Skip to main content

Full text of "A History of Tithes"

See other formats 


Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 



CUo^i.'i^^ 



l^arvarb College Xfbran! 




FROM THE 

J. HUNTINGTON WOLCOTT 

FUND 

GIVEN BY KOGER WOLCOTT [cLASS 
OF 1S70J IN MEUOSY OF HIS FATHEK 
FOB THE <'PDKCHASE OF BOOKS OF 
PESMANENT VALUE, THE PREFESENCE 
TO BE CIVEH TO WOSKS OF HISTOKY, 
POLITICAL ECONOMY AND SOCIOLOGY" 



A HISTORY OF TITHES 



I 



^m 



/. 



'of-t-t^-C AC^u*\^U^ iO^AA^i 



ISTORY OF TITHES 



^P REV. HENRY 



REV. HENRY WILLIAM CLARKE, B.A 
Trin. Coll., Dub. 




ILonlion 

SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO 

NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 

1894 



Mi ,H-I J 'I ■ » L 




/ ' 
/ I 



f 






A 



V 




In my former 1 as also in my present n-ork, I have taken 
Selden's " Histoiy of Tithes," ed. 1618, as my chief authority. I 
adopted his views on the interpretation of King Ethelwuirs char- 
ter as having been the first legal title deeds of granting liihes to 
the clergy. 

After carefully consuUing the best authorities, especially Mr. 
Kemble, Mr. Haddan, and Bishop Siubbs, I have in my present 
work adopted their views, that EtheKvulf granted a tenth part of 
his lands and not the tithes of the lands of his kingdom. 

I have also considered Archbishop Egbert's alleged canon for 
the tripartite division of tithes as an anachronism. 
■ In preparing my former work, I laboured under the great dis- 
advantage of residing too far away from a good public library, 
where I could consult the best and most recent authorities on 
the subject. 

Just as the sheets of my former work passed through the press, 
a third edition of Lord Selborne's work, " A Dt-fence of the 
Church of England against Disestablishment," was published. 
And in the following year, 188S, appeared his "Ancient Facts 
and Fictions concerning Churches and Tithes." 

I could only then refer in the briefest manner in ray former 
book to his first work. But his two works contain so many 
erroneous and fallacious statements, tliat I thought it a public 
duty to expose and refute them. 

With this view and in order to prepare materials, I had taken 



fr 



The History of Tithes from Abraham to Que«\ Vic\.QrL?,," V 



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 absoliiteiy 
necessary to reivriU tlie whole of my " History of Tithes," and to 
make the present work, as it really is, qiitU a new one. 

I had not only to deal with Lord Seiborne's works, but also 
with historians, who wrote private letters to parsons against the 
threefold division of tithes, which letters contradicted statements 
made in their own histories which favoured the tripartite division 
of tithes, and the Church Grith law of a.d, 1014. 

The tithe disputes in Wales brought forward crude, erroneous, 
misleading and ill-digested statements about the origin and his- 
tory of tithes in this country. " Our Title Deeds," by the Rev, 
M. Fuller, is a most remarkable specimen of that class. 

Directly and indirectly, I have dealt with all these matters in my 
present work. I mention these facts in order to indicate the abso- 
lute necessity I was under of rewriting the whole of my history. 

And now in reference to Lord Seiborne's works, which, owing 
to his high position have influenced the opinions of many, one 
unsound n ode of reasoning runs through many parts of them, 
espec ally h ;> \nc ent Facts and Fictions." I mean his i'lfir- 
ernes fr at idetice. And these inferences are so cleverly 

and shreidly ex| ressed, in the special pleading style, that 
allhoU(,h I knew they were wrong, yet I found it extremely diffi- 
cult to prove /io70 they were wrong, because they were based 
on negative ci'idence. This mode of reasoning in the hands of 
a shrewd, clever lawyer is most powerful, misleading and em- 
barrassing ; and is at the same time most difficult to answer from 
the nature of the evidence. In order to elucidate my meaning, 
I shall give one out of many examples. He wants, in support 
of a certain cause, to sweep away the Church Grith law (a.d. 
1014) which enacts the tripartite division of tithes, and this is 
his mode of reasoning ; — " Selden and Spelman were well ac- 
quainted with the Worcester (Coltonian) manuscript [he calls 
}t "The Worcester Volume" on the same page] ; and, as neither 



of them made mention of thU Church Grith document, il may be 
inferred that they did not regard it as having the character or Ike 
aiithorily of a law" ^ Tlie reader of the book would naturally 
suppose that Selden and Spelman had seen the " document," 
akhough it is an unquestionable fact that they had net'cr seen it, 
simply because it was never in Sir Robert Cotton's hbrary during 
his lifetime fur them to see. I could not have proved this point 
if I were not aided by the official catalogue of 1632. 

I have often tliought that Lord Selbome's error arose in his 
assuming that all the manuscripts which are now in the Worcester 
volume, Nero, A. i, were in the same volume when Selden and 
Spelman consulted it during the life of Sir Robert. If I am right, 
it is a clear proof how unsound it is to draw inferences from 
negative evidence, and how careless he must have been in not 
having made himself ?«//« certain that the "document" was in 
tlie volume for them to see. As this is a vital point in the dis- 
cussion, I liavc devoted the whole of chapter x. in defence of 
this Church Grith law. But the tnost 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 et'ldence furnished by Archdeacon 
Hale, which is dead against their opinions (see pp. 107, 108). 

Since my former work was published, there appeared in July. 
1887, the Parliamentary Return of the Tithes Commutation of 
1836. I have dealt with this important information in Chapter 
XIX., and also in the Appendices. 

In Chapter XVII., I have given a very full account of the 
enormous revenues received from tithes and house rentals by 
the incumbents of parishes in the City and Liberties of London 
for the spiritual work of small populations, and which revenues 
have become a public scandal because valuable endowments are 
thus wasted. 

The " Redemption " of tithes is dealt with in Chapter XVIIL 



I have inserted in Cliapler 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 appro- 
priated and their vicars ; (3) parishes which had not been appro- 
priated. Nearly one-half{or 3,864) in England were appropriated. 
It was worse in Wales, for of 834 old parishes, 468 were appro- 
priated. When we add the sinecure rectories, pluralities and 
non-residence of incumbents, we can form a correct conclusion 
as regards the cause of ihe 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 s^^j zs regards 
the gross aggregate amount of Ihe "Revenues of the Church of 
England." Hitherto, very small and misleading amounts of these 
revenues have been given. But the Pariiamentary Return, made 
up in the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and just pub- 
lished, has now given the public, for the first time, a generally 
correct idea of the gross annual amount, from permanent zottrces, 
of these revenues, and also the number of benefices and parson- 
age houses with their rateable value, which is much less than their 
actual value. 

The Return is defective; (1) because it is framed on values 
in 1886, and (z) it omits the large fluctuating income — about a 
million a year — from fees, pew-renls, and Easier offerings. 
Correctly, the gross income in 1890, was ;^6,825i73o- Bui 
the permanent income capitalized equals ;£i 40,000,000. 

My best thanks are due to Waller de Gray Birch, Elsq., of the 
MSS. Department of the British Museum, for his kind assistance 
and courtesy ; also to the officials connected with the Library. 

HtNRY William Clarke, 




Introdudioit, pages xvU.-xxiv. 

DiflicuUies in writing a true history or tithes, xvii. No tithes paid for 
centuries after the Christian Em, xviii. Canons passed for their payment, xviii. 
Papal interference in the British Church, xix. Custom of paying tithes in 
eighth cenlury, nil. Population of England then, xk. Norman monks 
iniliated appropriations, xx. Infeudalions condemned by Lateian Councils, 
XX. Monastic lands granted by Heniy VIII. and his children, xxi. Changes 
made by Ecclesiastical Commission, ixi., xxii. No physical Imnsfer of Kn- 
dowments sX the Reformation, xxiii. Present trustees of Church EndoivmcDts 
hive only a Parliamcntaiy Title, xxiii. A Roman Catholic Bishop's views on 
present movements in Church of England, xxiii., xiiv. 

'^^L CHAPTER I. 

w^k Before tlu Cltrisiian Eni,pascs 1-3. 

^^ 'Abraham the first recorded payer of tithes, i. Old Testament passages for 
pajrment of tithes, i. When tithes ceased to be paid by Jews, a. Heathen 
nations paid tithes, 2. Slory about Adam having paid tilhes, 3. 

CHAPTER II. 

From tlie Christian Era to the Council of Mas(on, pages 4-12. 

Maintenance of ministers in Apostolic times, 4, ^. Alleged "Apostolic 
Constitutions," by Pope Clement I., 5. Anglican divines supporting claim to 
tilhes on such constitutions, 6. I£niperor Constantine's edict, 7. Divisions of 
offerings and oblations, 7. Are Christians juslified in adopting the Mosaic 
Law for the payment of tithes ? 7, 8, Tithes first Riven as voluntary offerings, 
as alms, 8. Fiction and facts mixed in " Englishman's Brief," g. Earliest 
supposeil council whicli ordained payment of tithes, 10. Spurious, 10. 

CHAPTER III. 

The Roman Mission to England, pages 13 - 19, 

Landing of Augustine in England, ij. Cordial reception by King of Kent, 
17. Christianity established in his kingdom, 14. Creation of Archbishopric 
of Canterbury, and Bishoprics of London and Rochester, t^. fsSk^=%'Cmi^ ■*, 
([■.lestions to Pi'pe Gregory and his reply, 16, 17. How \'j\-\\o\is, aw\ vV^vc 



» 



Clergy weie at first maintained in England, 17. Brewer's and Dilidin's Icans- 
lalioii ot " portiones," 17. Quadripartite diviaion, 17. Blackstone's opinion, 
18. Bishops' churches, and chapeU-of-ease, iS. Did Augustine preach pay- 
ment of tLlhes? 19. King Elhelbett'a grant of tithes a fiction, 19. Fullers 
misleading statements in "Our Title Deeds," 19. 

CIIArXER IV. 
The Firsl Donimaitary Stalemeut of Tithes in England, pagn 

Theodore's " renitential," Uy " Discipulus Umbrensiuni," 20. lis genuine- 
ness, 3a. Bede's silence about it, 31. Bede in evidence a-s to the common 
law right of the pour to a share of the tithes, 21. Landowners' churches, 
their origin, 23, 24. The parish Ijanli, 24. Edgar's laiv of giving one-third 
uf tithes to Manorial Church, 26. Domesday's testimony as lo the one-third, 
16. Mother churches had remaining Iwo-thirds, 26. Church seats free, 27. 
No pew rents, 27. Tithes firsl voluntary, afterwanls compulsory, 28. The 
" Confessional " and its power to get tithes, 2S. 



AfihUshdp Esherfs Woyks, pagis 39-32. 

His "Penitential," 29. His '' Confessional "and " Excerptions," 19. The 
" Encerptions " not I'lglwrt's, 30. Effect of thi.'i on liuman Catholic Church, 
Selden's opinions on the " Exceqi lions," 30-32. 



CHAPTER VI. 

1 The Firs/ Piihlic Lay Law for the Payment oj Tithes, pages 33-5 z. 

tvalions on the 
.n<t the British 
lilraiy assump- 
n Church, 37. King Oawy s decision 
aboot keep'ing Easier, 37, 3S, 397 How Theodore was appointed Archbishop, 
39. The Pope's supremacy over Church of Enghmd dates from a.D. 6GS, p. 40. 
Early instance of endowed bishops neglecting their flocks, 40. King Olm and 
Pope Adrian T., 40, 41. Lichfield an ^chbishopric, 41. Fir^t legatine 
council in England, A. 11. 7S7, p. 42. Councils at Colchyth (Chelsea) and in 
Norlhumbria, 43. Twenty injunctions passed, 43. The 17th referred to the 
payment o( tithes, 44^ Selden's opinions on these injunctions, 43. First 
supposed civil law in England for payment of tithes, 44. Opinions of Lord 
Selbome, Bishop Slubl», and Selden on 17th injunction, 45. Offa's sup- | 
posed law of tithes in A.D. 794, p. 47, Dean Pridenux's opinion on it, and 
wrong quotniions, 47, 4S. Lord Scllwme and Kcmble on Broniton. 49. 
Who irns Polydoie Vergil ? 4S, 49. First mention of tithes in English 
trtliings, SI- Position of ilie Clirislian iioor, 51. 



i 



CHAPTER VII. 

A'(V Ethtlwulfs AUt^ed Gntnl of Tithes, pasfs 53-66. 

Dean PrideauK on this grant ami on ScUen's " IHstoiy of Tillies," 53- 
SeUen's erroneous view on tliiii grant, 5J- Opinions of Saxon Cbroniclers un 
it, 54. Foktand and Bocland delineil, 56, 57. Kemble's six canons lo test 
genuineness of charters, 59. Ellielwulrs cUarters ihus tested, 59, 60. Tliu 
Malmesbury Cartulary, 6a. Ethelwulfs seconti charter of grants, 6z. Kern- 
"-'''s opinion on Ethelwulfs first and second grants, 64, 65. Charter C, an 



Eilielwi 
1 Fnller's 



CHAPTER Vlil. 
Tilhe Latvs Made liy Anglo-Saxon Kings, Pc^'^ 67-80. 



Selbovne's denial that tithes are referred to in the laws of Alfred, 6S. 
Fnller's errors aliout the tithe laws of King of Kent, 68. Edward and Gulh- 
rom II. possel a tithe law, 69. Athelstan's law on tithes, 70. This is the 
first general law in England for payment of predial and mixed tithc«', 71. 
Oltinion of Lord Selbome and Dr. Lingard on Athelstan's law, 71. Kemhie, 
Stubbs, and Prideaux express a contrary opinion, and Mr, Thorpe by implica- 
tion, 71, 72. What constituted a Witen-Tgemot ? 73. Kenlishmen's letter lo 
King Alhelstan, 75. Lingard and Freeman on this letter, 75. Definition of 
tithe, 76. Tithe laws of King Edmund, 77. Chilrch-scot, 78. King Edgar's 
laws, 79. Threefold ilivision of churches. So. First English law expressly np- 
proprialing tithes, 80. 

CHAPTER IX. 

Origin of our Modern Parish Churches and Boundaries, pagts 
Si-93- 

The old minster, 8l. Chapels of ease, 81. Landlonls' churches, 81. 
Church boundaries conlerininous with landowners' estates, 82. Manorial 
Churdies in Domesday with one-third of tithes, 82. Errors created by con- 
founding original meaningof"parcichia," with subsequent meaning, 83. Selden 
on Edgar's law, S4. Bishop Kennett on Manorial Churches, Sj. The parish 
bank, 83. Lay patrons had taken two-thirds of tithes for poor and repairing 
Churches, 86. Edgar's canons and gloss lo same, 86, 87. Origin of his 
canons, 88. Populatioo of England in Anglo-Saxon times, gt. Population 
when tithes were first given, 9a. Populations in A.D. 787, A.D. 927, and A,ti. 
960, respectively, 92, 93. Number of Bishops in England In A.D. 705, p. 93. 
Number at Conquest, 93. 



I Wum b 



CHAPTER X. 
The Laws of Bthelred II., pages 94-124. 



history on ihe iripattile division, 96, 57. His vieivs iii piivate letters, 97. 
Oiigin of Sit Rolsert CglLon'a library, gS. His dealh, joo. Cnlali^ae m" 
library, 100. First priiiled catalogue, 100. Library vested in trustees, 100. 
Second catalogue, 100. History of the "Worcester " volume, Nero, A. I, 
p. lol. Lord Selbome's oliject is to upset the Act of AD. (□14, pp. 101, 
102. Selden and Spelman never saw tlie Church Grith law, 103, 104. Lan - 
barde, WTicelock, and John Joiinson, never saw it, 104. Thorpe's 
Wilkins's "Concilia," 106. Price's evidence is worthless, 107, loS Free- 
man's history, like Stuhbs's, is in favour of the geauineness 01 Church C^th 
law, but contradicts bimaeif in liia private leltecs on same subject, 1O8, log, 
>lo. III. Old Latin Translators of the Anglo-Saxon laws omit fifteen Anglo- 
Saxon laws, 112. Dr. Lingard accepts this law be genuine, llG. Cantent>i 
of Worcester volume, Nero, A. I staled, 117. Brewer, supported, but Dili- 
den denies, the tripartite division, 119, izo. Mr. Tliorpe in favour of the 
genuineness of this law, 121. Canute's laws in three branches, izi. 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 Selbome disposes of the other eight, I2t. When Poor Law Act mas 
passed, why did not I'aiHamenl claim a portion of the lithe for Ihe poor ! 
This is answered, 123. 

CHAPTER XI. 

I The First Poor Law Act, ^a^es 125-132. 

First Poor Law Act, 125. Total annual revenue of all the monastic estates, 
Cromwell's advice to the King, among whom lo divide the m 



Sroperties, 121. Owners of monastic lands to maintain ho^pilali^, 126. 
lackslone on tlie Eupport of the poor prior lo 27 Henry VHI., 127. 
Ulackslone quotes the " Mirror " in support of the common law claim of the 

._ _ _r .!._ .!.!.__ jj^_ Lord Selbome's argument answered, thai 

3ut of tithes would now he insufficient for their 

1 Deg^ says ; "Thepoor have a sluire inth: 

Lord Selbome's criticism on this statement, 129. \}\vo Anthoiif 



Hanntr was, 129. Sir Simon Degge's legal position and antecedents, Ijo. 
I.ord Selborne quotes from a garh^ edition of the " Parsoa's Counsellor," 
130, 131. The Acts which gave poor a ])ortion of the tithes, 131. Kliia- 
belh's Act, 131. Hoiv reclore closed upon all the tilhes, 132. 

CHAPTER Xll. 

Canons for Paymetil of Tillies, pages 133-145. 

Pope Alexander HI.'s influence over English bishops to induce the people 



Personal tithes by this canon, 134. hjoiluaty fees the origin of burial 

, 135. 2 and 3 Edw. VI., c 13, modified personal tithes, 135. Timber 

jgliuble by canon in 1344. P' l.lS- Canon of 1344 led 10 hitler strife, 136. 
MtVojy 0/ //re j'oun^ jlouse of CuQimons as regards tithes, 136. Statute 



of Mortmain, 136. How cvaiieil by the monies 137. Acl of 1531 n^insl 
Irtnd being willed to religious houses for more ihnii ai years, 137. Action of 
House of Qimmona against canons for tl>e paymenl of tithes withoul the 
assert of Common*, 137. Some views in the " Itrief " combsled. Church of 
Knglanii holds het endowments by a rarliamenlary title, 140. Amount 
received by parochial incumtents from' the Common Fund, 141. Four-liflh'i 
of the Common Fund has come from national properly granted to the Church, 
1^1. From A.n. 1215, appropriating parochial lithei to iiionaslerics abolished, 

144. Three object! of original donors of Church endowmenli, 144. l>r. 
Howley, of Canterbury and Dr. Sumner, of Winchester at loggerheads in llie 
'■ Lords," 144. 

CHArTER XHI. 

Appropriation of Tithes to Mojiasterics, pcigts 146-138. 

Im[)etu5 to the building of monasteries, 146. Lay owners arliilrarily appro- 
priated their tithes and churches to whom they wishivl, 147. The monks 
initiated the practice of appropriating parochial tithes, 14^. Uiihops, chapters, 
and nuns followed their example, 147. Form of conveyance xlaed, 147. The 
tncumlicnt not originally a freeholder proved from one of the Acts of Third 
Lateran Council, A. I). llSo, p. 14S. This Council gave a death-blow to 
aiiiitrary lay appropriations, 148. Its decrees opposed by English lay-owneri, 
148. A national assembly at Westminster, a. u, liaj, condemned lay appro- 
priations, 149. They gradually ceased in the reigns of Richard I. and John, 

145. Fourlh Lnleran Couuci!, A.D, lit 3, gave parsons the parochial rights 
to tithes for the future, 150. Klonaslerles and chapters had to show their title 
to tithes by grants or by prescriptions, 151. Monastic tithes were of two 
kinds, i;i. ij Richard II., o. 6 (1391}, provides for the poor and the vicar, 

153. Lord Selhorne on this Act, 153. His remarksopen to grave objections, 

154. This Act failed, 154. So the Act 4 Heniy IV., c iz (1403), was passed, 
154. Vicar perpetual enJowed by the bishop nnd not the monastery, 154. 
His three functions, isS- He was to provide for the poor out of his enduw- 
mentB, 155. A list of the small tithes given to vicars, 155. Various changes 
ia shifting the persona who were to repair churches, 156. 

Archbishop Stratford's 4th canon made in a provincial council, A.r>. 134Z, 
for the maintenance of the poor, 157. The poor had a claim on tlie tithes from 
this canon and the Act of 1391, p. 157, The Act of 1403 gives tiie vicir a 
permanent position, 153, 159. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Infciidiiliom — Exemptions front Payment of Tithes, 
pages 159-162. 

dalions defined, 159. Third I^teran Council first forbid them, Ijg, 
Lay impropriations commenced after the dissolution of monasteries, 159. The 
value ofthis property then and now, 159. The present position of owners of 
monastic estates, 159, 160. The four privileged orders paid no tillies, 161. 
Purchasing bills of exemption put a slop to by z Henry IV., c. 4 (140a), p. 
161. The Statute of I'remunire, i5 Rich. IL, c. 5 (rsgjl, pv 161, '■^l- 
Such lands still exempt by 31 Henry VIH., c. 13, \>. idl. 







A sketch of the origin anil progress of monasleries in England, 163. Danes 
destroyed tlie inonaslerie<:, 164. Ttiis gave an impetus to building manorial 
L'hurchea, 165. King Edgar rebuilt Ihem, 1G5. ilis leading cliurcii ideas, 
165, 166. Tlie English monks passed through three reformations, 166. The 
Norman bishops divided the properties of the cathedral church, |6S. Table 
showing the monasteries huilt (mm William I. to Henry VI., 169. Alien 
inonnsleries, 170. Main indications of a religious revolutionary wave passing 
over England. 17a The preaching of Franciscans, Dominicans, and John 
WickliFfe that tithes were only alms, 170-172. Wickliffe's opinions pro- 
nounced heretical, 171. Cathedral Act of 1S40Q&4 Vict., c. 113] passed to 
sweep attny Church abuses, 172. Beneficial effect of the Act, 173. The 
object of OBTiers in appropriating tithes to monasteries, 175. Charter of the 
Earl of Chester to the Monastery of Chester, 176. 

^ CHAPTER XVI. 

P Disioliilion of Monasleries, pages 177-185. 



