40 York | 155 | 117 | 156 | 27 | 186 | 34 | 220 | 489
-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Total | 4158 | 1346 | 1890 | 301 | 2645 | 327 | 2972 | 8022
-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------
WALES. | | | | | | | |
Anglesey | 50 | 10 | 13 | 4 | 5 | | 5 | 77
Brecon | 27 | 24 | 15 | 1 | 24 | 2 | 26 | 69
Cardigan | 15 | 15 | 31 | 1 | 24 | | 24 | 62
Carmarthen | 14 | 21 | 39 | 2 | 36 | 2 | 38 | 78
Carnarvon | 40 | 10 | 13 | 5 | 17 | 1 | 18 | 69
Denbigh | 20 | 22 | 7 | 2 | 18 | 5 | 23 | 56
Flint | 14 | 15 | 2 | | 15 | | 15 | 31
Glamorgan | 58 | 29 | 29 | | 42 | 3 | 45 | 119
Merioneth | 22 | 8 | 4 | | 5 | | 5 | 34
Montgomery | 26 | 15 | 11 | 2 | 19 | 1 | 20 | 55
Pembroke | 62 | 27 | 40 | 2 | 49 | 3 | 52 | 134
12 Radnor | 18 | 26 | 2 | 1 | 17 | 3 | 20 | 50
-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Total | 366 | 222 | 206 | 20 | 271 | 20 | 291 | 834
In England | 4158 | 1346 | 1890 | 301 | 2645 | 327 | 2972 | 8022
-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Total in England | | | | | | | |
and Wales | 4524 | 1568 | 2096 | 321 | 2916 | 347 | 3263 | 8856
-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------
Column 1 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._, impropriated 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 £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.[306] 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.
(1) 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 = 7,787.
(3) Lay Impropriators receive £766,334; they number 2,096. (4) Schools,
colleges, etc., receive £196,055; they number 321, and are classified in
Appendix D, page 247.
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.[307] These parishes do not appear in the
Tithe Commutation Return of 1887.
Parochial Rectors.
Appropriated Rectors.
Impropriated Rectors.
College, School,
etc., Rectors.
Vicars.
Total.
Parishes 435 63 477 14 548 989
Add the tithe number
at page 255 4,524 1,568 2,096 321 3,263 8,856
----- ----- ----- --- ----- -----
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 benefices 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 very few benefices are now
held in plurality), viz., England 13,048, Wales 856, Isle of Man 34,
Channel Islands 41. In the census of 1881, 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 11 benefices, so 13,979 benefices mean about
15,000 parishes. 11,667 benefices have parsonage houses, 2,312 have not.
APPENDIX I.
AGGREGATE SUMMARY OF REVENUES OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND.[308]
Gross income of property derived from
Private
Ancient Benefactions
Endowments. since 1703.
I. Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Sees 87,827 11,081
II. Cathedral and Collegiate Churches 192,400
III. Ecclesiastical Benefices 3,941,057 272,605
IV. Ecclesiastical Commissioners 1,247,827
V. Queen Anne’s Bounty 700
--------- -------
5,469,171 284,386
\--------\/-------/
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 £4,810,662 or gross £344 a year each, net £262. To find
net income, I have allowed £1,140,000 to cover depreciation and expenses
out of £2,592,000 tithe-rent charge, 1890.
The total _rateable_ value of the episcopal, capitular and parsonage
houses = £11,151 + £18,928 + £518,054 respectively = £548,133. The
rack-rental value is about £800,000 a year.
Dealing with the fluctuating part of the beneficed clergy’s income, we
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. (1) The average fluctuating 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 get the 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 with 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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] “The History of Tithes from Abraham to Queen Victoria,” 1887.
[2] “Facts and Fictions,” pp. 280, 281.
[3] Selden’s “History of Tithes,” p. 169.
[4] Van Espen, “jus Univ. Canon,” pars. ii. sec. 4.
[5] See Kemble’s “Anglo-Saxons,” New Ed.: 1876, vol. ii. 473.
[6] “Facts and Fictions,” pp. 9, 47.
[7] See the Animadversions on Selden’s “History of Tithes,” in 1621, by
Dr. R. Tillesley, Archdeacon of Rochester.
[8] Page 34.