I 



Eight cases lo guide Henry VIII, in dissolving 
own action in dissolving ihem, 179. Most objectionable appointments to 
collie livings, 178. Henry VIII. made "Supreme head of the Church of 
KnghLnd," 179. Political expediency swept au'uy the monasteries, 180. 
Monasleries with less than ;£'20o a year dissolved by 27 Henry VIII., c. 28, 
ji. 180. Property oljlained £},z,'xa per annum, and personal effects 
j£^loo,ooo, p. 180. The conditions upon which Parliament granted Henry 
VIII., and by him to others, such vast estates, 180. He crealeil six new 
bishoprics ; he intended to create Iwenty-one, iSt. The manors and palaces 
sunendered by Cranmerlo the King, 1S2, The Act I Elii., c 19, p. 183. 
Houses dissolved by 31 Heniy VIIL, c 13, p. 1E3. Three abbots eiceculed, 
1S4. Over 653 monasteries dissolved, 184. In 1346, 90 colleges, lio hos- 
pitals, and 2,347 chantries suppressed by i Edward VI., c. 14, p. 185. The 
preamble ran, " For erecting grammar schools, augmenting universities, and n 
ittttr pri^iiioii for thi poor aiui nee.iy." This oljject completely failed, 185. 
An Act in Henry VIll.'s reign for payment of tithes, 185. Lands exempt 
from paying, 185. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

Tithes in tht City and Liberties of London, pages 186-200. 

low the London citiiens, in early times, supported their cler^ and 
churches, 1S6. Bishop Rogers' Constitution, 1S6. Archbishop Arundel's 
additional elevenpenny tax, 187. Constant quarrels by the citizens with the 
clergy about this cutra chnrgCi 187. In 1403 the Pupe sided against the citi- 
iens and for the III/., yet they considcrol it a cheat and fraud, 187. liy 17 
Ileniy VIII., c. 31, the cititens were to pay ihelr tithes at 2S. 9if. in the pound, 
laS, AnolUer cluxnge in ihe payment by 37 Henry VIIl.,c. 12, p. 1S8. The 



Contents. xv 

Fire Act of 1670 (21 & 2J Chules 11., c 15) regulaling paymciila in lieu ol 
[lilies 10 S6 parishes, iW>, 1S9. Tbeaeannun] parmenuiDcreBseil by 44 lieo. 
III., c. %<j (1S04), 190. Name of each church given, u'ilh thesmoant paid in 
1670, 1S04 and 1S90 10 each, 190-192. Churches cnnsoliclaled in the city 
niid liberties, 192. Amounts paid (0 other churches not incUiiled in ihe Fire 
A.(. <94-20^. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

The Commutation Ad of i^'tfi, pages 101-215, 

Tithe a lax on industry, 301. Taley's and .\ibm Smith's views on liihes, 
zoi. Loid. Althorp failL'd to solve the tilhe proUleni, 302. Sir K. Peel's 
scheme, 20Z. Lord Russell's Commulatiun Bill, 202, 20J. The principle ot 
the Commutation Act, 203. Lord Russell said, " Tithes were Ihe property of 
the nation," 303. Formula for finding the tithe-rent cliarge for any year, 

204. The worijing of the Soth section, by which the landlord is to pay the 
lithe, 204, 20s. liut generally [he tenant contracted hiinselfout of this section, 

205. The injustice of tithe-ient chareca on one kind of property, K)6. A re- 
valuation would be unjust and im practical jlc, 207, 208, The repeftl of the 
Corn Laws an injustice to the tlthe-owDcrs, 2oS. DlfTiirence in amount be- 
tween tithe and tithe-rent chaj^, 207. 

ReJaiipiiBit o/ TUhe-rnit Chargu. The difhcuily in dealing with this ques- 
tion, 209. Everything turns on the woril "value," 209. Are we to stait 
from '*p.ir value" or "current value?" 2og. jfioo commuted Talue should 
not be sold for less than jf 2,000, and reasons given, 210. Crass value of the 
lilhe-rent chaiTte of England and Wales, 210. 

Exlraordiiia'y Til/ie-rml Charge. The Jliddlesex niarkel -garde nets in- 
fluenced Lord Russell to introduce the above in his Bill, 211. The lax is 
sgainsl 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 
' """' lew extraordinary charge to be made, 213. And to redeem such 

were made under previous Acts, 213. An annual rent-charge 
;s on the redemption money in lieu of the extraordinary charge, 
213, 214. 

CH.\PTER XIX. 

Tithes of Church in Wales, pages 216-224. 

le gross commuted value of Ihe Tithes in the four Welsh dioceses in 1836, 

El 216. The same in iSgo, p. 217. The clerical appropriations in Bangor, 
landafT, St. Asaph and St. David's, 2t7-Z2t. 

The Viceri'choral of St. Asaph, Z19. 

The amount of litbe-rent choice in possession of the Ecclesiastical Com- 
missioners m each of the thirteen counties in lS9n, p. 223. Amount still 
uulslanding 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 Weiah dioceses from all sources, 12^ 
Population of Church people and of Dissenters In \iie iow iiwiwsRs, ii\. 



Ijarces t 




Liability ofovnier to pay litlie-renl charge, m6. 3. Recovery of tilhe-, 
tent charge through counly court, 217. 3. Kules, zig. 4. Lands occupied 
tent free, 230. 5. Restrictions as to cosls, 331. 6. Kating of owner of tithe- 
rent chu^e, 231. 7. Power of appeal, 23a. S. Remission of tithe-rent 
charge when exceeding ttro-tliiids annual value of land, 233. 9. DeRnitions, 
235. 10. Commencement nnd 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 iji passing this Act, 23S. County conri 
mnchine, removing friction between tithe-OH ner and tithe-payer, 239. 

The tithe-payer cannot be imprisoned for non-payment, 240. 

Provision made to prevent collision belneen landowner and lithi 
a4a 

Section 4 upsets the main principle of the Act. 141. 

The tithe-oivner must pay all rates, etc., 241. 

The Relief clause quite a 



Appeiidias, pages 243-258. 
Tithe-renl charges in 1S36 of — 

A. Archbishops and Bishops, 243. 
li. Chapters, 244. 

C. Separate estates of Deans, Precentors, Chanctlbrs, Treasurers, aiiJ 

Prebendaries, Vicars Choral and Archdeacons, 245, 246. 
Snmmai^ of A, B, and C, 246. 

D. Universities, public scliools, hospitals, cliarilies, etc., 247, 248. 
Summary of IJ, a4!ii 

Beneficial operations of the Ecclesiastical Commission, 249, 250. 
Unsatisfactory results of extension of Local Claims in the Act, iSGo, 
250, 231. 
£. Septennial averages ol wheat, barley, and oats for 55 years, ending 

1S90, p. 252. 
F. SummaJ7 by Counties of Tilhe- n 
\aalysis of F, showing the not 

appropriated to monasteries, etc., 254, 255. 
Explanation of this Analysis, 255, 256. 
II. Lands and money payments made m lieu of tithes by the Inclosure 

L Crbss annual amount of Church Keveniies, anJ numlier of Benefices 
and Parsonage [louses, 25S. 

Index pages, 259-268. 




When engaged in writing the History of the Rise, Progress, 
and Present Position of the Ecclesiastical Commission for Eng- 
land, I had to deal with the endowments of the Church. My 
desire was to collect facts as to their origin in the Christian 
Church generally, and in the Cliurch 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 oi 
tithes a continuity of old Scriptural laws in the Christian Church, 
payment which Christians were bound to make, whether they 
liked it or not ; passages from the Old and New Testaments were 
distorted, and forced meanings given to them ; apostolical con- 
stitutions were forged in support of their payment. What Isidore 
did as regards his forged decretals we find other writers did as 
regards tithes, and sham miracles are paraded in their works in 
support of tiihes in the Christian Church. Another party, of 
whose views John Selden is the impartial exponent, took a more 
correct view of the subject, and denied that the patriarchal cus- 
tom, or Mosaic law, bound Christians to the payment of tithes 
y«ii tiihes. He asserted, with truth, that the Divine Founder 
of ihe Christian religion and His apostles left behind them no 
written instructions for the payment of tithes, but the latter did 
^gtate how the ministers were to be maiv\lameii,\\T..,<i^*\^Y^'^*'i 



xviii Introduction. 

voluntary principle. I am certain it is against the wiiole tenour 
of the New Teslameot writings, that any funds for the support 
of those who minister at the allar, or in building or repairing 
sanctuaries for divine worship, should be collected vt et armh. 
It is revolting to all Christian principles enunciated in the New 
Testament, that men should be imprisoned, or their goods seiied, 
or, even as it has happened in Ireland within ihis century, be 
shot dead, because they refuse to pay tithes. But there have 
been, and there are still, men in England who u nb lush tngly 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 i>aid no 
liilies quA tithes. In some of the episcopal writings of the second 
and third centuries suggestions ate thrown out, but nothing more, 
recommending the payment of tithes according to the Mosaic 
law; cerlainly not with the view of handing over to the ministers 
nil 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 fifdi century that canons were passed for 
the payment of liihei. 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 
ti-2s good, because it introduced among the Anglo-Savons an 



1 



Inlroductwn. 



active evangelical spirit. It was evil, because it formed the first 
link of an alliance between tlie Churcli of England and the 
Church of Rome. From that time fom-ard the bishops of Rome 
interfered in the disci[>line 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 laily. The Church of Rome never allows the laity lo have a 
share or a voice in any ecclesiastical matters. That was always, 
and is still, the most prominent feature in her oi^anizaiion. In 
the eighth centur)', tithe free-will offerings were first given in Eng- 
land by a few individuals. In the ninth century Charlemagne 
passed the first lay law for the payment of tithes in his dominions. 
This was a great victory gained by the Church. His father, in 
A.D. 755, gave Ravenna to Pope Stephen III., and thus initialed 
the temporal territorial power of the popes, Milnian in his 
iiistory 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 1 The laity, however, refused to pay the tax. 

In England, the ciislom of giving titlies 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 aisfoiiiaiy 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 recle darent?" The custom in 
England gradually changed into a common righl, and it was by 
virtue of this common right that people NfMe XegjJi.'j \i'a'>i'^i \si 



^ 



pay lithes. There was no positive law made for their payment. 
But here is their injustice. \Vhen this custom commenced, the 
population of England and Wales could not have exceeded 
160,000, with less than a quarter of a million of acres under 
cultivation, and yet this custom, originating under the above cir- 
cumstances, generated a common Lnv right, which legally bound 
all subsequent generations to the payment of predial, raixt, 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 voliniian'ly bestowed on the Church by 
the landowners. In a subsequent part I have explained the 2 
and 3 Edw. VI., c. 13, s. 5, about barren and waste grounds 
brought into cultivation, and also the lands and corn rents awarded 
in lieu of tithes by the various Inclosure Acts passed in the last 
and present centuries. 

Certain writers argue in the most unreasonable manner against 
the division of tithes in England, and assert that the parson was 
legally entitled to, and had enjoyed, all his tithes without diminu- 
tion. Lord Selborne, in his recent works, is the latest supporter 
of this erroneous view. In another part I have fully explained 
how untenable these views are. 

The Norman monks initiated the appropriation of tithes to 
monastic bodies. The lands belonging to the four privileged 
orders were specially exempted from paying tithes, whilst others 
purchased bulls of e.vemption from the popes. 

The Third and Fourth Lateran Councils, held in it8o 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 
dis/msal of the private property of the laily to whatever religious 



Introduction. xx! 

purpose Ihey wished, or for the payment of tithes. Theit func- 
tions were confined to the discipline and doctrines of the Church, 

When monasteries and chantries were swept away by Henry 
VIII. and his son, the lands, tithes, and all other kinds of pro- 
perty passed to the Crown, and the Crown granted the greater 
part of the tithes to bishops and chapters in exchange for landed 
estates which were granted to laymen, many of whose posterity or 
assignees hold them at the present day. In Edward VI. 's reign 
about six millions of acres were under cultivation, but from thai 
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 lo 
1818, and about 3,470 from 1818 to the end of 1890. 

Towards the end of the first quarter of the present century 
there arose a cry for Church Reform. Dr. Howley, Archbishop 
of Canterbury, was the first to take steps, in 1829, to reform 
the then existing abuses in the Established Church, as to epis- 
copal revenues, commendams, non-residence of incumbents, 
sinecures, pluralities, etc, which were tike so many cancers 
eating away the body politic This led to Earl Grey's Royal 
Commission of Inquiry, dated 2^rd of June, 1832; to Sir Robert 
Peel's Commission, dated 4th February, 1835 ; to the Eve remark- 
able reports of this Commission ; to the Episcopal Act and Tithe 
Commutation Act of 1S36 ; 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, haviiig the force of Acts of 
Parliament Vi'i-itn published in the Lomion Gasclle, Xe.'t -kikw^ 



Introduction. 



Churchmen boastingly assert that the Church of England has 
received no help from the State (!) The Ecclesiastical Com- 
mission is actually a State Department. And what amount oi 
money would have remunerated the members of the various 
successive governments from 1832, who boldly stepped forward 
to drag the Slate 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 oE 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 tnilUons. These were 
commuted to four millions. The landlords not only gained two 
millions, but also increased rentals from the improvements which 
their tenants made wlien the tithe was commuted into a com rent 
payable in money and permanent in quantity, but fluctuating 
yearly in value, so that any improved value given to land would 
not increase ihe amount of the rent charge. Again, the land- 
lords gained about half a million a year by the various changes 
which were made in the extraordinary tithe rent charges. By the 
Commutation Act, the landlords and not the tenants are the real 
tithe-rent payers. But the landlords having contracted them- 
selves 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 tiihe-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 iingUnd," 
made no change in her doctrines, and the clergy received their 
tithes as hJlhertO for saying masses for the repose of the souls o( 



Introduction. xxlli 

departed parishioners, granting absolution, teaching transubslan- 
tiation and doctrines as regards purgatory. Tlie tithes and landed 
endowments were originally granted for teaching these doctrines. 
But in the reigns of his son and Elizabeth changes were made ill 
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 consequendy of their tithes and other Church endowments. 
But there was no physicj.1 transfer made then of such endow- 
ments, and the Church was the same Church of England, but 
reformed. Their successors, who embraced the doctrines against 
masses, purgatory, absolution, confession, Iransubstantiaiion, 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 Cliurch ; the old 
tenant refused to do so, and had therefore to leave. That was 
all. The incoming trustee held his endowments by a Parlia- 
mentary Title. The present usufructuary possessors of Church 
endowments hold them also on the above conditions, and by the 
same Parliamentary Title. And as Parliament gave the Title, 
it can also change the Title. But how do matters stand now ? 
Dr. Vaughan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, in a small 
pamphlet recently published, says of the Church of England, "Its 
bishops, ministers and people are busily engnged in ignoring or 
denouncing those very articles which were drawn up to be lh[;ir 
eternal proiest against the old religion. TYve sa.txaxftC.^.A i;iii^e,^ 



xxiv Introduction, 



of orders, the need of jurisdiction, the Real Presence, the daily 
sacrifice, auricular confession, prayers and offices for the dead, 
belief in purgatory, the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the 
saints, religious vows, and the institution of monks and nuns — the 
very doctrines stamped in the Thirty-nine Articles as fond fables 
and blasphemous deceits — all these are now openly taught from a 
thousand pulpits within the Establishment, and as heartily em- 
braced by as many crowded congregations. Even the statue of the 
Blessed Virgin Mary has been recently enthroned upon a majestic 
altar under the great dome of St PauFs." From these facts 
Bishop Vaughan claims that England is already " half Catholic.*' 




CHAPTER I. 



BEFORE THE CHRISTIAN ERA. 

The first instance on record of the payment of tithes is found in 
Genesis xiv. zo, 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 tilhe 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. 
2z). 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 tilhable 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 



^^^ is 1 



K 



A History of Tithes. 

at the sheep-cot with a coloured rod, and as the sheep came 

,t one by one, every tenth was marked with this rod ; and that 

is what is meant by " passing under the rod." 

I^he priests at Jerusalem received Ihe 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 ' 
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 Hviiigs. 

After the destruction of the second temple and the dispersioa ' 
of the Jews, the payment of tithes among the Jews ceased, be- 
cause they thought that Jerusalem alone was the place where 
tithes ought to be paid, and also because it became impossible to 
trace out the tribe and priesthood to whom alone they were to be 
paid. It is a question whether the Jews who were converted to 
Christianity before the destruction of the second temple had 
paid tithes to the Levites. 

The heathen nations seem to have copied and adopted the 
Jewish custom of paying tithes. We read of the Greeks having 
paid tithes of the spoils of war to Apollo, and of the Romans to 
Hercules. But, properly speaking, they were not the sort of 
tithes mentioned in the Mosaic Law. They were only arbitrary 
TOWS and offerings ; but no conclusion can be drawn that they 



Before the Christian Era, 



were tithes because tenths were given. Sometimes the heathen 
ofifered more and sometimes less than one-tenth. 

Some ardent supporters of the payment of tithes make them- 
selves ridiculous in tracing their origin to Adam. They state that 
Adam paid tithes. Here is their story as stated by Selden : " God 
charged Adam when there was but one man in the werld that he 
should give Him the tenth part of everything, and to teach his 
children to do the same ; but as there was no man to receive it 
for Holy Church, God commanded that the tenth part of every- 
thing should be burned. In the offerings of Cain and Abel, Abel 
tithed truly of the best, but Cain tithed falsely of the worst 
Cain killed Abel because he said he tithed eviL So people must 
see that false tithing was the cause of the first murder, and it 
was the cause that God cursed the earth." ^ 

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." 

» Seidell's ** History of Tithes," p. 169. 



k. 



CHAPTER II. 

FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA TO THE COUNCIL OF 
AfAS^ON. 

Tn Apostolical times the Christian ministers were supported by 
voluntary contributions out of a common fund, and this practice 
prevailed for four hundred years.' 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 slated. St, Paul ordered 
weekly collections to be made for the saints in the Churches of 
Galatia and Corinth {i Cor, ,\vi. 1, 2), The voluntary contribu- 
tions of the faithful were collected and put into a common 
treasure (Acts n. 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 l^w, 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 tiie pay- 
ment was first urged in the Christian Church, it was supported by 
references to the Mosaic Law and not to St. Paul's words, viz.. 
That those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel." 
Van Espen, "jus Uni*. Clqoq," pais. ii. sec. 4. 



From the Christian Era to the Council of Masqen. S 

There was a growing habit of looking upon the clergy as the 
successors and representatives of the Levites under the Old I-jw, 
and this habit had given an impulse to that claim which they set 
up to the payment of tithes by the laity .^ 

The Apostolical Constitutions fqr the Christian Church, col- 
lected, as it is alleged, by Pope Clement I., the successor as is 
said of St. Peter, first bishop of Rome, were fabricated more than 
eight centuries after apostolical times. Cardinal Bellarmine is 
honest enough to ignore thera. But ihey 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. iooo ; others think in 1042. In 
these Constitutions tithes are stated to have been paid by the 
Christians to the Apostles, Sir H. Speltnan (p. 108) thinks the 
first thhty-five canons are very ancient. " Dionysius Exiguus," 
he says, "who lived within 400 years after the Apostles, trans- 
lated thera 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 Swaw/ioiis, 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 



\ 



See Kemble's '■ Anglo-Saxons," New Ed, : 1876, vol, i 
" Facls and Fictions," pp. 9, 47. 



A History of Tithes. 



The monks in their cells had sufficient leisure to concoct these 
Constitutions, and palm them on the credulous as the genuine 
production of the Apostles. The concocted Constitutions were 
copied and handed down from century to century without any 
attempt being made to test their genuineness and authenticity. It' 
seems exceedingly strange that African divines and laymen should 
refer to the Apostolical Constitutions as an authority for the pay-, 
raent of tithes in apostolic times, although Cardinal Bellarmine, a 
great champion of" Holy Church," ignored them.' 

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 
tbe 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 o^' 
ihe Church of Rome, which were said to have been banded 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 whtchl 
deals with the payment of tithes. He evidently had forgotten the 
mechanical axiom, that nothing is stronger than its weakest part, 

' Seethe Animadvcrsioin on SclJen's " History of Tilhcs," in 1611, liy Dr, 
R, Tillesley, Archdeacon of Rochester. 



^M From tite Christian Era to the Council of Masqon. 7 

" Because the early Christians," he says, " were liberal to the 
Church, therefore it was reasonable that tithes in the ' Constitu- 
tional Apostolical ' were true," Nothing of the sort, because it 
does not follow as a logical sequence. 

After apostolical times, monthly offerings and oblations, we are 
informed, were made in all the churches, and were used for three 
purposes, (i) In maintaining the clergy; (2) in supporting the 
sick and needy j and (3) in repairing the church fabric. These 
monthly contributions were in the third century augmented by 
grants of lands, which were annexed to churches, the revenues 
derived from which were appropriated to the same three pur- 
poses. In A.D. 32a Constantine, the first Christian emperor, 
published an edict which gave full liberty to his subjects to be- 
stow as large a proportion of their property to the clergy as they 
should think proper. From all these sources of revenue the 
Christian Church was rapidly increasing in wealth. But for 
more than four hundred years after the Christian era there was no 
authoritative Church canon made for the payment of tithes ; and 
then such canon was founded upon the Mosaic Law. The ques- 
tion then is, are Christians justified in adopting the Mosaic Law 
for the payment of tithes ? This law had no force outside Jewish 
territory. There is no order in the New Testament for their 
payment. Among the Jews we fail to find such anomalies, rather 
scandals and misappropriations, iit respect to the distribution of 
tithes, as are found in England and Wales. The gross amount 
of lithe-rent charge is slightly over four millions per annum. Add 
to this the extraordinary rent charges on hops, the corn rents and 
extensive lands awarded in lieu of tithes by the large number of 
Inclosure Acts. Among the Jews we find no record of lay im- 
propriators, schools, colleges, charities and hospitals receiving 
tithes. Granted, for argument's sake, that the Christian ^tve.^^.KoQ'l 



A History of Tithes. 



^^H as succeeding the Mosaic priesthood, claimed the tithes according 

^^V 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, Wc must therefore go back to very early times, to ther 
history of tithes in the Christian Church, for the beginning of the 
scandalous misappropriations of tithe endowment for spiritual 
purposes. In England the scandal commenced after the Nor- 

^^ man Conquest with the Norman monks who were in Englisli' 

^^H tnonasteries. 

^^H About one-fourth of the whole tithe rent charge is appro priatecE 
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 leasea 
expire they take possession of the house property. But they pay 
nothing to the Church for the increased value of their land, which 

»may be one hundred times the yearly value per acre before it was 
built upon. 
In the Christian Church tithes were at first given by the faith- 
I ful as spontaneous offerings, at the urgent solicitations of the: 

clergy. "Nam nemo compellitur," says Tertullian, " sed sponte 
confert." These spontaneous tithe free-will offerings were not, 
given in cash but in kind. Soine gave a tithe of sheep, others of 
wool, or of corn, etc., just according to the free-will of the donor.. 
This was the germ of tithes in the Christian Church, which com-^ 
menced in the fourth century, and were ordered to be paid by 
canon law about the beginning of the Gfth century. These canons 

ktrcre framed and passed by ecclesiastics. The people who paid 
had no voice in the matter. The canons which were framed 



From the Christian Era to the Council of Masqon. 9 

afterwards had ordered them to be paid as a right, as a divine 
law of the Old Testament, and were not CO 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 Enghshman's Brief on behalf of his National Church," 
has been published by the Society for the Promotion of Christian 
Knowledge, A good cause needs no fiction to bolster it up. In 
that book there is quite twice as much fiction as fact. The exten- 
sive circulation of this mixture has embarrassed many in gaining 
a correct knowledge of the tithe question from the earliest period 
to the present time. It is written in the style adopted by special 
pleaders. It gives a one-sided account of the subject. It asks 
questions and then furnishes the answers. The answers are most 
misleading and also erroneous, and it carefully omits a great deal 
which could be said on the other side, I strongly object to this 
way in dealing with so important a subject as the history of tithes 
in this country. To be appreciated, the " Brief" should be im- 
partial, which it is not. It is not my object lo review the book 
here seriatim, and to point out what is fiction and what is fact. 
In my statements a good deal of the fiction is refuted indirectly 
without reference to the "Brief," But I may just indicate one 
remarkable feat of fiction which appears in it. When the Chris- 
tian religion was first propagated, the writer of the " Brief" would 
have us to believe that the converted Jews transferred the pay- 
ment of their tilhes 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 ieUg\ou ol C\\i\^"i.\TO*^ , 



1 



A History of Tithes. 



fiis 



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 tilhes from the old religion to the new ri 
ligion."^ We are not informed upon what authority this stat< 
ment is made. There is nothing about it in Josephus. There 
no order in the New Testament for the payment of tithes, 
order of a general or provincial council. We read nothing of this 
in the writings of the first and second centuries. We read of e: 
hortations to pay tithes in the writings of the third and fourtl 
centuries. We read of canons having been made for their pa; 
ment in the fifth century. But I have failed to find any evideni 
to support the statement quoted above from the " Brief.' 