[9] “Ancient Facts and Fictions,” Edition 1888, pp. 47, 48. Selden, p. 58.
[10] “Hist. Eccl.” ii. 5: cum consilio sapientium.
[11] Thorpe’s “Ancient Laws,” etc. i. 3.
[12] “Saxons in England,” ii. 205.
[13] Hook’s “Archbishops,” i. 134.
[14] 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 Witenagemót. See Hook, i. 59.
[15] Bede, “E. H.,” lib. i. c. xxvii.
[16] “Endowments and Establishment of the Church of England,” p. 39, ed.
1885. Mr. Dibdin is Chancellor of the Dioceses of Rochester, Exeter, and
Durham, and official of two archdeaconries.
[17] Canon 4.
[18] “Comms.,” bk. i. ch. ii. pp. 372-3, ed. 1765.
[19] p. 87.
[20] Thorpe, i. 435, Law viii.
[21] See the Laws in Thorpe, i. pp. 3-43, also pp. 103-151.
[22] “Our Title Deeds,” p. 53.
[23] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 191, note.
[24] Lib. ii. c. ii. § 8.
[25] Lib. ii. c. xiv. § 9.
[26] Lib. ii. c. xiv. § 10.
[27] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 107.
[28] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 174.
[29] “Const. Hist.,” i. 227, note 3, ed. 1874.
[30] “Anglo-Saxon Church,” i. 183; Bede, “Ep. ad Egb.,” ii.
[31] Scheller’s Latin Lexicon, edited by Riddle, 1835.
[32] Preface, pp. 2, 3.
[33] p. 156.
[34] “Com.,” bk. ii. ch. iii. p. 25, ed. 1765.
[35] Vol. ii. p. 732.
[36] Letter addressed to Mr. Fuller, as it appears in “Our Title Deeds.”
[37] “E. H.,” lib. v. c. iv.
[38] Bede, “E. H.,” lib. v. c. v.
[39] Johnson’s “Laws and Canons,” i. 87.
[40] Bodl. MS. 718.
[41] See Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 413.
[42] “Con.,” ii. 258.
[43] “Laws and Canons,” i. 181, ed. 1850.
[44] “Antiq. of the Ang.-Sax.,” i. 93, note.
[45] “Ancient Laws,” ii. 97.
[46] Thorpe’s “Ancient Laws,” etc., i. 98, Canons 3 and 5.
[47] “History of Tithes,” ed. 1618, pp. 196-198. Selden quotes in the
margin, “_MS. in Biblioth. Cottoniana_,” which clearly indicates that he
did not know it as the “_Worcester_” volume; or “_Worcester, Nero, A, 1_.”
[48] Consecrated Archbishop A.D. 734; died Nov. 19, 766, Stubbs’s
“Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum.”
[49] Baluze, i. 141, 142; Selden, c. vi. s. 7.
[50] “The Saxons in England,” ii. 473.
[51] Milman, ii. 292, etc.
[52] Bede, “Eccl. Hist.,” i. 27, 29.
[53] Stubbs, “Const. Hist.,” i. 217, ed. 1874.
[54] Bede, “E. H.,” ii. 6.
[55] Bede, “E. H.,” ii. c. xiii. See Kemble’s “Saxons,” ii. 241.
[56] Birch, “Cartularium Saxonicum,” i. No. 15.
[57] _Ibid._, i. No. 20.
[58] Bede, “E. H.,” iii. c. 25.
[59] Bede, “E. H.,” bk. iii. c. xxv., Dr. Giles’s translation.
[60] “Secundum vestrorum scriptorem tenorem” (Bede, “E. H.,” iii. c.
xxix.).
[61] Bede, “E. H.,” iv. c. i.
[62] Birch, “Cart. Sax.,” i. No. 24.
[63] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 360.
[64] Hook’s “Lives of Archbishops,” i. 245, 246.
[65] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 360.
[66] “Lives of the Two Offas” (Matt. Paris, ed. 1640, p. 21).
[67] “Henry of Huntingdon,” book iv. See also Pope Leo III.’s letter to
King Kenwulf of Mercia, in Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 523, 525.
[68] Selden, “History of Tithes,” c. viii. s. 2, p. 201.