The Provincial Council of French bishops, held at Masgon in 
A.D. 586, is commonly considered to have been tht earliest council 
which ordained the payment of tithes. It ordained, " Ut decimaa 
ecclesiasticas oranis populus inferat, quibus sacerdotes aut 
pauperum usum, aut in captivorum redemptionem erogatis, s 
orationibus pacem populo ac saliitem irapetrenl." Isidore, in hi 
compilation of decrees of councils, makes no reference to thi 
council. Friar Crab is ihe first to have mentioned it in his 
edition of the councils under Charles V, 

Lord Selhorne 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 Ihe first to throw considerable doubt 



' rage 34. 



ml-'rom the Christian Era to the Council of Mas^on. 1 1 

upon the genuineness of this canon at the Council at Mas^on.' 
The mistake originated in calling the offerings and oblations tithes. 
The same mistake is repeated by writers at the present time. For 
instance, Dr. J. S. Brewer, in his " Endowments and Establish- 
ment of the Church of England," 2nd Edition, 1885, iranslales 
" portiones " (quoted from Bede), tithes. Pope Gregory says in 
his reply to Archbishop Augustine's question, " Commimi aulem 
vita viventibus jam de faciendis porlionibus, vel exhibenda hos- 
pitalite et adimplenda misericordia, nobis quid erit loquendum." 
" But as for those who live in common, why should we say any- 
thing now of making portions ? " etc. Brewer translates the 
passage thus, " As for those who are living in common, I need 
give no advice about dividing tithes" etc Now, the Latin word 
for tithe is decima, and is so used in all the monastic charters. 
The same writer states, and he is followed by writers of leaflets 
for the Church Defence Institution, that the scriptural precept, 
" To hve of the Gospel " {i Cor. ix. 14), refers to the payment of 
tithes. I am certain that St. Paul never intended anything of the 
sort. I fully admit that the passage may cover a tithe free-wilt 
offering, as it would any other free-will offering, but I cannot 
admit that it implies a compulsory payment of tithes, that is, to 
carry it to its logical sequence, a distraint on the goods of a per- 
son who is unable or unwilling to pay tithe. Such compulsion 
would be contrary to the spirit of the Gospel of Christ. 

I hold strongly to the view that free-will offerings are the only 
scriptural mode for the maintenance of the Christian ministry, 
and these are the same kind of offerings to which Pope Gregory 
referred in his answers to Augustine's questions. 

The instances are many in which words of old authors and 
passages of Scripture are not only strained but intentionally dis- 
' "Ancient Facts and Fictions," Ediiion 1888,^^.^1, ^^- ^'iie.Ti,-^. ^. 



A History of Tithes. 



torted, in order to show the early origin of tithes. There 
nothing gained, but much confidence lost, in this critical age bj 
distorting the meaning of, or giving a forced interpretation toi 
plain words of Scripture, or of secular and religious writers. 

The Christian religion had been introduced into Britain at 
very early date, and from Britain it passed over to Ireland. Ire- 
land was specially remarkable for her evangelical missionary 
monks, who visited Scotland, England, and tiie 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 
driven from the east and south to the west of the island ; theii 
lands were taken from them, their churches and monasteries wen 
pillaged, and then burnt down by the invaders. 




CHAPTER III. 

THE JiOMA.V MISSION TO ENGLAND. 

In a.d. 596 Pope Gregory, commonly called Gregory the Great, 
selected Augustine, prior of St. Gregory's monastery in Rome, to 
conduct in the same year a mission to Britain in order to con- 
vert the people to Christianity. The journey to Britain was then 
considered a hazardous undertaking, being thought in so remote 
a part of the world. Even this band of Christian pioneers 
became disheartened on their journey, Augustine, much dis- 
couraged, left his companions in France and returned to Rome, 
but Gregory sent him back, urging hira and them to valiantly 
carry out their mission. 

In 597 Augustine and forty companions landed in the Isle of 
Thanet. Ethelbert, a noble-hearted, liberal-minded and intelli- 
gent heathen, was then King of Kent ; but his wife. Bertha, 
daughter of Charibert, King of Paris, was a Christian. Augustine 
announced his arrival to the king, and the object of his mission. 
The king repaired to Thanet and granted an interview to 
Augustine and his companions. He was much impressed with 
their external ceremonies, and permitted them to reside in Canter- 
bury, the metropolis of his kingdom. He presented his palace 
in Canterbury t« Augustine as a residence for himself and his 
successors. On the and 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 ^r4.-^3s, twv- 



14 A History of Tithes. 



31 



secraled archbishop by ihe Archbishop of Aries, and returned to ] 
England in 598. 

There were at that time in the island some British Churches, 
bishops and clergy, but no divisions of parishes, no parish 
churches, no connection with the Roman Church, and indubi- 
tably no tithes whatever were paid. We are therefore on solid 
ground in asserting that during the first six hundred years of the 
Christian era there is no genuine record of tithes in any sha 
or form having been paid or given to the clergy of this island. 

The Roman Mission subsequently produced mighty changes i* 
the Church of England through this initial connection. In the.' 
several letters which the popes addressed to the kings and arch- 
bishops of England in subsequent centuries, constant reference* 
are made to Augustine's mission; and the popes refer to thii' 
event as the source of their supreme authority over the Churdf ■ 
of England. 

King Ethelbert's laws which were passed between 596 and 605, 
recognise Christianity and the Christian priesthood. Bede in» 
forms us that they were enacted by the advice of his Witan.^ 

Article i. " The property of God and the Church [whfffl' 
Btolen, a fine of) twelve-fold ; a bishop's property, eleven-fold ; C 
priest's property, nine-fold; a deacon's property, sbt-fold, etc."'' 
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 Texhu 
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. 

^^■^ "Hist. Eccl." ii. 5: cum consilio sat»i«[itium. ^^| 

^^^fe ' Thorpe's "Ancient Laws," etc i. 3. ^^| 



I 



The Roman Mission to England. 15 

we affirm that the introduction of Christianity was at least ratified 
by a solemn act of the Witan." ' 

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 aUar. He was not of the Benedictine order of monks, 
but followed the order of Pope (jregory in the cloister which he 
had founded in Canterbury.* In 602 he laid the foundation ol 
his cathedral church in Canterbury. In 604 he ordained Melli- 
tus, one of his companions, bishop of London; and Justus, 
another companion, bishop of Rochester. King Ethelbert granted 
them London and Rochester respectively as their episcopal seea,^ 
These bishops and their clergy were then but missionaries among 
the heathen Saxons in the country, and being monks, had lived 
together close to their cathedral churches, from which they pro- 
ceeded as itinerant preachers to the neighbouring locahties. The 
bishop's church was at first the only one in his diocese, hence it 
was called mater eccltsia. Subsequently it was called the Ca/Ai- 
dral Churchy because the bishop's cathedra, sedes, stool or chair 
was in the choir and on the same level with the seats of other mem- 
bers of the choir. But now there are only two cathedral churches 
in England in which the bishop's seat or throne is in the choir, and 
that in a raised position. In all the other cathedrals, the throne 
is placed outside the choir in a conspicuous part of the church. 

The bishop's circuit or diocese was the parish. It will here- 
after be shown that the origin of parishes was erroneously traced 
back to the episcopal division of dioceses, when " parish " and 
"diocese" were synonymous. 

' " Saxons iii England," ii. 205. 

' Hook'3 " Aichbisliops," L 134. 

■ The ihiee bishoprics were thus SlcUt trcalkm in the kingdom of Kent, 
and were then established anJ enJ.naed by the Slate, ivkh the approval of tlie 
Witeiugemfit. See Hook, i. 59. 



m 



l6 A History of Tithes. 



The bishop was originally both bishop and rector of the parisb 
or diocese, and the episcopi clerici were his curates. 

Augustine, MeUilus, and Justus, and their respective clergy 
were supported by the otferings and oblations of their flocks, 
which were brought to the bishop's house, and put into a comi 
fund, which was disposed of by the bishop himself. Canon laWi 
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 quK fidelium oblationibus accedunt altari, quanta 
debeant fieri portiones ? " He answered, " That all emoluments 
which accrue ought to be divided into four portions, namely, one 
for the bishop and his family, because of hospitality and enter- 
tainments : another for the clergy ; a third for (he poor ; and the 
fourth for the repair of churches." " Ut in omni stipendio, quod 
accedit, quatuor debeant fieri portiones ; una, videHcet, episcopo 
et familis propter hospital itatem atque susceptionem, alia clero, 
tertia pauperibus, quarta ecclesiis reparandis." 

The pope added, " But because your brotherhood has 1 
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 quifi 
tua fraternitas monasterii regulis erudita, seorsum fieri non debet 
a clericis suis in ecclesia Anglorum, quae, auctore Deo nuper 
adhuc ad fidem adducta est, hanc debet conversationem instituer^ 
qux initio nascentis ecclesire fult patribus nostris; in quibui- 

knuUus eorum ex bis, qu:e possidebant, aliquid suum esse diceby; 
sed erant eis omnia communia." ^^H 



The Roman Mission to England. i7 



He further adds, " But as for those who live in common, why 
need we say anything of making portions ? " " Communi autem 
vita viventibiis jam de fadendis pordonibus, nobis quid erit 
loquendum." i 

This last passage is thus translated by Mr. Brewer and en- 
dorsed by the new editor, Mr. Lewis T. Dibdin, a barrister : " For 
those who are living in common (/'.rf. the monks) I need give no 
advice about dividing tithes or offerings among them." ^ It is not 
only misleading, but bad scholarship to translate " portiones " by 
" tithes." DediiKs 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 tJie reparation 
of the churches ; and the fourth part to the poor, and to the sick 
and strangers,^ Pope Simplicius, in the fifth century, mentions the 
fourfold division of the Church funds in his thud epistle. Pope 
Gelasius (a.d. 501), in his ninth epistle, renews the regulation of 
Simplicius, and orders the bishops lo 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 

1 Bede, ".E. H.," lib. i. c itxvii 

' " Eodowmeiits and EstabI hment of ll e Church of England," p. 39, 
ed. 1885. Mr. Dibdin is Chan ell of Ihe Dioceses of Kochesier, Exeter, 
and Dmharo, and official of two a hd o ' Ciiwj^v a,. 



A Histoiy of Tithes. 



three but not necessarily equal parts. One part was for the main- 
tenance and clothing of the bishop and his clergy ; a portion 
given to the poor and strangers, and a portion went towards the 
repairs of the church and erecting oratories and schools, 

Elackstone states that "At the first establishment of paro- 
chial clergy, the tithes of the parish were distributed in a fourfold 
division ; one for the use of the bishop ; another for maintain! 
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 ihese tithes, and the division was into three 
parts only." ^ 

Wharton, in his "Defence of Pluralities," refers to the fourfold 
and then to the tripartite divisions in England.^ 

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 th« 
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 coi 
mon fund some wooden chapels, which served as chapels of ca 
to the mother-church. In some cases the bishop had a woodi 
' "Cminiin.," bk. i. ch. iL pp. 372-3, eJ. 1765. » p. 87 



The Roman Mission to England. 



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 paymenl 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 vecy. 
careful in getting them," etc' 

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 froui paying Danegeld, and adds, "This liberty had 
been preserved by Holy Church even to the time of William the 
Younger, called Rufns, who sought aid from the barons of Eng- 
land in order to keep Normandy from his brother Robert when 
he went to Jerusalem ; and they granted him four shillings from 
every plougbland, not excepting Holy Church," etc.* 

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. 6S8, wlun there 7C'as a law by which they were 
then paid."^ 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. 

' Thorpe, i. 435, Law viii. 

" See llie Laws in Thorpe, i. pp. 3-43, also pp. 103-151. 
"Out Title Deeds," p. 53. 



k 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE FIRST DOCUMENTARY STATEMENT OF TITHES 
IN ENGLAND. 

IThe first genuine Statement of the payment of tithes in England 
bippears 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 15 no doubt that this Penitential is genuine. Bishop Slubbs, 
Mr. Haddan and Professor Wasserschleben accept it as such.' 

The following three notices of tithes appear in the " Peniten- 
tial " : 

1. "Presbitero decimas dare non cogitur." The priest is not 
compelled to pay tithes.^ 

2. "Tributum ecclesia: sit, sicut consuetudo provinciEe, 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." 

3. " Decimas non est legitimum dare nisi pauperibus el pere- 
grinis, sivi laid suas ad ecclesias." It is not lawful to give tithes 
except to the poor and strangers, or laymen to their own churches.*' 



^H The First DocumeHtary Statement of Tit/ies. 21 

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 inUuence, rather than ecclesiastical censures," ' 
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 reilecting 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." ^ 

Bishop Stubbs makes a vital remark on (3). " Tithes are men- 
tioned," he says, " by Theodore in the genuine ' Penitential,' in a 
way that proves the duty of making the payment, but not Ifu riglit 
of the cin-gy to the sole use of them." * 

Theodore encouraged landowners to build churches on their 
estates by permitting them to have the appointment of the 
priests who were to officiate in ihem. 

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 Lindis- 
farne, he says, " So that according to the law, he gave every year 
ihe tenth part, not only of four-footed beasts, but also of all corn 
and fruit, as also of garments to the poor." [Ifa ut juxta legem, 
omnibus annis dedmam non solum quadrupedum, verum eliam 

' " Facts and Fictions," p. 107. 

' Hoiidnn and Stubbs, " Councils," iii. 1 74. 

* "Const. Hist.," i, 237, note \. ed. i^T*. 



A 



A History of Tithes. 



frugum omnium atque pomorum, necnon et vestiraentorum ^2.1- 
iera, pauperibus Adsti\. The law referred to here was the Mosaic 
or Divine law. Eadbert was made bishop a.d. 6S8, two years 
before Theodore died. He gave the tenth part la 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." ^ If Bede alluded to 
tithes, he would have written decima and not tributa. Tributum 
is from tribuo, which is allied to tribiis, i.e., pars, and so iribus = 
to divide into parts. Hence tributa — "^ziXz 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 decinm in the same passage 
with sejxirate meanings. Tributum — a tax, contribution, tribute, 
collection, subscription,* 

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. Stuhbs, now 
Bishop of Oxford) through more than one difficulty on endow- 
ments as to which he was in doubt." ' 

' " Anglo-Sfinon Church," i. 183 ; Bede, " Ep, a<i Egli.," ii. 
» Stheller's LaOn Lexicon, cdiled by RidJle, 1835. 
* Preface, pp. 2, j. 



U 



The First Documentary Statement of Tithes. 23 

" 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." * In referring to the volume quoted 
here, I find that the writers say nothing about this spurious passage, 
but at p. 103, Haddan and Stubbs give the three passages in 
Theodore's " Penitential," which " Penitential " Ihey stale is genu- 
ine, 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 Wjlkins's "Anglo-Saxon Laws," p. 106, 
but Willtins 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 iofornialion on the law of 1014 to another 
part of ihis book, where the Church-Grlth law of Ethelred is 
fully discussed. 

"I will not put," says Blackstone, " the title o£ the clergy to 
tithes upon any Divine right, though such a right certainty com- 
menced, and I believe as certainly ceased, with the Jewish theo- 
cracy. Yet an honourable and competent maintenance for the 
ministers of the gospel is undoubtedly /wre divino; whatever the 
particular mode of that maintenance may be."^ I quite agree 
with these remarks. But as Mr. Serjeant Stephens, in his Com- 
mentaries, says, " The institution of tithes in its specific form is 
odious to the people and unsatisfactory to the political economists.' 

Landowners' Churches. 
The nobility and landed gentry were not slow in fully appre- 
ciating the advantages of resident over itinerant priests. Some of 
the princes, in changing from place to place, selected certain of 
'p. 156. ' "Com.," bk. ii. ch. iii. p. 25, ed, 176$.. * ■Mu\.\\. "i. T^i.. 



w 



24 A History of Tithes. 

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, 
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 
the modern parish churches and rai:ch less their endowments. 
" At the original endowment," Blackstone says, " of parish 
churches, the freehold of the church, the churchyard, the par 
sonage 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 Kennetl says, tht parish priest was the bank. 

The manorial church was certainly ihe germ of the modem 
parish church. And we can trace this germ back to a.d. 685. 
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 grouni^s a legal right to onethird part of the tithes of 



The First Doaimcntary Statement of Tithes. 2$ 

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. " .A.S 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, Blackslone 
or any other, as giving any help to either side. We may safely 
go to them to lejrn what is the law in force at the present 
moment ; for historical purposes they are worst than useless." ^ 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 Com- 
mentaries, 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. 6SS of the erection of 
cliurches 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"^ [at South Burton, York- 
shire]. 

" At another time also [a.o. 636] he [Bishop Jolin] was called 



1 



Letter aildtessed lo Mr. Fuller, as it appears in " Our Tille Deeds." 



26 A History of Tithes. 



I 



to consecrate the church of Earl Addi." ^ These landed pro- 
IMrietors, who also had the advowsoQS, made a provision for the 
priests of their churches by erecting residential houses and attach- 
ing 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 us& all tJie 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 dis- 
charged 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 obla- 
tions also, was as well established as that of the parson's. Bui 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 shar& 
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 aa 
oratory for the convenience of his family, tenants, and depen- 
dents. 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, aud the landowners endowed them with lands vary- 
' Bede, " E. 11.." lib. v. c. v. 



The First Documentary Stateinent of Tithes. 27 



ing ID 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 remainiiig 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 advow- 
son 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 accord- 
ingly. The sates 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 oa privately by 
family solicitors and professional agents. A living, for example, 
is worth, say, ^800 a year from glebe and tilhe-rent charge ; the 
incumbent is old, and the owner of the advowson is desirous of 
finding a purchaser of next nomination after lUe itaX\i ot Te,^\'Sv'a.- 



w 



A History of TitJies. 



k 



k 



tion 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 maojr 
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, 
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 arch i episcopate of Theodore (G6S-690) auricular confession 
began to take the place of public discipline. Theodore's " PetiK 
tentinry," which was published with his authority, directed con-^ 
fessors 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 i 
formed what sort of penance was required for every offence, and 
for the several degrees and circumstances of it. The most dilfi- 
cult part of the priest's office was to proportion the private, 
penance to the crime, and Theodore's "Penitenriary" was looked 
upon as the best rule in this particular.' It is remarkable that th( 
earliest mention of tithes in England is found in Theodore 
Penitentiary." 

' Johnson's " La«s and Canons," L. S7. 



WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO EGBERT, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK 
(734-766). 

Erieflv stated, they are — 

(i) The "Penitential," 3. document of the tenth century.' There 
are four books prefaced with tiventy-one canons. Tiie 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 " Confes- 
sional," he may have translated it. 

(3) The Excerptions, Mr. Thorpe takes these from CotL : 
Nero, A. i. They are in Latin, numbering 163. The first twenty- 
one are ninth century canons. There is another different com- 
pilation of excerpts in Corpus Chriati College, Cambridge, K. 2, 
The excerptions which appear in these two manuscripts are not 
Egbert's.* 

Sir H. Spelman, Wilkins,^ Johnson,* Bishop Kennett, Dr. 
Lingard,* Kemble, Thorpe," and others believed that the Excerp- 
tions were written in the eighth century by the archbishop him- 
self, and some of these writers have referred to them in support 
of the threefold division of tithes. But there is ample internal 



Bodl. MS. 718, ' See Haddan and Slubbs, " Councils," iii. 413. 

"Con.,"ii. 25S. ' "Laws and Canons," i. iSi, ed. iS^o. 

■4 "Antiq. of lie Aiig.-Saj:,," i. 93, Hole. * " A(iCVevv\.'\_.'i-««,," 'vi, "^n. 



F 

^^^B evidi 
^^f genu 
^^ ten ( 



A History of Tithes. 



evidence in the canons themselves to condemn them as i 
genuine production of Egbert, or that they could have been wriul 
ten during his archiepiscopate. 

If any one should take the trouble or be obliged to refer to4 
Dr. Lingard's History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church,.,!] 
published in two volumes in 1845, he will observe the numerous 1 
references which this Roman Catholic historian makes to Egbert's 
Excerptions and Peuitentials, 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 J 
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 coUeo- 
tion of divers canons written about the time of Henry the First, 
with this inscription of equal age, ' Incipiunt excerptiones Domini 
Egberti Archiepiscopi Eburace Civiiatis, de jure sacerdotali' 
[ = Here begin the excerptions of the Lord Egbert, archbishop oC 
the city of York, concerning the duty of priests], hath these word^ 
'Ut unusquisque sacerdos cunctos sibi perlinentes erudiat, ut 
sciant qualit^r decimas totius facultatis ecclesiis divinis debitfc. 
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 \ populis suscipiant decimas, et nomina 
eorum, quicunque dederint, scripta habeant, et secundum authort 
latem canonicam coram testibus dividant, et ad omamentun 
ecclesise primam eligant partem, secundam autem ad usum ] 
perum atque perigrinorum per eorum manus misericorditbr c 
o/nni humiUt^te dispensent; tertiam vero sibimet ipsis sacerdotei 



Woris Alfrib7i(ed io Egbert, Archbishop of York. 31 

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 them- 
selves.] 1 

"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 ecclesice 
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 autorltas' 
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 I.olhar 
the First. But refer it to either of them, and it will be divers 

' Thorpe'5 " Ancient Laws," etc, i. gS, Canons 7, aui ^. 



I 
I 



^ 



32 A History of Tithes. 

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 tinie."^ 

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 igih November, 766,^ and Charles be- 
came King of France in 76S. These dates are very important in 
this controversy. 

The first twenty-one canons are from the Audain mauuscript 
in the monastery of St. Herbert in the Ardennes, Canons a a to 
28 inclusive are taken from other Galilean Capitulars. These 
twenty-eight canons were made between a.d, 789 and S16. 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 sohd, genuine facts at our] 
command with whicJt to prove the threefold division of tithes in 
England, and these are staled further on. 

' "History of Tithes," ed. 1618, pp. 196-198. Selden quotes 
margin, "MS. in Bibltath. CMoniana," which cleatly indicates thai he d 
not know it as the " Worcester" volume ; or " Worasler, Ntro, A, I." 

' Consecrated Archbishop A.D. 734 } died Nov, 19, 766, Stubbs's 
gibtrum Sacmm Anglicanutn." 