[69] “Basileæ,” 1567; “Centuria,” viii. c. ix. pp. 574, 575.
[70] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 461.
[71] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 154.
[72] “Ancient Laws,” Preface, p. vii.; see pp. 69, 70.
[73] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 444, 447.
[74] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 456.
[75] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 145.
[76] “Councils,” iii. 637, note.
[77] “Constitutional History,” i. 228, ed. 1874.
[78] Num. xviii. 21.
[79] “Original and Right of Tithes,” p. 102.
[80] “Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores, x.,” edited by Roger Twysden, ed.
1652, fol. p. 776. Chronicon Johannis Bromton.
[81] “Flowers of History,” i. 158-163. See Dr. Giles’s ed., 1846.
[82] “History of Tithes,” c. viii. p. 208.
[83] “Hist. Angl.” lib., iv. 99, ed. 1649.
[84] “History of England,” bk. vi. c. vi.
[85] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 138.
[86] _Idem_, pp. 269, 270.
[87] “Ancient Laws,” i. 336.
[88] “Saxons in England,” ii. 447, note.
[89] “The Original and Right of Tithes,” p. 103.
[90] Bede, “E. H.,” lib. iv. c. xxix.
[91] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 23.
[92] pp. 103, 104.
[93] “An Historical Vindication of the Divine Right of Tithes,” by Dr.
Thomas Comber, ed. 1682.
[94] T. Gale, “Rer. Angl.,” vol. i. p. 17.
[95] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 637, note.
[96] Birch, “Cartularium Saxonicum,” i. No. 587.
[97] _See_ No. 260 of Kemble’s “Codex Diplomaticus.”
[98] Allen’s “Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the Royal Prerogative
in England.” New edition, 1849, edited by B. Thorpe, p. 135 _et passim_.
Kemble’s “Codex Diplomaticus,” Introd. p. civ. _et passim_. Ed. 1839.
[99] Kemble, “Codex Diplomaticus,” ed. 1839, vol. i. Introd. p. ix.
[100] “Concilia,” i. 184.
[101] “Hist. of Tithes,” p. 210. Ed. 1618.
[102] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 638.
[103] “Saxons in England,” ii. 485.
[104] As an illustration, see Charter A, dated 5th Nov., 844.
[105] As an illustration, see the Second Charter B, A.D. 854, and Charter
C, 5th Nov., 855.
[106] Charter A.D. 857, Will. of Malms, lib. ii. § 113. Haddan and
Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 846. “The Saxons in England,” ii. 489.
[107] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 638.
[108] _Ibid._ iii. 641.
[109] Selden, “Hist. of Tithes,” pp. 205, 206.
[110] _Idem_, c. viii. p. 205.
[111] See Haddan and Stubbs, iii. p. 636, note.
[112] “The Original and Right of Tithes,” p. 124, ed. 1736.
[113] “Ancient Laws,” i. p. 53, No. 38.
[114] English Bible.
[115] Hebrew translation.
[116] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 180.
[117] “Our Title Deeds,” p. 63.
[118] _Idem_, p. 64.
[119] “Saxons in England,” ii. 477.
[120] “Laws and Customs,” i. 315.
[121] “Our Title Deeds,” pp. 64, 65.
[122] Thorpe, i. 167.
[123] _Idem_, i. 166, note.
[124] _Idem_, i. 166, note.
[125] Selden, c. viii. s. 3, p. 204.
[126] Preface, p. vii.
[127] Thorpe’s “Ancient Laws,” i. 197.
[128] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 185.
[129] “Hist. of Tithes,” c. viii. s. 6, p. 213.
[130] “Saxons in England,” ii. 476.
[131] _Idem_, Appendix ii. B. p. 545.
[132] “Const. Hist.,” i. 127, ed. 1874.
[133] “Original and Right of Tithes,” p. 127.
[134] “Hist. and Antiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church,” i. 184, 185, ed. 1845.
[135] “Ancient Laws,” Preface, xiv. note 1.
[136] See _Idem_, i. 241.
[137] p. 70.
[138] Thorpe’s “Ancient Laws,” i. 159.
[139] Supposed to be Greatley, near Andover, Hants.
[140] “Saxons,” ii. 203.
[141] “Anglo-Saxon Church,” i. 185.