[ THE FIRST PUBLIC LAY LAW FOR THE PA YMENT 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 dis- 
tributed by the bishop's command." [De decimis, ul unusquisque 
suam decimam donet, atque per jussionem pontificis dispen- 
'sentur.Ji 

Charles's civil law had only enforced by coercion the existing - 
ecclesiastical law or custom of payment of tithes ; and the ecclesi- 
astical 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 lo 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 tiie 
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." * 

The establishment of the right in England followed the same 
course as that in France. 

'Baliiie, i. 141, 142; Selileii. c. vi. s, 7. 
' "The Saxons in EnElaml," u. ^TJ. 



34 -^ History of Tithes. 



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 Mero- 
vingians, 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 dur- 
ing a period of famine. Charlemagne made it a law of the em- 
pire ; 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. // was a tax imposed by imperial authority and enforced 
by imperial power. It had caused one, if not more than one, san- 
guinary insurrection among the Saxons, It was submitted to io 
other parts of ihs empire, not without strong leluctance. Even 



First Public Lay Law for the Payment of TUfas. 35 



Alcuin ventured to suggest that if the apostles of Christ had de- 
manded tithes, they would not have been so successful in the 
propagation of the Gospel." ^ 

Papal Legates in England, a.d. 787, 

For 190 years no papal legate appeared in England since 
Augustine landed on our shores in 597. VVhen 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.' 
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 Aries, a.d. 314 ; Sardica, 347 ; and Rimini, 359. 

The following historical facts should be carefully noted, B)ach 
of the several divisions of England — call them the Heptarchy 
or anything else — owed its evangel t2ation to a source not ex- 
clusively of the Roman mission. Kent and Essex had certainly 
remained Christian under the successors of Augustine ; bul 
Wesses, 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 itoman mission, 
after the death of King Ethelbert whose successors relapsed into 
heaUienism, was rather a failure.^ Augustine was narrow- minded 
and sectarian, attached to everything Italian. There were seven 
British bishops then in England. In 6oz a meeting was held 
at which representatives of the Itahan and British Churches were 
present Augustine demanded that the Celtic Church should 

lilman, ii. 292, etc. ' Eeile, " Ecd. Hisi.," i. 27, 29. 

" Slubbi, " Const. Hist.," 1. 217, eA. I'ilv 



36 A History of Tithes. 

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 deter- 
mined to yield their independence to neither threats nor 
entreaties. 

Augustine claimed metropolitan power, but the Celtic bishops 
haughtily rejected such a proposal. 

Oo 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.' London was 
lost, and the whole aspect of the Roman mission was gloomy in 
the extreme, when the second Archbishop died in 6ig. Mellitus 
the third died in 624. Justus who succeeded him had conse- 
crated Paulinus on the 21st of July, 625, as the first Archbishop 
of York. In 627 King Edwin held a Witenagemdt 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.' The 
fact that a room was capable of accommodating the Witenagem6t 
has led to the conclusion that the number must be small. 
Paulinus had fled from York in 633, eight years after his conse- 
cration, and after the battle of Heathfield. But his place was 
taken by Bishop Aidan, a missionary from Columba'a Irish 
monastery in lona, who had established an Episcopal see in 
Lindisfarne. 

' Bede, ■* E. H.," ii.6. 
' Bede, "E. H.," ii. c. xiii. See Kemble's " Saions," ii. 241. 



First Public Lay Lam for the Payment of Tithes. 37 

There is a letter of Pope Boniface V. to Archbishop Justus,) 

b April, 624, and October, 615, conferring on hini 

h pn J f 11 Britain and ending with these words, " Hanc 

m 1 m pote specialiter consistentam sub potestate et 

R laniE eeclesJEe."' [But this Church as speci- 

lly 3j J, d r the power and instruction of the Roman 

H ly Ch h ] 

I 634 P 1 H rorius I. conferred on Archbishop Hooorius, 
seven years after his consecration, tlie primacy of ail Britain.* 

But there is no evidence to show that the Celtic bishops 
acquiesced in this power of metropolitan over all England con- 
ferred 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 pre- 
sence 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.' 
Then followed an interregnum of four years. Wilfrid's strong 
opinions about Easier kept him out of the arc hiepisco pate. 

It is vitally important to note this turn of the tide to Rome. I 
take all particulars from Bede's Ecclesiastical History. If this 



' Birch, " Cartulariuni Saxonicum," i. No. i; 
> Jbid., i. No. 20. > Beds, " E, H." 



38 



History of Titlies. 



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 Streanes- 
halch (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 ; 
Pr-iest 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 SL 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 Heavea" 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." 
" Tfien," 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 hJs 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.' 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 

' Bedi:, "E. H.," bk iii. c. xxv., Dr. Giles's translation. 



First Public Lay Laxv for the Payment of Tithes. 39 

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, lield 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 arch- 
bishop 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." ^ Again, 
" King Egbert, being informed by messengers that the hi^/iop they 
had asked of the Roman prelate was in the kingdom of France." * 

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 manceuvring 
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."* He landed in England in 669, and held his 



^^^''Ket 



40 A History of Tithes. 



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 tlien been re- 
ceived 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 deciniis fidelium 
suscipiunt ; et curam gregis Domini deponunt." ^] Here is an 
early instance of endowed bishops neglecting their flocks. 

This brief sketch wil! enable the reader to follow further 
particulars. 

King OrrA. 

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 eiiercise sovereign authority, 
like the Bishop of Rome, over the kingdom of Kent as feudatory 
of Charlemagne. Ofla, 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 

' Haddan and Slubbs, " Coundls," iii. 360. 



First Public Lay Law for the Payment of Tithes. 41 

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 Jaenbett, 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.^ 

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. ^ 

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 svas 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 

' Hook's " Lives of Archbishops," i. 245, 246. 
' HaclJan and SCubhs, " Couiidls," iii. J&a. 



42 A History of Tithes. 



well by what means he could realize his object. He resorted to 
wholesale bribery among the Roman officials, and thus gained 
his point.' Peter's pence probably was also part of the bargain.' 

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 Papa! 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 
proquol To convert the bishopric of Lichfield into an arch- 
bishopric 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 suc- 
cessor 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 Norlhumbria, and to the two archbishops. 

George, Bishop of Ostia, went to King Aelfwold's court, and 
|"rheophy]act. Bishop of Todi, repaired to Offa's. These kings 

" Lives of the Two Offas" (Matt. Paris, ccl. 1640, p. zi). 
" Henry of Ilunlingdon," boolt iv. See also Pope Leo lU.'i letler W- 
•ff KeBKuIf o{ Mercia, io Haddan and Stubbs, " Councils," UL 513, 525. 



First Public Lay Law for the Payment of Tithes. 43 

then summoned councils of their chief men, both spiritual and 
temporal. The Northern Council assembled in 787 ; Offa's 
Council assembled at Cakhyth, 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 Witenageradts, and the twenty Injunctions 
were so many laws regularly and legally passed. The i7lh In- 
junction relates to tithes; therefore the payment of lithes 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 lo 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 1 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."* 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 pub- 

Kd in A.D. 1567 at Basle by the Magdeburg Ceniuriators, from 
' Sdden, " History of Tithes," c. viii. s. 1, p. 101. 



44 A History of Tithes. 



a manuscript of which they give no account.' It contains, how- 
ever, as Lord Selboroe admits, abundant interna! proof of authen- 
ticity.2 Yet he adds : " But because it is not probable tliat, 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."^ 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." * 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."^ 

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 c^ 

' " Basiled." 1567 1 " Cenluria," viii. c. i«. pp. 574, 575. 

' Haddail ami Htubbs, " Councils," iii. 46:. 

' "Facts and Fictions," p. 154. 

* "Ancient Laws," Preface, p. viL ; see pp. 69, 70. 

' JIflddnn and Stubbs, " Councils," iii. 444, 447. 



First Public Lay Law for t/ie Payment of Tithes. 45 

wise man says, ' No man can justly give alms of what he pos- 
sesseth, 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 himselt 
reduced to a tenth. VVhererore 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.' " •■ 

"The terras of this article," says Lord Selborne, "speak for 
themselves ; their character is evident, being that of a pastoral 
precept, not legal enactment." '^ He therefore rejects this as a civil 
enactment for payment of tithes. 

" There can be no doubt," says Haddan and Stubbs, " that the 
legating 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 ali."^ 

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 Witenagemdts." * 

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 qua legatine councils, but because 
these councils were actual WitenagemiSts, whose consent gave it 
the force of law in the respective kingdoms of the two kings. 

' Haddan and Slubbs, " Councils," iiL 456. 
' " Facts and Fictions," p. 145. 

* " Councils," iii. 637, note. 

* " Constilntional History," \. 2aS, ei. iSt\. 



^ 



46 A History of Tithes. 

They made legal what nas 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, (w 
churls, or freemen, occupying the social position between the 
thane and slave, had no voice whatever in the passing of the 
laws. The Witenagemdts, wliich 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, eads, and thanes. In these assemblies, both 
secular and ecclesiastical laws were enacted, and charters emr 
bodying 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 (i) that the tithes of the 
Christian Church are rot the continuation of the tithes of the 
Levitical law as put forth by the Church in support of payment' 
and (3) 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."*' 
But charity was at the very root of all primitive references to 
the payment of tithes in the Christian Church. Some wiitem 



First Public Lay Law for the Payment of Tillies. 47 

assent to Selden's second position as stated above, but will not 
admit that they were given for difTereiit 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 parsotis receive their tithes 
by Divine righl, and in conliimation 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 obli- 
gation 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, and 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 ihe 
legal right of tithes. He quotes questionable authorities in 
support of his -views. 

In reference to King Offa, he says, " Kud m mvVa.'Ov'i'n \c,\ 



w 



48 A History of Titk£S. 



I 



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."* He quotes as his authority foe this 
story the chronicle of Bromton, abbot of Jervaulx, in Yorkshire, 
who lived towards the end of the 14th century. Now, in refer- 
ring to this chronicle, I find that Prideaux made two wrong quota- 
tions, viz. (i) that Offa made a law; (i) that he gave tithes of all 
his kingdom of Mercia. Let John Bromton speak for himself. 
" This Offa, by the wicked advice of bis wife, treacherously (pro- 
dicionaliter) put to death St. Ethelbert, king of the East Angles, 
who was on a visit to him for the purpose of marrying hia 
daughter ; in atonement for which sin he brought down his pride 
to such a degree of humihty and penitence that he gave to Holy 
Church a tenth of all that belonged to himP 

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, 

Polydore Vergil followed Bromton, and Holinshed followed 
Polydore. Selden quotes from Polydore thus : " Offa's giving, 
the lithe of his estate to the clergy and the poot 

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 ItaUan priest sent to England 

' " Original and RigHt of Tithes, 
' "Hislotite Anglicans Sen plotes, x.," eJlletl by Roger Twyadeiijed. 1651, 
ftil. p. 776. Chioricon Johamiis Bromton. 

» " Flowers of History," i. 158-163. See Dr. Giles's cd. 
"History of Tithes," e. via. p. Jo8. 



First Public Lay Laiv for tlte Payment of Tit/ees. 49 



by the Pope to collect Peter's pence. He was archdeacon of 
Wells, and *vrote a history of England, which he dedicated to 
Henry VIII, In this history he explains what was meant hy 
" Holy Church " thus : " He (Offa) gave the tenth part of all his 
goods to priests and other poor men."' Holinshed says, "He 
granted the tenth part of his goods unto churchmen and poor 
people." * 

The poor were always considered in grants of tithes or offer- 
ings, 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," * because oiher 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.Di 1012. They are found 
only in Eroraton's work. They are not confirmed by any other 
writer, but are copied by writers from this source. Does Ijsrd 
Selborne state that they are " mythical," because other chroniclers 
do not mention them ? No. He admits them as genuine.* So 
does Mr, Thorpe." If Lord Selborne were consistent, he would 
have rejected them, because they are not confirmed by other in- 
dependent writers. No one knows, from what source Bromton 
had taken his text. 

Lord Selborne admits the other two statements made by 
' " HLst. Angl." lib., iv. 99, ed, 1649. 
' " History of England," l>k. vi. c. vi. 

* " Facts and Ficlions," p. 138. 

* Idem., pp. 269, 170. 
' " Andent Laws," i. 336. 



w 



50 A History of Tithes. 

Eromton ; viz., (i) 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, because King Offii enacted the payment ot 
tithes in his own kingdom in 787 ; and (a) because it was a tenth 
of his own property which was granted. It certainly was 
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 
OfTa's demesne lands, or lo a release of a tenth of the dues pay- 
able to the King on folcland." ^ 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 lo gather and recover them as their legal due by the c 
cion of the civil power." * 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 i 
roimd 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 boimd to 
support all that were bom on his soil ; that they worked and lived 
for him, and therefore there was no necessity for making provS< 

' '■ Saxons in Engknd," ii-447. note. 

* " The Original and Right of Tiihet," p. 103. 



First Public Lay Law for the Payment of Tithes. 5 1 

sion for the poor out of the tithes. Now on this special point we 
have overwhelming genuine documentary evidence that provision 
was distinclly 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 pooi- 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 " Ecci. Hist," 
where he slates that Bishop Eadbert gave (a d. 686) one-tenth of 
his own goods to the poor} " 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," ^ 

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 heathen- 
ism 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 



i. 



' Bede, " E. H.," lib. [v. c ixix. 
' " Facts and Fictions," p. JJ. 



$2 A History of Tithes, 

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 to- 
wards 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. 




KING ETHELWULFS ALLEGED GRANT 



" But this establishment," says Prideaux, " reached no further 
than the kingdom of Mercia, over which Offa reigned, till Ethel- 
wulf, about sixty years after, enlarged it for the whole realm of 
England. And because hereon the civil right of tithes io this 
land had ils 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 ^ This erroneous view has been long 
exploded. 

It is amusing lo 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." 2 

Mr. Selden bad taken Ethelwulfs charter passed in a Witena- 
gemfit, 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. 



' pp. 103, 104. 
' " An Hislorical Vin 
Thomas Comber, ed. 16S 



1 of llie Divine Right of Tktve*," t^ tit. 



F 

^^ gran) 
I but t 



A History of Tithes. 



Sir Henry Spelman had taken another view, and supposed the 
grant to have been the origin of the glebe-lands of the Churcli 
but this opinion was wrong, because churches had been endowed 
with glebe lands prior to these grants. 

The great question at issue is, " Did Ethelwiilfs charters 
grant a tithe of yearly increase ? They did not, 

I have consulted the following chronicles on this matter : — 

(n) 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 
terrte sure et regni quoque totius partem libro inscribens, in 
laudem Dei, su^que etiam eternal 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 
animee suie et antecessorum suorum."] 

(c) Huntingdon, under a.d. 854, writes: "Eihelwulf 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 terrani suam adopus ecclesi- 
arum 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 
AthelwuUus decimam regni sui partem Deo et Beat% Maris et 
omnibus Sanctis contultt, liberam ab omnibus servitits sasculi 
bus exactioDJbus et tribulis."] 

(•r) Malmesbury says ; " Ethelwulf granted to Christ's servants 



King- EtMwulf's Alleged Grant of Tithes. 55 

the tenth part of all tlie ploughlands within his kingdom, free 
from all duties, and discharged from all liability to disturbance." 
[" Ethel wulfu3 decimam omnium hidarum infra regnum suuni 
Chriati famulis concessit, liberam ab omnibus functionibua abso- 
lutam ab omnibus inquietudinibus."] 

(/) Asser, surnamed Menavensis, from the place of his birth, 
writes, under a.d. 855 : " In the same year Eihelwulf 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 soulsof his ancestors." ["Eodem anno ^thelwulfus 
decimam totius regni sui partem ab omni regali servitio et tributo 
liberavit, in sempiternoque graphic in cruce Christ! pro redemp- 
tione anim£ su% et antecessorum suorum, uni et trino Deo im- 
molavit."] 

Asser was well acquainted with the traditions of the king's 
house, having been tutor and biographer of Alfred, Ethelwulfs 

{£) Ingulphus, A.D. 855 : "It added to the prosperity of the old 
age (of GuthlK, Abbot of Cropland) 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 saxo- 
nura Ethelwulphus cum de Roma, ubi limina Apostolorum Petri 
et Pauli, ac sanctissimum Papam Leoneui, mviXa. •i.CTQ'VTO'LV'e ^tva. 



56 A History of Tithes. 



^ 



cum juniore filio suo Alfredo peregre visitaverat, noviter rever- 
lisset, omnium Prfelatorum ac principum suorum, qui sub ipso 
variis provinciis totius AngliiE prEerat, gratuito consensu, tunc 
primo cum decimis omnium terrarum, ac bononim aliorum sive 
calallorum, universam dotaverat ecclesiam Anglicanam per suum 
regium chirographum confectum inde in hunc modum,"] ^ 

(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 dedmare had been often used as regards gifts In 
tenths quite apart from the idea of tithes. The whole difficulty 
in reference to Ethelwulfs grants, turns upon his use of the word 
tenth as a convenient measure for ecclesiastical and other bene- 
factions. This fact testifies to another fact ; namely, the growing 
recognition of ilie tithe as the clerical portion.^ 

In order to get a correct idea of the application of the charters, 
it is essentially necessary to make oneself familiar with the pro- 
per meanings of " Folcland " and " Bocland." 

FOLCLAND AND BocLAND. 

Folcland was the general property of the community — ('.«., 
Anglo-Saxon national property — terra fiicalis, 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 througli the country ; to 
furnish them wiih carriages and relays of horses, and to extend 
the same assistance to their messengers, followers, and servants, 



King Ethfhmlf's Alleged Grant of Tithes. 57 

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 hable 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 
il. On hi^ 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 jiossible 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 frnni all 
services to the public except the trinoda necessitas ; that is, con- 
tributing 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. 
Thi Anglo-Saxon kings had private estates of bocland, and these 
estates did not merge in the crown, bnt were detdsabh 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 CQuVd ro^. \i^ cqun^.^^^.^ 



58 A History of Tithes. 



into bocknd without the consent of the king by and with the 
advice of his Wiienagemit, 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 con- 
sent and leave of his nobles and great men. " Cum consiho, 
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 Mailing, 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,' 

If the king himself received a grant of folcland, he had first to 
receive the consent of his Wilan, Ethelwulf booked twenty hides 
of folcland to himself in his private capacity, but he had the 
consent of his Witan ; ' 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 ill demesne, or let out to farm ; afterwards called Terra Regis, 
or crownla'nd, 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 defini- 
tion of Terra Regis at page 75 of the " Exon Domesday," viz., 
"The demesne land of the king ie/onging to the kingdom," aoA 
we find a similar definition in the " Exchequer Domesday." ' 

' Birth, " Cattularium SaKonicum," i. No. 587. 
' Sre No. 260 of Kemble's " Coden Diplomatieus." 

' Allen's " Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the RoysX Prerogative in 
England." New edition, 1S49, edited by B. Thorpe, p. 135 el passim, 
Kemble's "Codex Diplonialicus," Inlrod, p, civ. itfasHm. Ed. 1S39. 



Ki7ig Ethehvidfs Alleged Grant of Tithes. 59 

In dealing with Ethelwulfs charters, it is essentially necessary 
to state Mr, Kemble's sis 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 (t) 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, (z) The Proem is a general 
observation on the virtue of charity to the Church, the nothing- 
ness of earthly possessions, and the advantage of purchasing with 
them heavenly treasures, (j) 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 "Siquis" clause. (5) The Date. (5) The Teste or Sub- 
scriptions. In almost all ecclesiastical documents the witnesses 
subscribed with their own hands.' 

k 

^^B Ethelwulf's Charters. 

In Ethelwulfs Charters we have all these points. I shall omit 
I, 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 pro- 
tected from all secular services, royal dues, tributes, greater and 
r taxes, which we call ' Witeteden' and that it be free from 



1 



Kemble, " CfildX Diplcmalicus," ed. iSjq, \q\, \. IwU'ji, -^.X 



6o A History of Tithes. 



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 ceas- 
ing pour forth their prayers to God for us, for which we in some 
degree lighten their secular services," etc. 

(s) " Now this Charier 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 ciiy of Winchester, in the 
church of St. Peter, before tlie high altar." 

(6) It was signed by King Ethelwulf, by bishops Elnistan and 
Aelstan, 6 dukes, 3 abbots, and 16 thanes. 

{3) Charter A. — " Quamobrem ego Ethelwulfus, rex Occidenta- 
lium 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 declmam mansionem ubi minimum sit turn deci- 
mam partem in libertatem perpetuam perdonare dijudicavi ut sit 
tutus atque munitus ab omnibus secularibus servilutis, fiscis, 
regalibus tribittis majoribus et minoribus, sive taxationibus quod 
nos dicimus Witereden ; sitque liber omnium rerum pro remis- 
sione animarum et peccatorum nostrorum Deo soh ad serviendum, 
sine expeditione, et poniis instructione, et arcis municione, ut eo 
diligencius pro nobis ad Deum preces sine cessacione fundant, 
quo eorum servitutem secuJarem in aliqua parte levigaraus pro 
honore Sancti Michaelis Archangeli et Sancte Marie Reginc 
gloriose Dei genetricis." 

(5) " Scripta est autem base donacionis cartula anno Dominicte 
Incarnacionis DCCCXLIIII., Indictione vii., die quoque nonas 
Noverabris. In civitate Wentana in ecclesia, Sancti Petri ante 
alt£ire capiiale, et hoc fecerunt," 



^^wit 



King Ethclwulf's Alleged Grant of Tithes. 6i 

This Charter is printed by Kemble in the " CodsK Diploma- 
ticus," 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 rubricin the Bodleian cartulary stands thus; "Quo- 
modo ./Kthelwulfus Rex decimavit terrani suani Deo et sanctcS 
F.cclesiffi ; et quota parte hujus deciniEe Meldunensem Eccle- 
siam dilaverit," elc. [" 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 ortho- 
graphy of the charter from Mr. Birch's " Cartularium Satonicum," 
ii. No. 447, p. 26. 

I have translated decitnam manswnem as the tenth hide. 

It appears from this Malmesbury cartulary that annexed to it 
was a statement of particular lands already in possession {anlea 
possidentibus) of the monastery which by this charier were en- 
franchised. 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 

rilhun's name instead of Helmstan's.^ 

' "Cuncilii,"i. 184. 



62 A History of Tilher. 



Sclden 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." • 

■ 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 roost solemn feast of 
Easter, for the health of my sou! 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 itn- 
miitable, freed from all royal services, and from all other secuUt 
services whatsoever." 

Here follows a statement that it had pleased ^Ithstan, bishop 
of Sherborne, and Switbun, 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. 



I etc 



Then follows the dale. "This charier was written in the year 



"Hisi. of Tithes," 



k 



Kmg Ethkvulf's Alleged Grant of Tithes. 63 



of the incarnation of our Lord 854, in tlie second Indiction, on 
Easter Day, in our Palace at Wilton." 

Charter B.^" Quajiropter ego ^^Jthelwulf gratia Dei Occiden- 
taliuin Saxonum rex, in saticta ac celeberrima Paschale soIJemp- 
nitate, pro meae reinedio animK eC regni prosperitate et populi 
ab omnipotente Deo michi conlali consilium salubre cum episcopis, 
comitibus, et cunctis optiraatibus meis perfeci ut decimam partem 
terrarum per regnum nostrum non solum Sanctis ascclesiis datem 
verum eliam et ministris nostris in eodem constitutis in perpetuam 
libertatem habere concessimus. Ita ut talis donatio fixa incom- 
mutabilisque permaneat ab omni regali servitio et omnium sa;cu- 
larium absoluta servitute." 

" Scripta est autem haec cartula. Anno DominicK incarnationis 
DCCCLIIII. ; Indictione ii. die vero Paschali in palatio nostro 
quod dicitur Wiilun." 

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 Diplomaticug," No. 1054, 
and he takes his text from the Codex Wiotoniensis, MS. Brit. 
Mus,, Add. 15,350, fol. 89. 

Mr Keinble 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 Winlonienais. The above is, 
however, the best specimen of the class of charters which it repre- 
sents." ' 

Mr. Kemble thinks that Ethelwulfs 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 
ppinion, to two several transactions ; one which look place in 
' Haddan and Slubbs, " Council," iVv. 6^%. 



64 ^ History of Tillies. 



854 (844?) before the king's visit to Rome; the second in the- 
year 857, after his return to England. "Ethelwulf," Mr. Kenible 
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 
' Wilereden,' 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 
to be enfranchised ; and as the greater part of this land was either 
in the hands of the clergy, or was very likely ultimately lo c 
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." * 

Mr, Kemble further add.", " 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. 
this tenth part of the lands, so burdened in his favour, he 
annihilated the royal rights, regiium or iraperium, and as the- 
lands receiving this privilege were secured by charter, tbe- 
chronicle can justly say that the king booked them to the honouz 
of God. « 

(2) "The second thing he did was his giving a tenth part of 



• " Saxons in Englanil," ii. 485. 

'j4saD jJJuslralion, see Chailer A, dated 5th Nov., 844. 



King Ethelwiilf's Alleged Grunt of Tithes. 65 

his own private estates of book-land to various thanes or clerical 
establishments.' 

{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,"^ 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 re- 
garded as provisionally satisfactory." ^ 

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,' " * etc. Attention is drawn to the words in 
italics. 

' As an illuitcation, see the Second Charter B, A.D. 854, and Charter C, 
5th Nov., 855. 

" Charter A,D. 857, Will, of Malms, lib. ii. § 113. Haddan and Stubbs, 
■' Councils," iii. 846. " The Sanons in England," ij, 489. 

° Haddan and Slubbs, " Councils," iii. 63S. 

• 7Wrf. 111641. 



A History of Tithes. 



% 



Selden's Conclusion on Ethelwulf's Charter. 

"If we well consider the words of the chiefest of these 
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, 
Seldeo is not correct in this conclusion ; for if we take the c 
lateral 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 dedma is 
mentioned in it than decima iernB mem. Out of the corrupted 
language [of the charter] it is hard to collect what the exact 
meaning of it was." ^ Here Selden unquestionably expresses a 
doubt as to the interpretation of the charter. And we are there- 
fore bound to give him credit as having been the hnx to doubt 
Ingulph's inteqiretation 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 Sel- 
borne that Haddan and Stubbs have not done justice to Seldea 
in not having taken this doubtful statement into consideration. 

' Selden, " Hist, of Tithes," pp. 205, 206. 

* Idem, c. viii. p. aoj. 

^ See Haddan and Stubbs, iil. p. 636, note. 




CHAPTER Viri. 
TITHE LAiVS MADE BY ANGLO-SAXON KINGS. 
Prideaux says : " For King Alfred, the son of Ethelwulf, about 
thir'y 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."' He quotes as 
his authority for this statement, Spelman's "Concilia," tome i. 
p. 360, No, 38 : "Decimas, primigenia, et adulta tua Ueo dato." 
This is the Vulgate translation of the Saxon. Thorpe traastates 
the Saxon thus : " Thy tithes and thy firstfruils of moving and 
growing things, render thou to God."' 

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 thenn 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 Spelraan 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 shah not delay to give thy 
tithes and first fruits.''] The renderings of this passage in the 
Septuagint, Vulgate, and English Bible, are paraphrases and not 
translations of the Hebrew text. For example, "Thou shall 

' "The Onginal niid Right of Tithes," p. 124, ei3. 1736. 
' " Ancient Laws," i. p. 53, No. 38. 



^M €8 



A History of Tithes. 



% 



not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors."* 
Again, " Thou shalt not delay to offer from thy abundance and 
of thy hquors." ^ 

This passage in his preface was not one of his laws on tithes, 
as Prideaux states. " In King Alfred's laws," says Lord Selbornc, 
"there is nothing about tithes. He made a treaty of peace 
wilb Gulhrum ; in that treaty there was nothing about tithes,' 
I quote his lordship because recently the Rev. M. Fuller has 
dedicated " Our Title Deeds " to him. Should his loidship 
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." * 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."' 
Now, the only reference to tithes in Alfred's laws is the above 
quotation, which he made in his preface from the Vulgate trans* 
laiion of Exodus xxii. 29. 

" No legislative enactment," says Mr. Kemble, " can be showa 
9n the subject of tithes in the codes of Alfred, Ini, or the 
Kentish kings." ^ 

"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 

' Engliab Bible. ' Hebrew translation. 

' "Fad! and Fictions," p. 180. * ■" Our Tiile Deeds," p. 63. 

■* vWw, p. 64, ' "Saxons in England," u.477- 



Tithe Laws made by Anglo-Saxon Kings. 6g 

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," ' 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 Atiglia and Northumberland 
upon siK 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.' " * Those 
Danes were heathen, and it seems strange that they were com- 
pelled to pay tithes to the Christian Churches. But this treaty 
was not concluded between Alfred and Guthrum I., but between 
hisson 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."^ "The rubrics to these laws," says Mr. Thorpe, 
"are very defective in the manuscripts."* "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." ^ Edward the Elder succeeded his Tither in 901, 
and died in 924. The treaty was made in 907. Guthrum I. re- 
ceived East Anglia and Northumberland in 83o, and died in Sgt. 

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." ^ There may have been some 
previous secular law which is now lost. As I have stated before, 

THIe Deeds," pp. 64, 6J. 



" Laws and Customs," i. 3 


i;. >"Oi,rl 


Thorpe, i. 167. 


* hUm. i 


Jdem, i. 166. note. 


' StWen 



JO A History of TitJies. 



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 Ja a dead silence as regards tithes for iso 
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." ' 

Athei.stan's Law on Tithes. 

Athelstan succeeded his father in a.d. 924, and in 927 pub- 
lished the following Ordinance : — 

" I, Athelstan the king, with the counsel of Wulfhelm, arch- 
bishop, 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 rnay 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 tlie right term. Let us 
bear in mind how Jacob the panriarch spake, ' Decimas et 
hostias paciiicas ofTeram 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 ihe tithes to God, that He will lake from ua the 
nine parts when we least expect ; and moreover we have the sin 
in addition thereto." ^ 

' Preface, p. vii. 

" Thorpe's "AncienI Laws," i. 197. 




Titlie Laws made by Anglo-Saxon Kings. 71 

This is unquestionably the first general law in England for the 
payment of predial and mixed tithes. 1 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 ordinanceis not 
in form a public legislative Act, but merely a royal message 
addressed to his reeves, bishops, and ealdormen.' Against this 
opinion, I place the opinions of Selden, Kemble, Bishop Stubbs, 
and Dean Prideaux. 

(i) 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." * 

(2) Kemble says : " It is well known that tlie earliest legisU- 
tive enactment on the subject of tithes in th-; Anglo-Saxon laws 
is that of Athelstan, bearing date in the first quarter of the tenth 
century."^ 

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 cur- 
rent in Europe."* 

(3) Bishop Slubbs says : " The formula by which the co-oper- 
ation of the Witenagera6t was expressed is definite and distinct. 

_Alfred issues his code with the counsel and consent of his 

* " Facts and Fictions," p. 185. 
» "Hist, of Tithes," c. viii. s. 6, p. 213. 
' " Sanons in England," u. 476. 

* Idem, Appendix ii. B, p. 545. 



^ 



72 A History of Tithes. 



Witan; Athelstan writes to the reeves with the counsel of the 
bishops." ^ 

Here Bishop Stubbs includes Athelstan's law among the ex- 
amples he gives as regards the definite and distinct formula used 
to indicate the co-operation of the VVitenagemit. And the 
Bishop's opinion is the most important because Lord Selboroe's 
objection is founded on a technical point, viz., the fortnula used. 
But the Bishop admits that the formula used in this case was an 
indication of the co-operation of the Wiienagemdt. 

(4) Dean Prideaux says, " This law was passed in a Parlia- 
ment of all England, assembled at Grately, about the year 928, 
etc." » 

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." * 

Lord Selborne then agrees with Dr. Lingard ; the former ciUs 
it " a royal message to his reeves," the latter, " a circular 
letter from the king to his officers." If so, why should the Yar- 
Immentary formuia 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 clas.sifying and 
separating the Laws from the Monumenia Ecdesiastica. " All 
ordinances," he says, "proceeding from the king and Witen- 
agemdt, whether of a secular or ecclesiastical character, are 
considered as Laws. Those without such sanction, and of a 



"OriRinal and Rifiht of Tithes," p. 127. 
"Hist and Anliq. of the Anglo-Saxon Ch 



Tithe Lmvs made by Anglo-Saxeti Kii'gs. 73 

nature strictly ecclesiastical, are placed among the Monununta 
EecUsiasiica." ' He placed it among the Laws. 

The question here is, What constitutes a Witenagera6t? The 
word means a meeting of the Witan or wise men. It was a coun- 
sel 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 Witenagemdt. A synod with the king present 
would constitute a Witenagemdt. 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.* 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. ^ 

Let us examine the formula used in other laws generally ad- 
mitted to be laws. 
^^— (i) "The Laws of King Edward." " Edward's Ordin 



> See /J,v« 

= p. 70. 



74 -^ History of Titltes. 



" King Edward commands all his reeves," etc. ' There is not a 
word here about the Witan, archbishop, bishop, etc., yet they are 
admitted as laws. 

Aihelstan's secular ordinances passed at the council of Great- 
anlea,^ 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 Ordi- 
nances. But the latter are admitted to be laws, so therefore are 
the former. 

To carp about the words " council " and " synod," shows ignor- 
ance of the Latin translation of Witenagemdt, viz., conciliitm, con- 
venlus, synod us, etc. 

" Although synods," says Kemble, "might more properly be 
confined to ecclesiastical conventions, Ihe 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 
liouses 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 ii6."* 



k 



' Thorpe's " Ancient Laws," i. 
' Supposed to be Gieallejr, neoj 
* " Sftxoni," ii, 203. 



Tithe Laws made by Anglo-Saxon Kings. 



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. ^27. j*, 

"The meaning is evident; in consequence of the King's 
admonition, they promised to pay tithes." ' 

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 Gemdt of Wessex, 
now become the common Gemiit of the Empire. But Gem6t of the 
other kingdoms seem to have gone on as local bodies, dealing with 
local affairs, and perhaps givinga 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 Gemot, of 
resolutions passed by the general body," ^ 

Mr. Freeman then opposes Dr. Lingard's theory and also Lord 
Selborne's, " for the resolutions of the general body " were those 
of "the com"mon Gemdt 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."^ 



L 



"Anglo-Saxon Church," i. 185. 

" The Norman Conquest," i. in, ed. 1 

" .\ndent Lnws," i, 241. 



A History of Tithes. 



Definition of Tithe. 

Tithe was the tenth part of the increase yearly arising and re- 
newing from the profits of lands, the stock upon lands and the 
persona! industry of the inhabitants.^ 

Tithes were (i) Predial, (2) Mixed, and (3) Personal. 

(r) Predial tithes were the crops and wood which grew and 
issued from the ground. (^) Mixed tithes were wool, sheepi 
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 and and 3rd Edward VI., c. xiii. s. 7, " Every person exercis- 
ing merchandizes, bat^aining 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, con- 
dition 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 

' Jtlackslone's " Comms.," bit, ii. 24, ed. 1766. 



Tilhe Laws made by Anglo-Saxon Kings. 77 

diocese, where the party that ought to pay the said tithes is dwell- 
ing, to call the same party before him, and by his discretion to 
examine hira by ail 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 thai used to pay their tithes 
by their houses, otlierivise than they ought or should have done 
before tlie 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 z. "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." ' 

Cliurch-Scot = Ctr/««o^=First-fruits, primitim seini/ium. The 
Jews had been commanded to give first-fruits* 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 

^H ' Thorpe, "Andenl Laws," i. 2+5-247. ^ TSwi'i,. vim. ^. 



78 A History of Tithes. 



time of the Conquest, when it ceased to be generally paid.^ 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 twelvefold."^ This Act 
was passed more than zoo years before the legal enactment of 
tithes. It is strange that we should find firstfruits but not tithes 
enacted hy 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."* Between the laws of Ina and that of AlheU 
Stan, 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 |>assed, 
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 th« 
meeting was called a " Synod" and not a " Witan" !* 



L 



' " Siiions in England," ii. 493, 493. Selden. p. 11 
' " Ancient Liws," L 105. ' 'Iliorpe, 

"Our Title Deeds," p. 72. 



■ Tithe Laws made by Anglo-Saxon Kings. 79 

Prideaux calls it a law.^ 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." ^ 
Kemble, Freeman, Bishop Stubbs, and every writer of dislinciion 
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 test from a collection 
of two important manuscripts; (i) Corpus Chris ti MS. 265 (K, 2); 
(2) Cott. Nero, A. i, both app.trently written in the middle of 
the nth century. 

"This is the Ordinance^ 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 I. " 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* and from geneat-Iand^ 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 

' " Original and Right of Titlie*," p. I28. ' Selden, p. 215. 

' Made at Andover, A.o. 960, 
H^ * That which lie retains in his own hands. 



J 



A History of Tithes. 



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 fruils of the ear;h by the equinox ; and every church- 
scot by Martinmas on peril of the full wile 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 j 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."' 

In these laws there is a threefold division of churches, (i) 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."^ 

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. 

' Thorpe's "Ancient Laws," i, 263. 

* " llisl. of Tithes," ed. 1618, pp. 262, 263. 




ORIGIN OF OUR MODER!^ 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 nainster. 
Edgar's laws are the first to mention these churches. But since 
A.D. S75 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. ' 

It is impossible to state precisely when parishes in Englard 
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 lo say that the modern 
parish churches gradually grew up from Bede's account in a,d. 

» Uallam's " Middle Ages," ■«"■ i^1■ 



F? 



A History of Tithes. 



686, but were not then called parishes. It is evident that the 
two churches recorded by Bede were built for the accommoda- 
tion 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' 
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 ihe 
remaining two-thirds for the purpose of repairing the churches 
and relieving the poor and strangers,^ Edgar's law points out i 
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 Draytoi 
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 appear- 
» See p. 85. 



[ Origin of Modern Parish Churches and Boundaries. 83 

ing 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 tnay 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 modem parish system has been erroneously traced back 
by some ' to Archbishop Honorius in a.d. 630. Mr, Selden 
refutes. this opinion.* 

" 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 origin- 
ated in his reign, but previously and gradually. The germ of 
the modern parish appeared in a.d. 686.* 

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 \d. propria provincia aut 
in aliena," etc.* 

' Stow, Camden, Spelman, and Lingaid. 

» "History ofTithes,"c. ix. 3. 3. 

* See p. 25 for Bede's sutement of the earia' churches. 

* Theodore's " PenileDtial," s. 7, in Huddan and Stubbs, iiL iSj. 



84 A History of Titles. 



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 light 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 parisJus bred also 
new divisions, which aflertvards 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 Churcb was possessed of. For that right of sepulture 
was, and regularly is, a character of a parish church, and as com- 
monly distinguished from a capella." ^ 

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 con- 
dition 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 lithe 
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. 

' " History df Tithes," c. ix. s. 4, pp. 264, 265. 



Origin of Modern Parish Churches and Boundaries. 85 

In reference to the one-third to the priest of the manorial 
church. Bishop Kennett says : " Another fair pretext of the re- 
ligious to regain appropriations, was to desire 00 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 ike 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 chiu'ch. 
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" ^ 
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 three- 
fold division of tithes and oblations in England, yet the whole 
product of tithes and offerings was the 6ank of each parish church, 

" The Case of Impropriations, etc," fp. v&-il, eA. \1QV 



86 A History of Titlus. 

and the minister was the sole trustee and dispenser of them accord- 
ing to the slated rules of piety and charity. This is a most re- 
markable 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 conscien- 
tious scruples, however, tbey 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.' 

Canon 55. " And we enjoin that the priest so distribute the 
people's alms, that they do both give pleasure to God and accus- 
tom the people to alms." 

Tiie following is a gloss on this canon :— " And it is right that 
one pari 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 Christ! College, 
Cambridge. The gloss is taken, by Mr. Thorpe, from a Bodleian 
MS., Junius III, fol. 25^, 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 

' Thorpe, iL 257. 



Origin of Modern Parish Churches and Boundaries. 87 

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.' 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 hke 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 ihe 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 

Jw was appointed bishop of Ramsbury. He was three times en- 

' *' Fads and Ficliun?," p. 262. 



i 



A History of Tithes. 



gaged on the battle-field after he became a bishop. In 942 he 
was appointed Aichbisliop of Canterbury. 

Odo's canons were compiled from Egbert's Excerptions and 
Legatinc Injunctions ; the former I have shown not to be Egbert's 
production. Odo's tenth canon on tithes is the seventeenth In- 
junction 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 j but the former were not ignorant men, as Judge Black- 
stone 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 "Scrip- 
torium," 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 tliey 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 



Origin of J^Iodern Parish Churches and Boundaries. 89 

them into annals. The constitutions of the clergy in their national 
and provincial synods, and even Acts of Parliatnent, were sent to 
the abbeys, in order to be duly recorded. The choicest records 
and treasures of tlie kingdom were preserved in the monasteries. 
A copy of the charier 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 per- 
son 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 nobletnen 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 work- 
houses 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 pro- 
perties had then been placed under a Board of Commissioners to 
be utihzed towards the relief of the poor, an annual income would 
now be at the command of such Commissioners as would be suffi- 
cient 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 mocvaa^vc ■a.-^^'^-vtv 






A History of Tithes, 



priated 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 pro- 
perties at the free disposal of Henry VIII, and his successors on 
the throne, is the most convincing proof of ihe subservient 
even slavish Parliaments of the Tudor sovereigns.' 

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.* 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 26ih May, 605,* 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 Witenagemdt 

' Tanner's " NoL Monas.," edited by James Nasmilh, 1787, Preface xix. 

* Cum consilio Laureneii Episcopi et omnium principum raeonim. 
Dip. i. 

* Sluljbs says 604. See liis " Regislrum Sacrum AnglicaDutn." 



Origin of Modem Parish Churc/ies and Boundaries. 9I 



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 on!y 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 popula- 
tion.' 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 i,3i8,ooo. As the sanitary 
arrangements and medical science were htde known among the 
Anglo-SiiKODS, I taks 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 Kentin 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, bet this was an exagge- 
ration. 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 1 2 1 monasteries for a population 
of 160,000, Only 29 monasteries were built between 700 and 
800, 22 between Soo and 90Q, 38 between 900 and 1000, and 43 
between 1000 and 1066, or 253, but one-half of ihera were in 
ruins through Danish invasions, at the time of the Conquest. 

' See Birch's account of this MS. in vol. 40 of ihe Journal of the Archao- 
'.ogical Associaiictt. 



^ History of Tithes. 



I shall now give the population of the country at the periods 
[ when tithes were ordered to be. paid by civil or ecclesiastical 
I law. 

n 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, Whit- 
herne. 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 i comes, i.e. 16 ecclesiastics and 5 laymen. 

It will be seen from these facts that not only was the popula- 
tion small, but ecclesiastics formed the majority in the synods or 
councils who framed laws and canons for the payment of tithea 
to the Church. King Athelstan's law made in 927 for the payt 
raent 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 pay- 
ment of tithes to bishoiJs themselves and to their clergy. And 
this is considered the first general law in Engbnd for setting 
forth die payment of predial and mixed tithes. The populatioa 
then was about 700,000. 

In 960, King Edgar passed his tithe laws with and by the 
advice of his Witan, wlio 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. 



Origin of Modern Parish Churches and Boundaries, 93 

Kent had Canterbury and Rochesler. 

East Saxons : London. East Angles : Dunwich and Elraham, 

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 1 4 bishops in England, 4 in Wales, and i in the Isle 
of Man in 1066, or one bishop for every 66,000 of the population. 



Lord Selbome, Bishop Slubbs, and Mr. Tladdan' say the manorial churche<t, 
(□ wbicli Edgar's laws granted one-third of tlie tithes, were the type of our 
own modern parish churches. This I grant. It is the first Act of Parliament 
by which they received tilhes. By custom the melher churches originally re- 
ceived tithes. But it was not by custom, but by an Act of Parliament passed 
at Andover in A.D. 960, ihat the type of our modem parishes received one- 
third of the tithes of the parochial limits. 

Up to A.D. 1180, the owners of lands from which tilhes arose might give 
Ihem, as they please, to bishops, chapters, monasteries, or to the parish churehts 
on their inon estates. Hence, churches erected by landowners after 960 re- 
eived in •niinj' cases, up to llSo, all Ike tithes a{ the new parochial boundaries, 
and nol 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 oebm of our modern parishes back lo the 
two earls' churches, consecrated in a.d. 685.' Soames, Lappenberg, and Deati 
Hook refer the origin of our modem parishes to Archbishop Theodore (668 to 
693). That Bcde's churches were in the north of England does not militate 
against my view. It was but the germ, which gradually expanded.* 

' " Facts and Fictions," pp. 173, 293. 
' See p. 84 for Selden's weighty remarks. 



^ 



CHAPTER X. 

THE LAWS OF ETHELRED IT. 

The following nine laws appear in Thorpe's "Ancient Laws, 
etc.i 

I. Council of Woodstock. Thorpe takes his text from ColL 
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 

IL T/te 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 hia 
" Concilia." 

in. The Council at Wantage {a.d. 997). Thorpe prints it 
rora the above. Bromton has it. Wilkins has it in his " Laws.' 

IV. De Jnsiitutis Londonice (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 Engl; 

V. Liber Comlituiionum (a.d. 1008). Thorpe prints it from 
Cott, Nero, A. i. Wilkins has it in his " Laws," but not in his 
" Concilia." Lord Selborne confounds this witli the Ordinances 
passed at Habam. 

VI. Council of Enham (probably " Ensham in Oxfordshire "). 
Thorpe prints it from a MS. in Corpus Christi College, Cam- 



' Vol. i. pp. 1S-341. 



The Laws of Ethelred II. 95 

bridge, 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." Spelraan 
dates the council a.d, 1009. 

VII. Grith and Miind. Thorpe prints it from Cott. Nero, A, 
I, collated with MS. C.C. 201 (Nasmith). "These manuscripts," 
says iVIr. Thorpe, " closely agree together." Wilkins has it in his 
"Laws," but not in his "Concilia," 

VIIL The Ordinances of Habam (a.d. lors). 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 Gritk (a.d. 10J4). Thorpe prints it from Cott. 
Nero, A. i. collated with C.C. zor. He does not state that these 
manuscripts closely agree together, as he does the two collated in 
VIL Wilkins has it in his " Laws," but not in his " Concilia," 

N.B.— VL VIIL and IX. only are in the volume Nero, A. i. 