[142] “The Norman Conquest,” i. III, ed. 1867.
[143] “Ancient Laws,” i. 241.
[144] Blackstone’s “Comms.,” bk. ii. 24, ed. 1766.
[145] Thorpe, “Ancient Laws,” i. 245-247.
[146] Deut. xviii. 4.
[147] “Saxons in England,” ii. 492, 493. Selden, p. 215.
[148] “Ancient Laws,” i. 105.
[149] Thorpe, i. 197.
[150] “Our Title Deeds,” p. 72.
[151] “Original and Right of Tithes,” p. 128.
[152] Selden, p. 215.
[153] Made at Andover, A.D. 960.
[154] That which he retains in his own hands.
[155] Land granted out for services.
[156] Thorpe’s “Ancient Laws,” i. 263.
[157] “Hist. of Tithes,” ed. 1618, pp. 262, 263.
[158] Hallam’s “Middle Ages,” vii. 142.
[159] See p. 85.
[160] Stow, Camden, Spelman, and Lingard.
[161] “History of Tithes,” c. ix. s. 3.
[162] See p. 25 for Bede’s statement of the earls’ churches.
[163] Theodore’s “Penitential,” s. 7, in Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 185.
[164] “History of Tithes,” c. ix. s. 4, pp. 264, 265.
[165] “The Case of Impropriations, etc.,” pp. 16-31, ed. 1704.
[166] Thorpe, ii. 257.
[167] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 262.
[168] Tanner’s “Not. Monas.,” edited by James Nasmith, 1787, Preface
xix., xx.
[169] Cum consilio Laurencii Episcopi et omnium principum meorum. Cod.
Dip. i.
[170] Stubbs says 604. See his “Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum.”
[171] See Birch’s account of this MS. in vol. 40 of the _Journal of the
Archæological Association_.
[172] “Facts and Fictions,” pp. 173, 293.
[173] See p. 84 for Selden’s weighty remarks.
[174] See p. 25.
[175] Vol. i. pp. 28-341.
[176] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 279.
[177] “Anglo-Saxon Church,” i. 187, ed. 1845.
[178] “Const. Hist.,” i. 177, iii. 600, ed. 1878. His reference, Thorpe,
i. 177, viii. ss. 2, 44, should be ix. ss. 2, 44.
[179] Quoted in “Our Title Deeds,” by Rev. M. Fuller, p. 107.
[180] “A Defence of the Church,” etc., 4th ed., p. 158.
[181] Church Grith.
[182] “Facts and Fictions,” pp. 277, 281.
[183] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 283.
[184] _Idem_, pp. 280, 281.
[185] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 281.
[186] Johnson’s “Laws and Canons,” preface, p. vii.
[187] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 281.
[188] Thorpe’s Preface, xxi.
[189] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 282.
[190] Hale’s “Antiquity of the Church Rate System,” App., p. 51, ed. 1837.
[191] _Idem_, App., p. 51, footnote.
[192] See for omissions “Facts and Fictions,” p. 282; “Fuller,” p. 120;
Dibdin, p. 156, ed. 1885.
[193] Thorpe’s “Ancient Laws,” Preface, xxi.
[194] “Facts and Fictions,” pp. 279, 280. Mr. Fuller gives Mr. Freeman’s
letter in full in “Our Title Deeds,” p. 164.
[195] Thorpe, i. 342; Schmid, “Gesetze der Angelsachsen,” 244.
[196] Thorpe, i. 262; Schmid, 186.
[197] “Norman Conquest,” i. 368.
[198] In the margin of the “Norman Conquest” is, “Ethelred’s return and
legislation, Lent, 1014.”
[199] “Norman Conquest,” i. 368, 3rd ed. 1877.
[200] See his pedantic, erroneous and misleading articles in the February
and June numbers of the _Contemporary Review_ for 1891, on the “Landed
Endowments 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_.
[201] “Facts and Fictions,” 269-270.
[202] “Church Defence,” Appendix, p. 361, ed. 1888.
[203] “Church Grith.”
[204] _Idem_, Appendix, p. 362.
[205] Thorpe, i. 341.
[206] _Idem_, i. 281.
[207] _Idem_, p. 293.
[208] _Idem_, p. 305.
[209] _Idem_, i. 195.