Bromton has only L 11. III. VIIL 

IX. Church Grith. 

Mr. Thorpe takes his text from the so-called Worcester volume 
of the Cottonian manuscript, Nero, A. i, 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." 



^g 96 



A History of Tithes. 



Art, 7, " And be it known to every Christian man, that he pajfl 
to his Lord his tithe justly, always as the plough traverses tl 
tenth field, on peril of God's mercy, and of the full ' wite,' whi( 
King Edgar decreed, that is " : — - 

Art, 8. " If any one will not justly pay the tithe, then let th< 
king's reeve go, and the mass-priest of the minster, or of thtf 
' 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 j 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. g. " And let every tithe of young be paid by Pentecos^ 
on pain of the ' wite ' ; and of earth's fruit by the equinox or l^ 
all events by Allhallow's Mass," 

" On comparing these articles," says Lord Selborne, 
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," ^ 

Dr. Lingard says, " But its (Edgar's) subsequent re-enactment 
in the reign of EtheJred, 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." ^ 

Bishop Stubbs's references to articles 3 and 44, and to the 
latter part of the sixth of this law prove (i) 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 ii 
this law for the poor and needy in thraldom in support of tf 
' " Facts nnd Fictions," p. 279. 
• " Anelo-Sajton Church," i. 187, ed. 1845. 



The Laws of Ethdred II. gy 

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 re- 
garded both as a legal and as a religious duty from the very first 
ages of Eoglish 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 1 34Z 
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 Witenagembles of Ethelred bore tJie same 
mark; a third portion of the tithe that belonged to the church was 
lo go to God's poor, and to the needy ones in thraldom." ' 

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." ^ 

Lord Selborne gives the following extract from a printed letter 
of Bishop Stubbs to a rural dean of the diocese of Chester, 1 2th 
December, 1885 : "The claim of the poorcm the lithe was a part of 
the claim of the Church ; and, although this claim was never made 
t}u 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." ^ 

' "Const. Hist.,"i. 177, iii. 600, ed. 1S78. Ilisrererence, Thorpe, i. 177, 
viii. as. z, 44, should be 'vs.. &s. 2, 44. 

' Quoted in " Our Title Deeds," by Rev. M, Fuller, p. 107. 
' "A Defence of the Church," etc, 4l\i ed.,^. i^%. 



^f^s 



98 A History of Tithei 



> 



How can Dr. Stubbs reconcile these statements with an actual 
quotation wiiich 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 re- 
pudiate 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 dis- 
cussion of the manuscript of the Church Grith Uw, to give a 
fiketch 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 preservatioiL 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 lo foreign booksellers ; the servants used ihcm for 
scouring candlesticks and rubbing boots. Two noble librarict 
were sold for forty shillings. Sir Robert found no difficulty ia' 
purchasing these valuable documents wherever he could find 
them. Many of them were loose skins, small iracts 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 



The Laws of Ethetred II. 99 

monastic libraries by Josseline, Noel, Alien, Lambarde, Bowyer, 
Camden and oihers. 

It was a timely and excellent opportunity for Cotton, Bodley, 
and Arclibisliop 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. Oiher 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 Mtind 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 Gritb laws of King Elhelred 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 boots 'weie va. S-X. \». 1.^1^ "S"^ 



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 careruUy examined the roll; it 
three seals attached to it; the titles of the manuscripts and 
books are arranged under thirty-five headings, beginning with 
" Libri Historic!." But there are no press marks such as Nero, 
A. I, Claudius, B. 3. Another heading is, "Libri Saxonici," 
under which every Anglo-Saxon manuscript in the library in 
1632 was placed; but the Church Mund and Church Grith 
manuscripts do not appear under this heading. Then when 
were they placed in the library and in this volume Nero, A, 
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 pre 
In 1696 Dr, Smith published the first printed catalogue in which 
the Worcester volume, Nero, A. i, contains only the same ten 
Anglo-Saxon headings which appear in the list of 1632. I con- 
clude that the Church Mund and Church Grith laws were not 
in the Worcester volume in 1695, when Dr. Smiih 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 
170Z. The library then passed at once into the custody of the 
three trustees. The first thing done was to make out a catalogui 
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 " Antiqitas Literatures Septentrionalis 
Liber, etc." His preface is dated aSth August, 1704. For the, 
firsl time the Church Mund and Church Grith laws appear in 



\\'anley's Catalogue. He was the first who named Ihe volume 
Nero A. i as the " Worcester " volume, and Platna copied 
Waiiley. From these facts I conclude that the above laws were 
purchased or otherwise obtained by Sir John Cotton, and were 
put into the " Worcester " volume between 1695 and 1702. I 
am aware that Dr. Smith's catalogue was very imperfect, and 
these laws might have been in the library when he issued his 
imperfect catalogue. But this is a pure conjecture on my part. 
My conclusions are based on facts, and not on conjectures. 
There is not the slightest doubt about the correctness and com- 
pleteness of the official catalogue of 1633. They were not then 
in the library. 

I have considered these details as vitally essential in the im- 
portant discussion which is here to follow. 

Lord Selborne's "Akcient 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.n. 
ioi4"was either a draft or project of laws which the framer, 
evidently an ecclesiastic of ^Ifric's school, wished to have 
enacted. . . . There is indeed now written in the margin 
of that manuscript,! ;„ ^ small modern hand, the date 'A". 
Dom. 1014.' " ^ I have often examined the manuscript, and 
found the reading to be "A°°. 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 
iternal evidence in article 43 to support this date (1014), viz. 



i 



' Church Grilh. ' " Facts aMTic^^an^" '^■5. i-n.i&v. 



A History of Tithes. 



" But let us do as is needful to us ; let us take to us for an 
example that which former secular VVitan deliberately instituted. 
Athelstan and Edmutid, and Edgar who was last," etc. 

Ethel red 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 lastj' 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 Seiborne's remarks. 

King Eihelred'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, Whee- 
lock, and John Johnson. 

" Selden and Spelraan," says Lord Selborne, " were well 
acquainted with the Worcester (Cottonian) manuscript; and as 
neither of them made mention of this Church Grith document, it 
may be inferred that they did not regard it as having the cha- 
racter or the authority of a law." ' 



' "Fuels and Ficliiin!," p. 1S3. 
* Idem, pp. aSo, 2S1. 



" If Lambarde, Wheelock, and John Johnson," continues Lord 
Selborne, "were acquainted with either manuscript — Church 
and Mund, and Church Gritli — (M? contrary supposiHon is impro- 
bable), the inference as to them also, from their silence about it 
(i>. the Church Grith) must be the same," /.rf. that "they did 
not regard it as having the character or the authority of a law." ^ 

I shall examine these five writers seriatim. 

(i) John Selden published his "History of Tithes" in 1618. I 
have already proved that the Church Crith law was not in Sir 
Robert Cotton's library in 1632. It was therefore impossible 
for Selden to have seen it in the "Worcester manuscripL" 
The " Worcester (Cottonian) manuscript" is a very vague and 
loose way to express the Worcester (Cottonian) volume Nero, 
A, I. The fact is that Selden had never seen or heard of the 
Church Grith law, otherwise he would unquestionably have re- 
ferred to such a law in his " History of Tithes," In dealing with 
Egbert's Excerptions, Selden has quoted largely in his " History of 
Tithes " from this very volume, which contained the Excerptions, 
and which volume in his time had no particular name. In his 
marginal quotation he merely informs his readers that tliey were 
taken from a " MS. in the Biblioth. Cottoniana." We have lost 
the advantage of his valuable opinion on the Church Grith law, by 
its absence from the volume from which he had made large quo- 
tations on other subjects. I agree with Lord Selborne ihat 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 Ubrary. 

{2) Sir Henry Spelman published his first volume of the 
" Concilia " in 1639. In this volume he gives only two of King 
' " Facts and Ficliuns," p. iSt. 



tt04 A History of Tithes. 

Ethelred's laws out of the nine given by Thorpe. As a matter 
of fact, he, like Selden, had never seen or heard of the Church 
Grilh law. Spelman was one of Sir Robert's most intimate friends, 
and had access to every manuscript and book in his librarj', 
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 alt 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 
ihem. The original list, and no more, is in the catalogue of 1631, 

(3) William Lambarde, the Kent antiquarian, published his 
collection of Anglo-Saxon Laws in 1568, in which the Church 
Grith law does not appear, from which Lord Selborne again 
infers that Lambarde did not regard it as having the character 
or the authority of a law. Let us apply his Lordship's canon 
of criticism to other omissions made by Lambarde in his collec- 
tion of Anglo-Saxon laws, and then see to what conclusions 
such inferences lead. 

He omitted the Laws of the Kentish Kings, the Laws of 
William the Conqueror and of Henry L 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 Selbome's in- 
ferential canon of criticism, as regards Lambarde's omission of 
the Church Grith law. The fact is that he, like Selden and 
Spelman, had never seen the law. 

(4) IV'heelock published a second edition of Lambaide's 



The Laws of Ethelred II. 105 

"Laws" in 1644, in which he added the laws of the Conqueror and 
of Henry I., but omitted the laws of the Kentish kings. Why? 
Must the answer be according to Lord Selborne's canon of 
criticism, viz., that " he regarded them as not having the cha- 
racter or the authority of laws " ? No. He, hke 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 Ciiurch of England," in 1720, mainly founded 
upon Spelman's "Concilia." 

Mr. John Baron, in his new edition of Johnson's collection, 
, published in 1850, says, " Mr. Thorpe publishes some ecclesias- 
tical laws of King Ethelred at pp. J29, 141, 145, which were 
altogcthtr unJtnown to Johnson"' There is at p. 129 "Liber 
Consiitutionum " ; at p. 141 " Grilh and Mund"; at p. 145 
"Church Grith." 

Mr, Baron's edition is quoted probably one hundred times 
by Lord Selborne in his "Facts and Fictions" and "Church 
Defence," and he must unquestionably have read Baron's Prefa- 
tory statement that "Grith and Mund" and "Church Grith 
laws" were unknown to Johnson. Yet in the face of that state- 
ment. Lord Selborne says, "If Lambarde, Wheelock, and John 
Johnson were acquainted with either manuscript {l/ie contrary 
supposition is improbable)., the inference is that they did not regard 
it (Grith law) as having the character or the authority of a law." 
I have taken these five authors seriatim, and the general conclu- 
sion is that the Grith law was unknown to each and all of them. 

II. His sixth witness is Wilkins. Lord Selborne says :— 

"David Wilkins was the first to publish the Church Grith in 

his ' Leges Anglo-Saxonica,' where he combined it in a manner, 

for which the manuscripts afforded no warrant, with the Ordi- 

' Johnson's "Laws and Canons," ^irfoKE,^. ■<'<%, 



io6 A History of Tithes. 

nances of ' Habani,' etc. If he had regarded it as an authentic 
ecclesiastical law when he afterwards (in a.d. 1737) published his 
great collection of 'Acts of Councils ' and other English ecclesias- 
tical documents, it must hare found a place there, which it does 

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 lime it must, though reluctantly, be acknowledged by every 
one competent to judge, that as a translator of Anglo-Saxon he 
not iinfrequently betrays an ignorance even of its first principles, 
that though not unparalleled, is perfectly astounding." ' 

I shall now examine the above statement of Lord Selborne. 

I have failed to find that Wilkins combined the Grith with the 
Ordinances of Habam. These Ordinances do not appear at all in 
his " Saxon Laws." The four laws of Ethelred which he has are 
(i) Liber Constitutionum, (z) 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 iis omission, hut he 
is careful to nole the omission of the Church Grith. 

in. His seventh witness is Mr. Price,' 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 
> Thorpe's Preface, xxi. 

15," p. 2S2. 




Laws of Etkelred II. 107 

"Anglo-Saxon Laws," which were published in 1721. But after 
having written strongly against the tripartite division, a friend 
referred him to Ethelred's law of 1014, in Willcins's "Anglo- 
Saxon Laws." He became anxious on reading it, and stopped 
a new edition of his work until he could have the point dearly 
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." ^ 

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 repulation," says the Archdeacon, " for extensive know- 
ledge of Anglo-Saxon literature is not confined to his own uni- 
versity, or to this country, but whose name I do not consider 
myself at liberty to mention. He gave me in writing an opinion 
at variance with that of Mr. Price, and was in favour of the 
genuineness of the laiu of Ethelred, and his opinion was founded 
upon the fact of Schmid having published it in his edition of the 
Anglo-Saxon Laws, and upon the persuasion that no -weight what- 
eiier was due to what Wiikins had said or thought upon the subject."^ 
I have always admired the straightforward manner in which the 
Archdeacon placed the whole matter before the public. A preju- 
diced person would have kept back the damaging opinion of the 
unnamed writer. He is therefore much fairer on this matter than 
Lord Selbome, Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Chancellor Dibdin, who, 
while quoting Price's opinion, carefully avoided any reference what- 

' Hale'a " Antiquity of the Church Rate System," App., p. 51, ed. 1837. 
> Idem., App., p. 51, foot-note. 



^^p 1 08 A History of Tithes. ^^^^| 

ever to the second or favourable opinion, although it is printed: 
in a footnote at the page where Price's letter appears,' 

Reinhold Schmifl, 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." ^ 

This statement corroborates the independent testimony of the 
Archdeacon's unnamed writer, 

IV. Lord Selborne's eighth witness is Professor Freeman, of 
Oxford. 

" Mr. Freeman," says Lord Selborne, " who seems to have 
accepted the date A.d. 1014 as evidence that the document repre- 
sents some public act of that year, was also led to the conclusion 
that these were ' hardly laws at all,' but mere ' advice,' and an 
expression of pious and patriotic feeling, a promise of national 1 
amendment rather than legislation strictly so called."' 

I shall give some extracts from Mr. Freeman's letter written 
in 1S85, 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 

^^H S« Tor omissions "Facts and Fictions," p. z^i; "Fuller," p. 1 

^^B Dibdin, p. 156, ed. 1885. 

^^^K * Thorpe's "Ancient Liws," Preface, xiX. 

^^H ' "Faelsand Fictions," pp. 179, iSo. Mr. Fuller gives Mr. Frcems 

^^^Uetter in M) in " Our Title Deeds," p. 164. 



LiiTus of Elhelred II. 109 

State in the ancient laws is that to which I have referred in the 
laws of Ethelred.^ 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 sonuthing 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 ena( 
ment, but a means prescribed for carrying the enactment into fon 
But this is simply copied from an earlier law of Edgar.* And in 
the law of 1014 it stands almost alone as a real piece of legisla- 
tion with a sanction. In truth these laws, of which I have found 
something to say elsewhere,* are hardly laws at all. As was not 
wonderful, under the peculiar circumstances of the lime, they an 
rather an expression of pious and patriotic feeling (see the last 
clause), a kind of promise of national amendment than legislation, 
strictly so called. They go along with the discourses of Arch- 
bishop Elfric, g)od advice rallier than legislation, rather than with 
those codes which not only make decrees, but provide means for 
executing them. In such a collection of recommendations rather 
than of real statutes we are not at all surprised to find the three- 
fold division of tithe. 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 prodnced no proof 
whatever to upset the Church Grith as a proper legal enactment. 
He has not stated what the something vias to make the legislation 



i 



Thorpe, i. 343 ; Sehmid, "GeseUe der An^elsachsen," 
lliorpe, i. 262; Schmid, tS6. 
' " Noiman Conquest," L 36S. 



A History of Tithes. 



perfect. If he means that no provision was made to carry out 
what was ordained, he contradicts himself, because he distinctly 
states above what is true, tliat as regards the sixth law for the 
payment of tithes, " means were prescribed, copied from Edgar's 
laws, for carrying the enactment into force." 

It was quite common for an Anglo-Saxon king and his Witen- 
agemfSt 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-enacled 
wholesale the laws of his predecessors. 

The most remarkable, inconsistent, and contradictory part of 
this letter is the abrupt jump which the writer takes from state- 
ments he was making in support of the Grith laws, to the state- 
ment, "In truth these laws are hardly laws at all." 

I now turn to Mr. Freeman's " Norman Conquest " lo 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 Gemdt held oo 
his return, that the King and his Witan passed the laws which 
bear the date of this year.' 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 com 
duel of certain earlier assemblies held under Athelstan, Edmund, 
and Edgar, which dealt with ecclesiastical and temporal affairs con- 
jointly, and they seem to deplore a separation between the two 
branches of legislation which had taken place in some later assem- 
blies." He then refers to sections 36, 37, and 38 of the Churcli 
Grith, and adds, " cf. sec. 43, where the three kings are named." 

' In the margin of the "Notman Conquest" is, " Ethel reJ's return and 
igislallon. Lent, 1014." 



"Tiielaws of tliis year (1014) again proclaim that one God 
and one King is to be loved and obeyed." 

' ' Suck is the general summary of the last recorded legislation of 
Ethelred, conceived in exactly the same tone as the laws of earlier 
assemblies." • 

Here there is no rererence 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.^ 

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 tilhes, and Church Grith law, which contradict their historical 
opinions and statements. 

V. The next witnssses produced by Lord Selborne are the 
Old Latin Translators of the Anglo-Saxon laws. "An earlier 

' "Nonnan Conquest," i. 368, 3rd ed. 1877. 

' See his pedantic, erroneous and misleading articles in the February and 
June numbers of Ihe ContimpoTary Review for 1891, on the " Landed En- 
dowments of the Church." Compare pp. 191, 192, of former article with p. 490 
vol. iv. and p. 41 roL v. of the " Norman Conquest," on lands in Ihe four 
Northern Counties, and his remarlts upon my article in the January mimber 
of the same Review, for a case olsheer pedaniry. 



A History of Tithes. 



K 



collection," he says, "of the Anglo-Sixon 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 i 
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.^ 

Here, again, his bidship resorts to his stereotjped Tormula, 
when laws are omitted by writers that "They did not r^ard 
them as possessing the character of laws." I have already shows 
the several omissions made by various writers in their collections. 
of Anglo-Saxon laws, because they were wiktumin to them. If we 
adopt Lord Selborne's canon of criticism, we must not only sweep 
away the Church Grith law, but actually _^m 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 ate omitted in the 
old Latin version ; viz., the Laws of the Kentish kings — Ethel« 
bert, Lothere, Edric, and Withred. King Alfred's Scriptural 
Laws, King Alhelstan's Decretum Caniianum and Decretum 
Sapientum Anglic, King Edmund's Concilium Culintonense, 
King Edgar's Supplemenial Laivs, King Ethelred's Liber Con- 
' "Facta and Fictions," 265-270. 



Lazi's of Etiu-hed II. 



stilutioniira, Council of Enham, Church and Mund, Church 
Griih, and Council at Habam ; King Cnute's Forest Laws. 

Applying Lord Selborne's canon of criticism, we are bound lo 
repudiate every one of these fifteen laws, because they are not in 
the old Latin version. He cannot draw the line at the Church 
Grhh 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 Elhelred's predecessors from Alfred downwards (why 
not also before Alfred ?), and also of Canute." ^ Lord Selborne 
does not tell us who the Latin translators were, and what oppor- 
tunities they had, or what materials were at their command to 
make their code complete. What official position did they 
occupy? But we know, as an unquestionable fact, that the 
Latin version was ttot complete, and that up to 1840 we have 
not had a complete code of Anglo-Saxon laws from extant 
manuscripts until Mr. Thorpe's was published under the direc- 
tion and authority of the Commission of Public Records. 

"The undoubted legislation Acts," he further adds, "cf 
King Elhelred's reign (viz., the Ordinances of Woodstock and 
Wantage), and also that to which the Latin date a.d. ioo8 is 
prefixed, have general titles in the Anglo-Saxon text, signifying 
that they were passed by the king in the national Witenagemdt. 
But the title of the document numbered IX.* by Mr. Thorpe, 
is verydifferent."^ 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 



' "Church Defence," Appendii, p. 361, ed, 1 
' " Church Criih." 

Ii/em, Appeiitiij;, p. 362. 



114 ^ History of Tithes. 

Witan."! Now, let us compare this title with those of (i) 
Woodstock, (2) Wantage, and {3) the Law of a.d. 1008, which 
Lord Selborne admits to be genuine. (1) " This is the Ordinance 
which King Ethelred and his Witan ordained." * {2) " Thest 
the laws which King Ethelred and his Witan have decreed at 
Wantage."^ (3) "This is the Ordinance that the King of the 
English and hoth the ecclesiastical and lay Witan have chosen 
and advised."* These facts completely refute Lord Selborne's 
statements. The general title to the Church Grith law, with the 
name of the King and Witan, is as strong as that of any of the 
admitted legal Acts stated by Lord Selborne. Again, if we com- 
pare the tide of the Church Grith with that of AthelsUn's law, it 
is even stronger and in much better legal form. Here it is : ' 
Athelstan, King, with the counsel of Wulfhelm, archbishop, and 
of my other bishops, make known to the reeves," etc. ^ 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 aud technical manner as he would one 
passed at the present time. Here is an example. The Church 
Grith law begins thus : " This is one of the ordinances which the 
King of the English composed with the counsel of his Witan." 
Here is Lord Selborne's note: " This form of expression is singular 
I do not think that anything exactly like it is to be found else, 
where." ^ 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 



k 



' Thorpe, i. 341. ' /Jem, i. a8i. 

» !,/im, p. I9J. * IJfm, p. 305. 



Yorkshire, who lived towards the end of the fourteenth century. 
His history comprises tlie period from a.d. 588 to a.d. 1198. 
Brompton copied his collection of Anglo-Saxon laws ' from the 
Latin version. But he alone has the text of the Ordinances 
passed at Habam. He has four of the nine laws of Ethelred, 

Lord Selborne says : " Bromton knew no laws of the reign of 
King Ethelred, except those of Woodstock and Wantage, the 
Treaty with the Norwegian kings — Ahlaf, Justin, and Guthmund 
{all purely secular), and the Ordinances of Habam, which he only 
preserved." ' 

The Ordinances of Habam are found only in Brom ton'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 
bis rightful lithe 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 belong to God, and our ancestors have 
granted."^ 

This Ordinance would indicate a spirit of revolt against the 
payment of tithes, and that the provisions made by previous 
kings for their payment were set at defiance. I do not agree 
with Lord Selborne that this Ordinance grants all the tithes and 
dues to the nearest mother-church, and thereby cancels or dis- 
regards Edgar's law as to the payment of one-third of the tithes 
to the manorial church with burial ground.* 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 

' Twysden's " Sen p tores," x, p. 898, ed. 1652. 
' " Facts and FictionB," Z69. " Thorjje.i, 33,8. ' ■^, T\ti- 



ii6 A History of Tithes. 



vital distinction as indicating an early revolt against the spiritual 
parochial endowments having been given to churches which did 
no spiritual duties in the manorial parishes for them. 

Owing to the same spirit of setting the tithe-law at defiance, we 
find a re-enactment of Edgar's stern law to enforce the payment 
of tithes in the 6th article of the Church Grith, and a second 
re-enactment by Cnute, It would be most unreasonable, and 
indeed absurd, to assume that the Habam Ordinances ignored the 
claims of the manorial churches to a third of the parochial tithes. 
The manorial churches in the beginning of the nth century were 
too numerous to be deprived of their portions of the tithes, espe- 
cially in 1014, when Ethelred, after returning from exile, tried to 
conciliate the clergy. 

Dr. Lingard's opinion is valuable upon this point. " It was 
probably thought," he says, " that a law so precise (as Edgar's), 
and so severe — a forfeiture of eight-tenths of the crop — would 
insure for the future the exact payment of the tithe ; but its sub- 
sequent re-enactment in the reign of Ethelred,' 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."^ 

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.^ 

" It may be asserted," says Lord Selborne, " without risk of 

' ' Lingard thus accepts Ihe Grith law as Eenuine. 
• "Anglo-Saxon Chutch," i. 187. ' See p. iii. 



error, that no part of the Worcester volume, Nero, A. i of the 
Cottonian collection was written before the end of Cnute's reign, 
who died in 1035, for the volume begins with Cnute's laws, 
which are followed by those of Edgar, Alfred, Athelslan, Ed- 
mund, Ethelred; and after them Grith and Mund, and Church 
Grith :^all in Anglo-Saxon, witfiout break, and in that order." ^ 

Every reader of " Facts and Fictions " cannot consult the Wor- 
cester volume to judge for himself whether this statement is 
correct or not. Readers generally accept as true what men of 
position and education publish, without investigating— for ihey 
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 sums expressly sa?ulioned by 
laio ; it will be therefore necessary for us to investigate this im- 
portant fact, and see )/ it is not posubU to shake its authority and 
bearing ou the case." ^ This is exactly the spirit with which 
certaiu writers attack the law. Let us test the above quotation 
from "Facts and Fictions." The volume contains 184 folios 
quarto. Folios i to 39 form the first tract in the volume; 42 to 
56 the second; 57 to 68^ the third; 71 to 97 J the fourth, etc. 

There was a good deal of guess work in arranging the tracts 
in this order. They ivere not written by the same hand ; some 
were written early in the eleventh century, and others in the 
third quartet of the same century. The laws of Canute, Edgar, 
and part of Alfred's, were written in the Conqueror's reign. 
A large portion of Alfred's laws is written in Josseline's hand, 
in the i6th century, then a common practice to complete im- 
perfect manuscripts, and the manuscript of Alfred's laws in the 
Worcester volume is very imperfect. Then the laws of Athelstan 

• " Facts and Fictions," p. 280. 
■ " Our Title-Deeds," 9. iig. 



A History of Tithes. 



and Edmund may be seen at once to be a much earlier hand, of 
the first quarter of the nth century — the period assigned by 
Thorpe. There is a fragment of Edgar's laws at folio 89, placed 
between Edmund's and Ethelred's, and in the same handwriting, 
and fully sixty years earlier than Edgar's laws, which are at folios 
15 to 41. These facts as to dates of handwriting can easily be 
verified by comparing them with charters of certain dates. I 
have compared the handwriting in the several tracts with the 
charters written towards the end of the 10th century, and begin- 
ning, middle, and end, of the nth. The Church Grith law was 
certainly written before Canute's death in 1035. There are 
several breaks in the volume between the laws of the five kings, 
although Lord Selborne says, "All in Anglo-Saxon, nvillwut 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 tncompUle 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 o/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 



La'i-vs of Ethelred II. 1 19 

English history." Tlien in a footoote Mr. Fuller adds, "Sdden 
calls it only a sort of document, and passed io a Conncil in a 
kind of Parliament, and tells us it remains only a manuscript of 
or about the time of the Rotnan 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 docuiiiml} Of course, Mr. Fuller is 
romancing as usual. Miserable efforts " to shake tlie authority " 
of a law. There is not one word of truth in the whole of the 
above quotations. " Roman Conquest I " 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 ^ 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 Theo- 
dore, for proof of which he refers to " Haddan and Slubbs, 
' Councils,' iiL 173, note 203 " ; (z) An alleged law of Ethelred 
(1013), and adds in reference to Ethelred's law, " But the belter 
opinion [he actually blends together the opinions of Price, 
Stubbs and Selborne] appears to be that the code, of which it is 
a part, is a private compilation or collection of points of Canon 
Law gathered indifferently from foreign and home sources, pub- 
lished tentatively, and not recognised as possessing any legislative 

' " Facts and Ficlions," p. 2S1, ^ Ste "J- \T,"SQXei, 






120 A History of Tithes. 



k 



force. With this otception {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." ^ 

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 stale that Theodore's 
" Penitential" is genuine. Here are their words, which may be 
contrasted wlfh Dibdiu's : "In 1851, at Halle, Dr. F. W. 
Wasserschleben, Professor of Law in the University of Halle, 
published from a "comparison of several continental manuscripts, 
the work of the ' Discipulus Umbrensium,' which is to be found 
in our text." They then enumerate nine editions of works pub- 
lished under Theodore's name. They reject all as spurious except 
the " Discipulus Umbrensium," which they printed from the Corptis 
Cliristi 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 
ihe reference to another copy found in lib. ii. c. xii. s. 5 seems to 
preclude the idea that it is the original.^ 

Bishop Stubbs, in his history, remarks that in this very " Peni- 
tential," viz., bb. ii. c. xiv. s. 10, commencing, " Decimas non est 
legitimum dare," tht clergy had not the sole use of the tithes? 

I refer the reader to pp. 20-23 '" this book for a full discussioa 
on this point. 

Tlie Endowment and Eslablishmcnl of the Church of England," pp 
156. 157. ed. i8Ss. 

Haddan and Slubbs, "Councils," iii. 191, 203. 
"Cooit. nist.," ed. 1880 ; i. 261, note i. 




In the second place, as regards Mr. Price's opinion, I must also 
refer the reader to p. 107. 

Cnute's Laws. 

These laws are divided into three branches, (i) Ecclesiastica!, 
(2) Secular, (3) Conslituiiones de Foresta, 

The text from which Mr. Thorpe prints (i) and (2), is Cott. 
Nero., A. i, which was written in the middle of the eleventh 
century. The text of {3) is from Spelman's " Glossariura Archreo- 
logicum." There are twenty-six laws in (i); eighty-five in (z) ; 
thirty-four in (3).^ 

In A.D. 1018 at a Witenagemdt at Oxford, Cnute confirmed 
the laws of Edgar. " The laws of Edgar," says Lappenberg,* 
" had shown particular regard to the Danes dwelling in England, 
while in those of Elhelred, 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 moiiel by Cnute. He 
also made use, however, of Eihelred's laws, especially those on 
Ecclesiastical subjects. It is remarkable to find very many of the 
ardcles 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 I It is interesting 
to notice how Lord Selborne disposes of the remaining eight. 
Five (ariicles 36 to 39 and 43), he says, are of that historical, 
rhetorical, expostulalory and didactic character as are not proper 
for laws which could in that or any similar form be enacted by 



k 



' Thorpe's " Ancient Laws," . 
* Tliorpe's liinslMion, \i. IQ 



122 A History of Tithes. 

any legislature. One was omitted ajiparently as superfluous {i.t. 
41 : " If a monk or mass-priest become altogether at) 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. '*' Now by re- 
jecting article 32, are we to suppose that the abbots and their! 
stewards were not to be protected by the king's reeves? for lb© 
article states, "And the King commands all his reeves in every 
place that ye protect the abbots on all secular occasions : 
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."* 

It has escaped Lord Selborne's notice that Cnute's confirnia- 
tion of Edgar's law, which grants one-third of the tithes to the 
manorial priests, comes to the same thing as the threefold division 
of tithes in the Church Grith law. The principle is the same in 
both, namely, that the manorial priest, or the priest of the mother 
church, was legally entitled to no more than one-third part of the 
tithes, and that the modern use of taking all the tithes 1 
trary to all rules, laws, and customs. They were never originally 
given, and would never be given to the priests on any such con- 
dition, namely, to convert them all to their own personal use- 
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 

'"Facts and Fictions," 1S6, 287. * Thorpe, i. 348. 



answer is, "There is not, as far as I know, so much even as a 
canon of any council, or a decree of any Pope in the nature of a 
legislative act, enlarging the right, or appropriating tithes generally, 
to parish churches in England or elsewhere." ^ 

His conclusion is, that as the laity were at liberty to give their 
tithes to whatever church they wished, " they might with equal 
right and reason endow parish churches on their own estates with 
the predial tithes of their lands within the parishes ; and the 
probability was that they would do so. No more likely explanation 
of the general prevalence of such parochial endowments, where 
churches were not appropriated to monasteries, has yet been 
suggested." * 

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 2. 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 ti[hes 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 
' " Facts and Fictions," 305, 306. ^ Ibui., t,q<3, 'iVQ. 




I 



semblance of assisting the poor. It is remarkable that lay and I 
clerical rectors in receipt of the rectorial tithes are bound, up ti 
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. ^ 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 contribule to the support of the poor, if it thought they 
were bound to set apart a portion of the tithes for this purposo.' 
Bui who were then the law-makers i* The majority of them; 
were then in possession of the extensive monastic tithes, aai 
landed properties. It is well known that the properties wcrt 
handed over to them subject to the same burdens which had been 
attached to the same properties when they were in possession tj 
the monastic bodies ; but the new owners ignored these burdens 

' John de Alhan, who wrote commentaries in the miitdle of the fourtwnlk 
century on the " Con&lilulions of Olho," a papal l^ate ihit held a council in- 
London in 12371 informs us that the canon law imposed on Ihe rector 
reparalion of his chuich, meaning the tiavc as well as llie chancel. Fulio 



CHAPTER Xr. 



THE FIRST POOR LAW ACT. 



The first Act for the relief of the poor was passed in 1535 fa;" 
Henry VIII., c. xxv.). 

"All governors of shires, cities, towns, etc., shall find and keep 
every aged poor and impotent person which was born or dwelt 
three years within the same limit, by way of voluntary and charit- 
able alms, etc., with such convenient alms as shall be thought 
meet by their discretion," etc. 

It was in this yeat (153;) that the lesser monasteries were dis- 
solved. So the first poor law was enacted, to provide for the poor 
and impotent, in the same year in which the dissolution occurred. 

The total annual revenue of all the monastic and chantry 
estates, together with the episcopal and chapter estates surrendered 
to the Crown, was about ^300,000, which, if carefully managed — 
say by a Board of Commissioners — to provide fur the poor, 
would now realize an anniial 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 VI [I., 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 \.V\M. \i'^\.w^t 



tliuB bound by the sureties of private interest, they might alw^ 
oppose any return towards the dominion of Rome.' 

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 supreuiacy be re-estab- 
lished by Mary until her sanction was given that they should 
be allowed the full enjoyment of their Abbey lands, and we may 
ascribe the zeal of the same class, in bringing back and preserving 
the reformed Church under Elizabeth, to a similar motive ; that, 
according to the genera! laws of human nature, they gave a readier 
reception to truth, which made their estates more secure.' They 
would be any religion, provided they retained their church lands.' 

The 31 Henry VIII,, c, xiii., expressly slates 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 ; 
Iheir 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 (ii 

' Eumet, i. 2*3. ' Hallam's " Conal. Hist.," i. 78. 

' Queen Mary mas for bringing in a Bill to restore Ihe monastic lands, 
"But the nolile lords in Parliament clapped their hands upon Iheir swords, 
declaring lliit so long as they were able lo wear a sword by iheir side, with 
their Abbey lands Ibey would never part '' (Hook's " Archbishops," vol, 1 ~ 
P- 399)- 



I 



The First Poor Law Act. 127 

creased in number by the conduct of tliese new landlovds) nas 
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 hy parsons, rectors of the church, and Xti& pariskioneis, 
so that none of them die for default of sustenance ;' and though by 
Ihe statutes i z 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." ' 

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 Sclbourne, and others who 
follow liim, that the part allotted out of the tithes for the poor 
would be insufficient for their support. But he omits the impor- 
tant fact that in one of Edgar's canons it was enacted that the 
people should also distribute alms to the poor, so that the part 
allotted out of the tithes was not intended to be the ■jc'/wle main- 
tenance which the poor should receive.* 

' Blackatone's " Commenlnties," bk. i. 34S, eil. 1765. "The Miaor of 
Justice," byAndreiv Home, p. 14, ed. 1646. 

" Bum's "Hist, of ihe Poor Laws," p. 3, ed. 1764. See p. 86 for 



t 



A History of Tithes. 



In A.D. 960, when Edgar's laws and canons were enacted, the 
population of England was about 800,000, with about 1,000,000 
acres under cuhivalion. The provision for the poor was more 
than sufficient. 

Mr. Blunt, in his " History of the Reformation," tells us that 
" A large body of almost starving people was formed by the ruined 
monks, and those who had been maintained by them, either in 
labour or charity. Rents were enormously raised by those to 
whom the monastic grants fell by grants or purchase, the new 
landlords exacting three or four times more than had been re- 
quired by the old church landlords. The poverty of the poor and 
the wealth of the rich drew away class from class and introduced 
that disintegration of society, which caused so much trouble in 
the 17th century."' 

Sir, Simon Degge, in his "Parson's Counsellor," says ' 
there are many pluralists in England that hardly see either of tliaiH 
livings in a year ; that all the greatest and best livings in the kinj 
dom are now (1676) held by pluralists, and served by : 
curates ; that thereby many poor souls are neglected in danger t< 
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 
eilher 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 praclitionerB ; that one end of the law of 
residence {31 Henry VII I.) was to maintain hospitality ; that the _ 
best livings in the kingdom are served with poor curates and n 
hospitality ; that we are now in a far worse condition than beforfl 

' Blum's " History of the Rcformnlion," J. 3S9. 



The First Poor Laiv Act. 129 

making the Act, for tbat 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 I'ope 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." '^ 

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, an^ in a later edition he 
defended it lamely enough, maintaining on the authority of some 
Roman canonists the genuineness of the extracts from synodical 
Acts of Pope Sylvester published by Isidore, and it must there- 
fore be supposed, of the forgeries in the same collection also." ^ 

He carefully avoids giving us the name of the writer who 
called Degge to account. It was the Rev. Henry Wharton, the 
author of the " Anglia Sacra." 

In 1693 this boy pluralist — the author of "A Defence of Plurali- 
ties " — published, under the name of Anthony Harmer, " A Speci- 
men of some Errors and Defects," in Bishop Burnet's " History of 
the Reformation." For an account of the malicious spirit in which 
this book was wiitten, 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." » 

Dr. Cave, author of " Historia Literaria," who employed 

' "Parson's Counsellor," p. 79, 61I1 eJ. 1703. 

' " Church Defence," etc, pp. 154, 155. 

^ See Burnet's letter to Di. Lloyil, Bishop of Lichfield ^wi eo-it^Vt-j. 



Wharton as his amanuensis, in a letter to Archbishop TillotsoD, 
fully corroborates Bishop Burnet's character of Wharton. The 
bishop knew who Anthony Harnier was, and his caustic remarks 

Fon Wharton's " Anglia Sacra " were well deserved.^ 
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 
I 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 16C9 ; a bencher of the Inner 

I Temple ; in r673 was high sheriff of Derbyshire. His " Parson's 

Counsellor and Law of Tithes " was a leading text book for many 
years. He dedicated it to a bishop, and in his sixth and last 
edition in his lifetime, he writes: "To the parsons, vicars, and 
the rest of the reverend clergy of the Church of England, Your 
kind acceptance of the former impressions of the book has en- 
couraged me this sixth time to appear in public" He died in 1704. 
In this edition he says, " Nor is there any doubt but that by 
I the Canon Law the poor ought to have a share in the revtnues ef 

\ tfie church, which was all I endeavoured to prove." ^ 

Lord Selborne quotes his closing admonition from the seventh 
I revised edition of 1S20, i.e. 116 years after Degge's death ; "By 

all which it appears that originally the poor had a share of the 
lithe." ^ 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 

■ " He liad in his luuiJs a whole treatise which contained only the fauhs 
of ten leaves qt the ' Anglia Sacra." . . . The errors are so many and so 
gross ihat often the [buIu are as many as the lines, somellines they are iwo 10 
one." — Bishop Bumel'a Reflections on AHerbury's " Convocation." 

■ " Parson's Counsellor," p. 83, ed. 1703. 
"Oiurch Defence," etc., ed. 18SS, p. IS4- 



The First Poor Law Act. 131 

given above his own words from his last edition published in 
1703. 

The 13 Eliz. c. xx. enacts that the lessor absent above eighty 
days in a year should lose one year's profits of the benefice, to 
be distributed by the Ordinary among the poor of the parish. 

A subsequent statute {18 Eliz. c. x\. s. 7) confirms the above ; 
and provides that the Ordinary shall grant sequestration of the 
profits, and in default that every parishioner may retain his tithes ; 
and the churchwarden will take the other profits of the benefice 
to distribute among the poor. ^ 

The rights of the Poor to a portion of the tithes were given by 
(i) The Act of 1014; (2) 15 Rich. II, c. vi. j (3) 13 Eliz. c 
xx.; (4) 1 8 Eliz. c. xi. s. 7. 

When we come to the Act for the relief of the Poor, (43 Eliz. 
c. ii.) it provides for the taxation of every occupier of lands, houses, 
tithes impropriate, propriation of tithes, coal mines and under- 
woods. But it does not take any portion of the tithes for the 
support of the poor; hence it is argued that the poor had no 
claim to any portion of the tithes. The fact is, that previously 
there was no machinery by which their claims could have been 
carried out. The parochial iocumbents were trustees of their pro- 
perty, and as such had many claims on their incomes, the poor 
had to put up with whatever the trustees wished to give them. 
And finally the trustees dosed 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. 1T3;, 
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 aixttetv ■^iar«^ ^wsi-Swa. 



132 A History of Tillies. 

is ;^i2,oo6 per anmtm. Now, llie Hospital has only the tithe- 
rent charges, amounting to ^^314^2 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 VIIT. 
the Hospital had only the four churches. It is highly probable 
that the twelve rectors closed upon all the tithes during the period 
of the protracted quarrels between the Bishops of Winchester and 
the Priors of the Knights of St, John of Jerusalem, as to who 
should have the appointment of the master of the Hospital. ^ 

' The parochial incumbents commenced about the beginning of 

the fourteenth century to dose 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 RV 

I prescriptive right to all the tithes, ^ m 

■ See a full history of this charity in the "31st Report of the Charity Co^H 
misaooers," iS3;-8, vol. xxiv., p. 843, etc V 

' Malth. Paris, under A.D. isifo, has these words ; "Cum ex auctoritatib^f 
sanctorum palrum fmclus ecclesiatum in ccrtos usus, piila ecclesias, minislro- 
tum et paupemm." Mr. FuUerquoles the passage and thus Iranslales: "That 
lince, by Ihe authority of the Holy Fathers, the revenues of the chuidi 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 
L not suit Fuller lo give a fair, complete translation of the passage, because it 

^^^ leferred to the tripartite division of the church revenues. ^ 




CANONS FOR PAYMENT OF TITHES. 

Alexander III., who was Pope from 1159-1181, was very active 
in writing to archbishops and bishops of foreign churches, com- 
manding them to order the people to pay tithes. In rryo he 
wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the Bishop of 
Winchester on the subject. The former prelate held a pro- 
vincial synod in 1175, at Westminster, at which were present 
King Henry 11., his crowned son, and all the bishops and abbots 
of the province. At tbis 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 burled against all and every one who would not pay tithes. 

The Archbishop of York, twenty years after (1195), held a 
similar synod in his province, which also commanded the pay- 
ment of tithes ; and this synod, like that of Westminster, wound 
op 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 E.n^\^ ca-tvotv X'i-fs ^'a-^ '^^ 



134 -^ Histoiy of Tithes. 



payment of lithes, was that passed in A.d. 1295 (23 Edw. I.), i 
a provincial synod held in London by Robert Winchelsey, Arcb 
bishop of Canterbury {1294-1313). The canon sets forth tha! 
on account of the various quarrels, contentions, and scandal^ 
arising between rectors and their parishioners, as regards sever^ 
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 tree^ 
herbs, and hay. It also sets forth how tithes were to be paid o 
the produce of aniraals, lambs, and wool. If sheep were fed i 
one place in winter and in a different place in summer, the tith 
was to be divided. Similarly, if any one should buy or sell sheep 
in the middle of tlie lime, and it was known from which parish 
they came, the tiihe of these sheep must be divided, as it fol- 
lowed the two residences. But if it were not known, then that 
church should have the whole tithe within whose limits at the 
time of shearing they were found. It further states how milk 
was to be tithed, and that tithes were to be paid for ibe pasture 
of animals, according to their number, and the number of day&; 
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 i 
heriiance of the land- 

The canon then passed frona predial to personal tithes. 
ficers and merchants were to pay tithes of the profits of Ihefe 
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 neces 
expenses, they were to pay the tenth part of the profits. 

The rector was also to receive his mortuary fees, viz., tbft 
clothes v/ora by the persoi\ before dying, also a horse and cow. 



Canons for Payment of Tithes. 135 

These fees were to be paid as a satisfaction to the Church for the 
personal tithes which he had forgotten, or wilfully neglected to 
pay in his lifetime.^ Henry VIII, fixed a money payment in lieu 
of the mortuary fees. This was the origin of burial fees. If 
parishioners would not pay their tithes, they were to be excluded 
from the Church until they did so; and if they continued con- 
tumacious, other ecclesiastical censures would follow. An Act was 
passed, 2 and 3 Edward VI. c. xiii. s. 9, that modified and limited 
the payments of personal tithes. " That in al! such places where 
handicraftsmen have used to pay their tithes within these forty 
years, the same custom of payment of tithes to be observed and 
to continue ; and if any person refuse to pay his personal tithes, 
etc., it shall be lawful for the Ordinary of the same diocese to call 
the same party before him, and by his discretion to examine him 
by all lawful and reasonable means, other than by the party's own 
corporal oath, concerning the true payment of the said tithes." 

The main diffculty in collecting personal tithes arises in the 
want of any method of discovery. 

In A.D. 1343, a canon was passed at a provincial synod of 
Canterbury, held at St. Paul's, London, that all manner of timber 
was tithafaie.* This canon led to bitter strife, because wood had 
not been previously tilhable ; for, like mines and quarries, it was 
thought to be a part of the inheritance of the land. Timber was 
not lithable in the important canon of 1295. It does not yield 
annual profits; yet the tithe of wood is due by common law 
nght. 

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 



136 ^ Histo?y of Titlies. 

opinion in the matter. The tithe system was a very elastic band. 
It was stretched as population and agriculiure increased. We 
have the principle of development exhibited in a remarkable 
degree in the tithe question. As the power and iDfluence of 
the bishops of Rome increased in the dark and middle ages, so 
did tithes. Yet we are unWushingly 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 freeljr 
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 
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 Ethehvulf. 
Provincial synodical canons of the dark and middle ages had a 
pretending binding force upon the people. But those eccle- 
siastics had put the last straw upon the donkey's (people's) bade 
in their synod of 1343. The young British House of Commons, 
then only seventy-eight years old, was roused to opposition, 
I343i i344i ^347, and 1351, the House petitioned Edward III, 
against the canon of 1343, but the petitions led to no satisfactory 
result.' The Commons succeeded, however, in 137 i, in limiting, 
the power of the canon. It was enacted^ that trees of twenty 
years' growth and upward should not be tithable, and that if' 
a suit should be commenced in any spiritual court for the pay- 
ment of such tithes, a prohibition should issue. This was the 
first victory gained by the House of Commons as regards tithes. 

■ 4S Ed. in. c iii. 

' See Selden, pp. 237-240; also Rot, Parll., 17 Ed. III., art. 28 ; l3 Ei I 
J/J., art. J); 21 Ed. III., art. 485 is&l.m.,a[i. 17. 