[210] “Facts and Fictions,” 278, note 2.
[211] Twysden’s “Scriptores,” x. p. 898, ed. 1652.
[212] “Facts and Fictions,” 269.
[213] Thorpe, i. 338.
[214] p. 270.
[215] Lingard thus accepts the Grith law as genuine.
[216] “Anglo-Saxon Church,” i. 187.
[217] See p. 112.
[218] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 280.
[219] “Our Title-Deeds,” p. 119.
[220] “Facts and Fictions,” p. 281.
[221] See p. 17, Note 2.
[222] “The Endowment and Establishment of the Church of England,” pp.
156, 157, ed. 1885.
[223] Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils,” iii. 191, 203.
[224] “Const. Hist.,” ed. 1880; i. 261, note 1.
[225] Thorpe’s “Ancient Laws,” i. 359-430.
[226] Thorpe’s translation, ii. 201, ed. 1845.
[227] “Facts and Fictions,” 286, 287.
[228] Thorpe, i. 348.
[229] “Facts and Fictions,” 305, 306.
[230] _Ibid._, 309, 310.
[231] 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.
[232] Burnet, i. 223.
[233] Hallam’s “Const. Hist.,” i. 78.
[234] 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).
[235] Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” bk. i. 348, ed. 1765. “The Mirror of
Justice,” by Andrew Horne, p. 14, ed. 1646.
[236] Burn’s “Hist. of the Poor Laws,” p. 3, ed. 1764. See p. 86 for
Edgar’s canon.
[237] Blunt’s “History of the Reformation,” i. 389.
[238] “Parson’s Counsellor,” p. 79, 6th ed. 1703.
[239] “Church Defence,” etc., pp. 154, 155.
[240] See Burnet’s letter to Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry.
[241] “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.”
[242] “Parson’s Counsellor,” p. 83, ed. 1703.
[243] “Church Defence,” etc., ed. 1888, p. 154.
[244] See a full history of this charity in the “31st Report of the
Charity Commissioners,” 1837-8, vol. xxiv., p. 843, etc.
[245] Matth. Paris, under A.D. 1240, has these words: “Cum ex
auctoritatibus sanctorum patrum fructus ecclesiarum in certos usus,
puta ecclesiæ, ministrorum 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.
[246] See canon in Latin in Selden, c. viii. s. 26, pp. 233, etc.
[247] See Johnson, “Laws and Canons,” ii. 387, ed. 1851.
[248] 45 Ed. III. c. iii.
[249] 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.
[250] 23 Henry VIII. c. x.
[251] Alienated priory property given to Magdalen by Henry VI.
[252] See 43rd Report, 1891.
[253] “Cartularium Saxonicum,” edited by Birch. Vol. i. No. 14, p. 21.
[254] _Idem._
[255] “Hansard’s Debates,” House of Lords, 1840.
[256] The confiscated monastic property.
[257] Coke’s “Reports,” part ii. p. 44 (b).
[258] “Commentaries,” bk. ii. c. iii. p. 27, ed. 1765.
[259] See chap. xi. p. 297 in Selden’s “History of Tithes,” ed. 1618, for
a full explanation of “arbitrary consecrations,” as he called them.
[260] Kennett, p. 65.
[261] 15 Rich. II. c. vi.
[262] “Defence of the Church,” etc., 4th ed. 1888, p. 155.
[263] See p. 43.
[264] Johnson’s “Laws and Canons,” ii. 364.
[265] It is important to note (1) 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.
[266] Selden, “History of Tithes,” pp. 406, 407; Philimore, 493.
[267] Selden, p. 166.
[268] 3 and 4 Vict., c. cxiii.
[269] “Hansard’s Debates,” House of Commons, 31st March, 1882.
[270] 43rd Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (1891), p. vii.
[271] Selden: “History of Tithes,” p. 291.
[272] See Hasted’s “History of Kent,” ed. 1778, under the above parishes.
[273] “Monasticon,” vol. i.
[274] Letter Book K., 32 Henry VI.
[275] 27 Henry VIII. c. xxi.
[276] 37 Henry VIII. c. xii.
[277] 22 & 23 Charles II., c. xv.
[278] These parishes are united to other parishes. 41 parishes out of the
86 are united thus—
(1) Numbers 1, 6, and 23 = 4 parishes, are 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 = £1,060 and
house; population, 661.
(3) Number 3 and Bridewell = 2 ditto; rector’s ditto = £450 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 = £680 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 = £810; pop., 272.
(9) Numbers 22 and 38 = 4 ditto; rector’s ditto = £840 H; pop., 285.
(10) Numbers 24, 45 and 46 = 6 ditto; rector’s ditto = £660 and house;
pop., 297.
(11) Numbers 32 and 50 = 4 ditto; rector’s ditto = £600 H; pop., 360.
11 incumbents = 43 parishes = £8,050 = 7,163 population.
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 £1 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 Acons 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].
[279] Report of the Special Committee in relation to tithes, submitted to
the Court of Common Council, May, 1812, City Records.
[280] Subject to revision every ten years. In 1890 the value = £1,100 per
annum.
[281] Revised every ten years. In 1890 the value = £1,500 per annum.
[282] See Orders in Council, dated 8th August, 1853, and 8th June, 1854.
[283] _Ibid._, 20th May, 1847; 7th May, 1877; and 5th January, 1851.
[284] See 23rd Report, p. 429, of Ecclesiastical Commissioners for 1871.
[285] 6 & 7 William IV. c. lxxi.
[286] Paley’s “Moral and Political Philosophy,” ii. 406.
[287] Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” iii. 274.
[288] Hansard’s Debates, vol. xxxi. Feb. 9, 1836.
[289] For full particulars on this subject, see my book, “Past and
Present Revenues of the Church of England in Wales.”
[290] £800 from St. Asaph already given.
[291] 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. lxxi.
[292] 51 & 52 Vict. c. xxi.
[293] 51 & 52 Vict. c. xliii.
[294] 16 & 17 Vict. c. xxxiv.
[295] 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. lxxi.
[296] 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. lxxi., ss. 12, 13.
[297] 23 & 24 Vict. c. xciii.
[298] 49 & 50 Vict. c. liv.
[299] 23 & 24 Vict. c. xciii.
[300] The Bishop of Lichfield had as Prebendary £1,540 per annum, which
is included here.
[301] Archdeacons not included here.
[302] Included in Bishop’s.
[303] £3,067 is from eight parishes in Wales; and of this amount, the
Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, is the owner of £1,532 10_s._
[304] £2,402 for the Margaret Professor from Terrington, in Norfolk.
[305] Including Winchester School, £7,258 per annum; Eton, £8,484;
Wimborne, £2,416. In Wales, All Soul’s has £875; University, Oxford, £37;
Christ College, Cambridge, £370.
[306] The 347 impropriated rectors received, by Inclosure Acts, lands or
payments in lieu of tithes, and are, therefore, excluded from the Tithe
Return.
[307] Parliamentary Return, “Tithe Commutation,” published 26th March,
1867.
[308] Taken from the Parliamentary Return just published, viz., “Revenues
of the Church of England,” 23rd of June, 1891.
INDEX.
Abel, 3.
Abraham, 1.
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, 188.
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 1.
Baldred, King of Kent, his witan declined to ratify a grant of
folcland, 58.
Baron, John, 105.
Bede, 11;
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, 58, 61, 143;
discovers earliest 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 Reformation” tells of the condition of
the poor at the dissolution of monasteries, 128.
Blackstone, Judge, quadripartite division, 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., 11, 17, 119.
Bromton, John, abbot of Jervaulx in Yorkshire, 48, 49, 114, 115.
Burnet, Bishop, his criticisms on Wharton’s “Anglia Sacra,” 129, 130.
Cain, 3.
Caird, Sir James, valued tithes at six millions, 207.
Canons, Calchyth (Chelsea), A.D. 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 library, 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, 11.
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 revenues, 18, 79, 132, 258;
“They had not the sole use of tithes,” 21.
Codex Diplomaticus, Kemble, 59, 61, 63.
Colman, 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 80th sec. left a loophole by which landlords contracted
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 exacting 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, 100;
first mentioned in Wanley’s catalogue of 1705, p. 100.
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;
Archbishop Winchelsey’s synod in 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;
arbitrary appropriation of tithes abolished by the third
Lateran Council, 148;
again in A.D. 1215, 150;
Archbishop Stratford’s council in London in A.D. 1342, the 4th
canon of which provided for poor, 157;
the third Lateran council 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 Counsellor,” 128;
he said, “The poor have a share in the tithes,” 129;
a brief sketch of his life, 130;
Lord Selborne 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,” 11, 17, 22, 23;
differs from Brewer on the division of tithes, 11;
omits _material evidence_, 119;
his error on the “Penitential” of Theodore, 119;
his “blend,” 119.
Diocese and parish at one time, synonymous, 83.
Dionysius, “Exiguus,” mentions nothing 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, 145.
Esdaile, Edward Jeffries, owner of tithes of St. Botolph without
Aldgate, 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 Established, 15, note 3;
enacted no laws for payment of tithes, 19.
Ethelbert, King of East Angles, 48.
Ethelred II., called the Unready, returns from exile, A.D. 1014, p.
102;
his Church Grith law for the tripartite division of tithes, 94, 95,
etc.
Ethelwulf’s, King, charters, 59, 60, 62, 65.
Exon Domesday, 58.
Extraordinary tithe-rent charge, how it originated, 211, 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 Greatanlea, 75;
on Edmund’s law, 79;
contradicts himself on the Church Grith law, 108-110;
letter to Fuller, 108-109;
his pedantry and inconsistency, 111 and note 2.
Fuller, Rev. M., “Our Title Deeds,” its errors, 19, 68, 69, 73, 116,
119;
dedicated his work to Lord Selborne, 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.
Guthrum I., King, his treaty with Alfred, in which there was nothing
about tithes, 67;
received from King Alfred East Anglia and Northumberland, 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.
Haddan and Stubbs’ “Concilia” iii. on Ethelwulf’s charters, 61, 63,
65;
their opinions on Theodore’s “Penitential,” 20-23.
Hale, William, archdeacon of London, 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.
Hallam, Henry, 81.
Hasted, the historian of Kent, 175.
Higbert, Archbishop of Lichfield, 41, 42.
Holinshed, 48.
Honorius, Archbishop of Canterbury, parishes traced to, 83.
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 mentioned, 78.
Inclosure Awards, 257.
Incumbents of churches, now free-holders, but up to A.D. 1180 held
their positions according to will of patron, 148;
before Richard I. and John, lay patrons, nominated, instituted, 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 Customs,” 69;
founded on “Concilia,” 105;
the Church Grith law unknown 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 Ethelwulf’s charters, 63-65;
supports Athelstan’s tithe-law, 71;
synods and councils not different in meaning, 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_ according 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 remarks 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, 188;
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 tripartite division of church revenues in London churches, 193.
Magdeburg centuries, 43.
Malmesbury chronicler, 54.
Manorial churches, see Landlord’s churches.
Market-gardens Act of 1873, how it originated, 211;
orchards, 211.
Masçon, provincial council of, 10, 11.
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 properties, 159;
brief account of, 163-185;
monasteries commenced to decline, 170;
precedents to guide Henry VIII. in dissolving monasteries, 177, 178;
total number dissolved, and their annual value, 185;
the three abbots who were executed, 184.
Monks, 18, 88;
the four privileged orders exempted from paying tithes, 161;
these lands still exempt, 162.
Norman Conquest gave a great impulse to building monasteries, 168;
number of bishops, 168.
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, 111, 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 Theodore, 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;
Archbishop 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 Degge, 129;
four Acts of Parliament giving the poor a right to a part of the
tithes, 131;
43 Eliz., c. ii., for relief of poor, 131.
Popes:
Clement I., 5, 6;
Gregory the Great, 11, 13;
his reply to Augustine’s letter, 16, 35;
Sylvester, 17, 129;
Simplicius, 17;
Gelasius, 17;
Honorius III., 37;
Boniface V., 37;
Vitalian, 39;
Adrian I., 40, 41;
Alexanders III.’s letter to English hierarchy _commanding_ 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 “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 charters, 53, 54;
supports Athelstan’s alleged tithe law, 72;
abuses Selden and his “History 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 rectorial tithes repair chancel and nave,
124, note 1.
Roger, Bishop of London, his _modus decimandi_ for the city of
London, 186;
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, 211, 212;
his “permanent settlement” of the tithe question, 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 Hale’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 writing 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 contents of the “Worcester
Volume,” Nero, A. 1, 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, 11;
on legatine councils of A.D. 787, pp. 43, 45;
on Offa’s laws of A.D. 794, p. 48;
his interpretation of Ethelwulf’s charter, 65, 66;
but expresses a doubt, 66;
his remarks on the treaty between Edward the Elder and Guthrum 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 expression, “arbitrary consecration” 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 Grith law 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, Commons petition against timber tithe.
— 18 Edw. III. c. 9, 136, Commons petition against timber tithe.
— 21 Edw. III. c. 48, 136, Commons petition against timber tithe.
— 25 Edw. III. c. 37, 136, Commons 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, provision for poor and vicar.
— 16 Rich. II. c. 5, 161, Act of _Premunire_.
— 2 Hen. IV. c. 4, 161, against purchasing bulls for exemption.
— 4 Hen. IV. c. 12, 154, perpetual vicar created and endowed.
— 19 Hen. VII. c. 12, 127, support of poor by towns.
— 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, 179, restraint of appeals to Rome.
— 27 Hen. VIII. c. 20, 179, for payment of tithes.
— 27 Hen. VIII. c. 21, 188, tithes of City and Liberties of
London.
— 27 Hen. VIII. c. 26, 127, support of poor by towns, etc.
— 27 Hen. VIII. c. 28, 180, monasteries under £200 a year
dissolved.
— 28 Hen. VIII. c. 16, 179, pope’s power over tithes abolished.
— 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13, 184, monasteries over £200 a year
dissolved.
— 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13, 126, owners of abbey lands to use
hospitality.
— 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 2_s._ 9_d._ in the £ in
London.
— 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 13, 76, payment of personal tithes.
— 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 13, adds to 27 Hen. VIII. c. 20, and 32
Hen. VIII. c. 7.
— 1 Eliz. c. 19, 183, tithes in exchange for episcopal lands.
— 13 Eliz. c. 20, 131, profits of benefices to the poor.
— 18 Eliz. c. 11, s. 7, 131, confirms the above Act.
— 43 Eliz. c. 2, 131, for relief of the poor.
— 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 15, 188, Fire 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 Commission.
— 2 and 3 Vict. c. 62, s. 27, 213, on tithes of orchards.
— 36 and 37 Vict. c. 42, 213, on tithes of market gardens.
— 49 and 50 Vict. c. 54, 213, redemption of extraordinary tithes.
— 54 Vict. 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.
Streaneshalch (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
endowments, 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, 1;
their appropriation to monasteries, 8;
how first given to the Christian Church, 8;
the clergy had not the sole use of them, 21;
Legatine Council in England, A.D. 787, for their payment, 43;
first civil law in England for their payment, 44;
Lord Selborne’s opinion on the 17th Injunction of the Legatine
Council, 45;
Athelstan’s law on, 70;
definition of, 76;
duties of parish priests for their tithes in pre-Reformation times,
142;
these duties no longer performed, 144;
parishes held their tithes by _common right_, but monasteries by
grants or prescriptions, 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 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, 100.
Vergil, Polydore, Archdeacon, 48.
Vicar, origin 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;
number of vicars employed in the old parishes receiving tithes, see
Appendix G;
a list of the small or vicarial tithes, 155;
generally endowed by the bishops with one-third of the tithes
following Edgar’s appropriation, 158, note 1;
vicars owe to Acts of Parliament their endowments and permanent
freehold position, 158, note 1;
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;
Llandaff, 218, 219;
St. Asaph, 219, 220;
St. David’s, 220-222;
tithe-rent charge in possession of Ecclesiastical Commission in
Wales in the year 1889, 222, 223;
amount of prebendal tithes still outstanding on leases, 223;
amount paid to the Welsh dioceses out of the Common Fund in 1889,
223;
the net annual receipts from Wales in 1888, 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, 18;
attacked Degge’s “Parson’s Counsellor,” 128;
attacks Bishop Burnet’s “History of the Reformation,” 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
Pluralities,” 129;
Degge attacked pluralists, 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.
Witenagemót, what constitutes a, 73.
Wolsey, Cardinal, 141.
Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A history of tithes" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.