Canons for Payment of Tithes. 137 

The failures in the above years were caused by ecclesiastical 
influence exercised over the King, There had been previous 
Acts on Church questions, such as the Mortmain Act of 1297, 
which was a much bolder step than that of 1372, but it was 
rather the production of King Edward I. himself than any 
action of the House of Commons, owing to the nervous stale of 
feeling among the lay nobility to check the extensive abenation 
of property to the monasteries which deprived the King of help 
towards the defence of the country. The nobility were also be- 
coming extremely jealous of the growing power and luxurious 
living of the monastic bodies, and also of the Church dignitaries. 

The Statute of Mortmain had forbidden the King's subjects 
from bequeathing lands and tenements to the rdigiosi without 
the King's license. But the shrewd, cunning monks eluded the 
Act by licenses of alienation. Here we have another instance of 
ecclesiastical ingenuity in devising plans to evade the law. Tes- 
tators left property in perpetuity to support priests to pray for 
their souls. Hence originated thousands of chantries throughout 
the country, but they followed the same fate as the monasteries. 
Much landed property had thus indirectly passed into the hands 
of ecclesiastics. In 1531, an Act was passed that all such 
wills would not in future hold good for more than twenty years. 
The Legislature thought that twenty years' prayers were sufficient 
to get a testator's soul out of purgatory, and that twenty years' 
revenue amply remunerated the priest for his services.' 

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 mhich the clergy 
make for their own advantage, without the assent of the Commons, 
' 23 Henry VIll. c. n. 



138 A History of Tithes. 



for the clergy do not wish to be subjected to any statute 
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 1 1 75 oc 
1195, or at an earlier date, or was a litde older in 1295, when 
the most important canon was passed, that they would havo. 
made a similar energetic protest that " They would not be sub- 
jected to any canons which the clergy made for their own advan^. 
tage without the assent of the Commons"? I have already fully 
explained that the popes, archbishops, bishops, chapters, secular 
clergy and monks, took advantage of their position in the dark 
and middle ages in imposing on the credulity of the simple and 
innocent laypeople, by pretending that the Christian priesthood 
were the successors of the Mosaic priesthood, and therefore were 
entitled by Divine right to the tithes enacted by the Mosaic laws, 
and even a great deal more of the tithes which those cunning and 
crafty ecclesiastics added thereto by their numerous canons passed 
by them at councils and synods where no layman dare appear. 

In the " Englishman's Brief for his National Church," to which 
I have before referred, it is asked (Q. 21), " Is it not hard on the 
cultivators of land that they should have to pay tithes or 
produce?" The answer given is, that there is really no hardship 
in the matter. " If a person rents land which in every respect is 
tithe-free, he pays so much more rent for it ; if it be subject to 
tithes, he pays so much less. In any case he pays the same 
amount," etc. This answer was written for the purpose of mis- 
leading the reader. The landlord will try to get as high a rent 
for his land which is not tithe-free as the landlord who has his 
land tithe-free. But another important question arises. Why 
should the whole burden of paying tithes fall upon land ? There 



Canons for Payment of Tithes. 139 

was a time when personal tithes were also paid. Scripture was 
quoted in support of these tithes. But they are all now 
abolished, and only land — and not all the land — has to pay 
tithes. 

The Earl of Selborne makes the following remarks in his 
pamphlet; "The Endowment and Establishment of the Church of 
England," " The rectorial tithes of Selborne, which belong to a 
college at Oxford,' were in i88z, ^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;£i,43i ; and 
one of the London Companies, those of Chertsey, amounting to 
^x,i\2." I have placed in the Appendix a statement as to the 
recipients of the deiical 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. 38) : " 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 
' Alienated priory property given to Magiaien. Vj Wev.vi X\ . 



F 

^H be 
^f lie 
^^ to 



140 A History of Tithes. 



benefactors, of their families and relatives. The benefactors be- I 
lieved in the doctrine of purgatory, and irj the efficacy of prayers I 
to bring their souls out of it. The Church of England i 
Reformation days believed and taught the same lucrative doctrines 
It also taught thai works of charity and not faith were steppingT* 
stones to heaven. Two churches, E and R, held the same do< 
trines, and both received large endowments in tithes, lands, 
in support of such doctrines. For centuries E was in possession^ 
of such endowments, but in the sixteenth century E repudiated 1 
the doctrines by the teaching of which E had obtained the endov^ 
ments from certain benefactors who otherwise would not have 
given them. Parliament permitted E to hold the ancient endow-v 
ments on cerLiin conditions specified in Acts of Parliament, £ 
E now dishonestly ignores the conditions, holds the doctrines 
repudiated, but keeps a firm grip on ihe ancient endowments, 
E has but a parliamentary title to the ancient endowments. Anil, 
as such, Parliament has the right to change and convert the endows. 
ments, if it should think proper, to other purposes. At the period 
of the Reformation there was no physical transfer of the endow 
ments from the old to the new trustees ; from incumbents who 
would not conform to the Acts of Parliament, to those who did con* 
form. The incumbents who were in possession of the endowments' 
before the Acts were passed, and who conformed to the Actsi 
when passed, were left in possession of them, and as their su(> 
cessors similarly conformed to the Acts, they peaceably entered 
into possession ; so there was no physical transfer of the propertjq' 
but there was a change of trustees when the old trustees declined! 
to conform to the Acts of Parliament, but no change when thq 
did conform. It is therefore very clear that the Church 1 
England holds her ancient endowments by a parliamentary titl^ 
just &s the Sovereign does the vViTotie. And the logical sequence 



is that Parliament has the right, if it should think proper, to con- 
vert the endowments to any other use, especially when the present 
holders are frequently ignoring the conditions upon which they 
were granted at the Reformation. 

It is not quite correct to say at page 52, in the "Brief," that 
all the monastic endowments have been swept away and con- 
fiscated to the Crown. The properties of the ahen priories are 
now enjoyed by some of our wealthy colleges and public 
schools. Henry Vlll. had endowed, out of the monastic pro- 
perties, six bishoprics and chapters, of which five bishoprics 
exist at the present day. Again, Christ Church, Oxford, the 
aristocratic college for the sons of our nobility, was built and en- 
dowed out of the property of over twenty monasteries which were 
confiscated, with the full sanction of both King and Pope, in order 
to supply Cardinal Wolsey with funds to build and endow 
" Cardinal College," Oxford. This college receives at present 
^£"40,000 per annum gross from tithe-rent charges. Again, the 
eight conventual chapters were not only left in possession of all 
their monastic endowments, but also received in augmentation of 
their incomes a great deal of the properties of some of the dis- 
solved monasteries. For example, Canterbury received almost 
all the endowments of SL Augustine's monastery. 

The year 1836 was a turning-point in the episcopal and capi- 
tular endowments ; the 6 & 7 William IV. c. Ixxvii. created the 
Ecclesiastical Commission. The commissioners utilized the en- 
dowments in order to provide for the spiritual destitution of large 
parishes. Up Co 1890, upwards of 5,700 benefices have received 
^^971,700 per annum in perpetuity towards augmenting the in- 
cumbent's incomes. We must add to this the enormous capital 
sums which have been expended out of the Common Fund of the 
Commissioners, in erecting some thousands qI ti^-s '^■ict'aa-a'i.'^fs.i 







143 A History of Tillies. 

repairing and clearing off mortgages of otliers. The average n 
income of ihe " Common Fund " is more than one million a 
The gross income of the "Common Fund" of the Ecclesiastica 
Commissioners, on the 31st August, 1890, was ^^i, 722, 709; 
dishursed that )ear j^i, 140,334, leaving a balance or;^5S2,374.'' 

Fully four-fifihs of the properties in the hands of the Ecclesi- 
astical Commissioners has come, partly from the ancient public 
landed endowments granted to archbishops, bishops, and . 
chapters by Anglo-Saxon kings with the consent of thelid 
respective witenagemdts ; and partly from the monastic rectorial J 
ti.thes which were transferred by the Crown to the above 1 
corporations in lieu or exchange of landed estates surrendered 
to the Crown at the period of the Reformation. 

The duties performed by the parochial priests for the tithes 
were their regular duties, including (i) saying mass, (3) praying 
for the dead, and (3) invoking the saints. But by Acts of Par- 
liament the mass has been suppressed, the dead by some are not; 
prayed for, and the saints are no longer invoked by some whu 
now enjoy the tithe-rent charges. 

It is stated in the " Brief" that " when the principal parochii 
endowments were given, papal supremacy was not admitted b 
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 tithe^ 
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 Pop^ 
' See iVJidRcpun, 1S91. 



Canons for Payment of Tithes. 143 

and Pope Boniface V., in a letter dated a.d. 624, conferred 
the primacy of all Britain on Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury. 
The letter contained these remarkable words, " Hanc autem 
ecclesiam utpote specialiter consistentem sub potestate et tuitione 
sanclje RonianEe ecclesiK." ^ 

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. ^ 

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 
id6S to 1Z15, or 150 years, there were 427 erected in England, 
possessing extensive endowments in lands and tithes. Add 

' •' Carlulariam Sanonicum," edited by Birch. Vol. i. No. 14, p. 3.\, 



144 -^ History of Tithes. 



130 up to A.D. 1066, and we get 557, as the total number in 121$^ 
I have selected 1215, for by the Council of Lateran tithes 1 
henceforth to be paid to the parochial cSergy, thus abolishing from 
12 15 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 thousanda. 
of parishes. Of course they put vicars in the parishes to perforin 
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 centurie% 
and from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries ? The parochial' 
system continued in course of formation for 600 years. During 
this time the Church received the principal parochial endow- 
ments. It cannot be stated with truth that the " Roman doo 
trines were not held by the Church of England " during thil 
period of 600 years. Neither can it be said with truth tha 
" papal supremacy was not admitted by the Church of England " 
during the same period, 

There is no doubt whatever that the original donors of Church" 
endowments would never have given them to men who not only 
ignored but utterly detested their most dearly cherished doctrinal ' 
views, viz: (i) the mass, (z) 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. "TheJ 
must consider," he says, "in what times many of tlie donatiottS 
of properly were made. The persons who have made thei 
might, and jirobabiy would, if living in the present day, wish to 



Canons for Payment of Tithes. 145 

see them applied in a very different manner." These remarks 
were made in reply to the following observations delivered in the 
same debate by Dr. Sumner, Bishop of Winchester. " What 
right " he asked, " had the Legislature so to deal with property 
given for certain specific purposes, not by the State, but by indi- 
viduals, for ever?" The Archbishop pointedly stated in the 
speech quoted above, that the " certain specific purposes " existed 
no longer. 1 

It is again stated in the "Brief" that tithes are not endow- 
ments (1) and that they were given " without any specific con- 
ditions being attached to their payment" Is it reasonable to 
think that tithes were given to the parish priest without a ^^quid 
pro quo" i Is not the ^^ quid pro quo" implied in bis 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 pubhc trust, that those who now possess such property ' 
shall fulfil the conditions attached to its original grant or be- 
quest" I cannot defend for one moment the enrichment of the 
nobility and gentry of this country with Church spoliation. But 
I ask myself the question : " Do the Bishops of Chester, 
Gloucester and Bristol, Oxford and Peterborough and their 
respective chapters, ' fulfil the conditions attached to the original 
grant or bequest of the property which Ihey 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. 

' " Hansard's Debates," House of Lords, 1840, 
' The confiscated moiiaslic property. 



CHAPTER XIII. 
APPROPRIATION OF TITHES TO MONASTERIES. 

From a.d. iooo to a.d. 1215 is a remarkable period in thfti 
history of the EngUsh Church and Enghsh monasteries. The 
monasteries were buHt and richly endowed with lands, churches, 
and tithes. All these were conveyed by deeds of gifis to their 
perpetual use. The benefactions were given for the special pur- 
pose of prayers being perpetually said by the monks in their re- 
spective churches for the repose of the souls of the donors and 
their relatives. In some cases the monasteries received the tithes' 
without any churches; but when they received churches with ihe 
cure of souls, then the monastic corporations became rectors by 
virtue of which they were in possession of all the tithes of eacit 
parish. For many centuries the benefactions were conveyed by 
lay owners, without any reference to the king or bishop, for thqr, 
were considered as private property, which the owner may disposed 
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 wiUl 
their tithes appropriated to them. Previous to the Conqueab 
there were no approj^riation of churches, but patrons granted to 
monasteries, bishops or chapters the advowsons of the churches. 
As religious services had to be performed in ibe church appro- 
priated, ihe monastic body had either to depute one of theif 



Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. 147 

own fraternity in Holy Orders to do the duty, or to appoint a 
deputy or vicar to act for them and to whom they gave most 
raiserahle stipends. This latter alternative hecame 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. Rven 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 
lo obtain two parts of the tithes and profits, leaving a third to the 
parish. These two parts were for the relief of the poor and the 
repair of the church ; but in course of time they neglected both 
poor and fabric, and the parishioners, for their own comfort, had 
actually subscribed towards a fabric fund and hence originated 
church rates which were, like tithes, at first purely voluntary, but 
subsequently became compulsory. 

When the practice of appropriating churches, with their glebe 
and tithe endowments, was first introduced by the Norman monks 
in England, the patrons or owners considered that they were 
transferring a freehold property, and therefore thought the con- 
veyance did not require the bishop's confirmation. The pation 
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, lu the deeds of 
conveyances some are given " Canonicis ibidenti Deo servienti- 
bus," etc. ; others, " Canonicis regularibus ibidem Deo servient!- 
bus," etc. ; and, "Monachis ibidem Deo servientibus," etc. 

The lay patrons sometimes exercised the power of dv^KkvwyK.'^ 



148 A History of Tithes. 

ihe 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 I 
Acts of tiie Third Lateran Council of a.d. r 1 79-80, " So far has 
the boldness of laymen been carried, that they collate clerks to 
churches without institution from the bishops, ami 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,"' Four English bishops sat at this council. The Council 
gave the death-blow to arbitrary appropriations of tithes by lay- 
men, without the consent of the bishop, to whatever church or 
monastery they pleased. It was ordained by this Council thai 
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 lime 
of King John, which was probably owing to the intrigues 
of the regular clergy or monks of the Benedictine and other 
rules, under Archbishop Dunstan and his successors, who en- 
deavoured to wean the people from paying their dues to the 
secular or parochial clergy. A layman, who was obliged to pay 
his tithes somewhere, might think it good policy to erect aa 
abbey, and there pay them to his own monks, or grant them to 
some abbey already erected, and thus have masses for ever sung 
' Coke's " Reports," pwi ii. p. a,i, (//| 



for his soul."i Not only had laymen appropriated lilhes to 
episcopal, capitular, and monastic corporations, but, in Lord Sel- 
boume's opinion, ihey may also have given them to parish 
churches. Henue, he thinks, the Irue origin of the endowment of 
parish churches with Hikes. 

The decree of the Third Lateran Council, making void arbitrary 
appropriations of titlies, 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 HI,, 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 01 
the decrees of the Third Lateran Council, enjoined the payment 
of tithes to the parsons of the respective parishes. But the 
epistle had no binding force on the lay subjects of this kingdom. 

The arbitrary appropriation of tithes by landowners to monas- 
teries, although according to their rights, was contrary to canon 
law.' At a national synod held at Westminster in 1125 (25 
Henry L) it was constituted that no abbot, prior, monk, or clergy- 
man should accept a church or tithe or any other ecclesiastical 
benefice from a layman without the authority and assent of his 
own bishop. The lay patrons paid no attention to this canon, 
because they thought it was an ecclesiastical encroachment upon 
the rights of property. It was a part of the supremacy over the 
civil power which the Church was then usurping wherever she 
found weak instruments. In the reigns of Richard I. and John, 
however, laymen's investitures gradually ceased. The Church be- 

' " Com nenlaries," bk. ii. c. iii. p. 27, eil. 1765- 

' See chap. xi. p. 297 in Selden's " History of Tithes," ed. l6[S, Tor a. full 
explanation of " irbitraiy conaecraliona," as lie called Aew.. 



150 A History of Tithes. 

came supreme. Archbishop Anselm was a very strong suppoiter cf 
papal canons which inhibited the custom of lay investiture. The 
struggle continued after his death. The practice at the present 
time is, the patron nominates or presents, ihe 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 n8o. 

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 teslJmony 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 laxv 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 (ijfL'Cted towards the tviiure, and made void all new 



Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. 151 

grants of tithes to monasteries after the date of this council. 
The council is a landmark for the following arrangements ; (i) 
The tithes of parishes, which before a.d. 1215 could have been 
given by the owners of the property to any church they pleased, 
either in or out of the kingdom, were henceforth to be given 
only to the parsons of the parishes from which they arose. (2) 
The tithes which had been appropriated to corporations outside 
of the parishes, continued to be given to them. (3) The tithes 
which the parsons possessed before A.d. 1215 could not be appro- 
priated afterwards to any other person. Therefore the tithes which 
rectors received were those which they possessed at the date of 
this council, and all tithes created after a.d. 1215. 

The parish system which commenced in its germ about a.d. 
686 was completed about .4.D. 1 200, 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 
hy prescriptions. We may thus trace tithes in England from their 
origin, (i) as free-will offerings ; (2) compulsory payment to some 
religious body, and (3) compulsory payment only to the incumbents 
of parishes. It is an error to state that all the tithes of England 
were paid freely. I have stated enough to show that it was not so. 

Tithes appropriated to monasteries were of two kinds— (i) 
Monastical, (2) Parochial. With reference to (1)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 siclc, the poor, and stranger who called at their gates ; and 
said masses perpetually in their own churches for the souls of iheir 
founders and benefactors, and those of their helcs a.'wiA.^^s&*«A. 



J 



152 A ///story of Tithes. 

As regards the second case, they received churches, with the 
tithes and glebe lands annexed thereto, as a free gift from the 
owners, and had therefore the cure of souls. They purchased 
the advowsons of other churches, and even built churches them- 
selves, of which as owners they possessed the advowsons. At 
first if the churches were near the monasteries, they sent members 
of their community, who were in holy orders, to perform the 
religious duties. But when the churches were situated at a con- 
siderable distance, and became numerous, the monastic bodies 
employed curates or vicars to perform the religious duties. These 
at first received no part of the tithes as their salaries, but only a 
small sum of money, just what the monks liked to give, and the 
miserable sum they allowed varied from year to year as it suited 
the caprices of the monks, who received all the tithes, offerings, 
and oblations. In the king's licence, permitting the appropriation, 
there was the usual condition which the monks ignored, "that an 
adequate portion be allowed the vicar out of the profits of the 
church." The wretched salaries of the curates or vicars produced 
great scandal and complaints. As the curate or vicar was liable 
to be dismissed at any moment by the appropriator, he was not 
likely to insist too rigidly on the sufficiency of his stipend, and so 
the miserable salary was continued after the passing of Richard 
II. 's Act. The bishops were much to blame in this matter. 
Some of them had been monks themselves from their youth ; 
others were 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 appra- 
priated some of their churches, i.c. the tectorial tithes of iheir 






churches, to the bishop's table, on condition that he, as bishop, 
alloiived them to receive churches with all their endowments from 
the lay owners.' 

The preaching friars and John Wickliffe opened the people's 
eyes as to the monastic luxuries, and the poverty of the vicars 
whom they employed to do their work. The age of building 
monasteries and granting extravagant endowments had passed, 
never again to be revived, but there was a growing tendency to 
sweep all the monasteries away. The scandalous manner in 
which the monastic bodies had paid the vicars induced Parlia- 
ment to pass the following Act in 1392.^ 



"In Appropriation of Benefices there shall ee Provision 
Made for the Poor and the Vicar." 

" In every licence from henceforth to be made in the chancery 
of the appropriatiori of any parish church, it shal! 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 
' Kennctl, p. 65. ' \t,"P:\iL'n,\'V. t. iv. 



154 ^ Hlsloiy of Tithes. 



k, 



such legislaiion could have been necessary; nothing would have 
been wanting, except simply to enforce that existing law" ^ 

These remarks are open to grave objections. The law refei* 
to a provision being made for the virar as well as for the pooc, 
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 wiih all oblations. The' 
monastic corporalion placed a deputy, called a vicar, in the paristt" 
to perform the ecclesiastical duties, and allowed him such «• 
wretchedly poor stipend, insufficient to keep soul and body to- 
gether. As for the poor of the parish, it is loo much to expec^ 
as Lord Selborne remarks above, that the poor of 135 
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 ti[hes. 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 courtg.' 
— 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 IH^ 
particular, and yet the provision for the vicar, namely the 
tithes, formed his main endowments. This law, no doubt, re; 
fcrred to all the endowments of the vicar. The statute did no 
move the monastic bodies, who had still the power of removin| 
at pleasure the vicar of the parish, until the Act 4 Henry IV. ( 
xir. (1402) was passed. "That from henceforth in every churd 
appropriated, or to be appropriated, a secular person be ordainett! 
perpetual vicar, canonically instituted and inducted to the k 
and convenably eiidjwed by the discretion of the Ordinary, to d 
' "Defence of lheCWvc\i," Wc, a,vt.«d. iS33, p. 155. 



Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries. I5S 

divine serviecj 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 

Sir John de Cobhara, 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 17,1. ^d. per annum. The chantry was to repair the chancel 
and parsonage house, bui 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 izj. tithe-rent charge per annum 
from Horton parish, whilst the vicar receives ^C^dd raj. 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 
^(,□50 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. V>n\^'^ '■^v 



J 



IS6 A History of Tithes. 



incumbents, obtained either by purchase or by 
family patronage. 

The appropriator gave the vicar the small tithe? because hC 
found them more difficult to collect than the great tithes. 

It is unreasonable to state that an nnraarried 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 hospiiality. The 
rectors or monastic bodies, who had the great tithes, kept the' 
chancel of the church in repair. And up to the present time, th« 
owners of the great or rectorial tithes, and not the owners of m 
other church endowmetit, are legally bound to keep the chancels ill 
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, 
in course of time the rectors kept the tithes and shifted ihi* 
responsibility on the shoulders of the parishioners, which led I 
church rates. They did the same as regards the portion for ihft 
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 ^ the bishops were ordered to keep th* 
churches in repair, as the whole tithes of the parish went 1 
them; but in Canute's laws of loiS, 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 restilf 
of t!ie Danish invasions, and a general destruction of properl; 
throughout the country, made the funds at the bishops' disposal 
insufficient for the purpose, and so ihe burden was thrown'' 
generally upon the inhabitants. But when the country increased' 
' S^e -p. «. 



Appropriation of Tithes to lifoiiasterifs. 157 

in riches and prosperity, tiie liability for the repairs of tlie cliancel 
ivas again, and is still, placed on the owners of the great or 
rectorial tithes. 

The following canon 4 is taken from the provincial consti- 
tutions of John Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, made in a 
provincial council in London, loth of October, 1342. 

"Whereas ecclesiastical men are entrusted with dispensing of 
tithes and other things belonging to the church, that the pocr by 
their prudent management may not be defrauded; )et the reli- 
gious of our province having churches appropriate, do so apply 
the fruits of them to their own use, as to give nothing in ciiarity to 
tiie poor parishioners, being reg f h h h 

■w/iom they are bound to do this m h g by wh I 

means such as owe tithes and ec 1 cal d b y 

indevoutj but invaders, destroye add hi 

of their own souls and theirs, and h d I f y h 

fore with the approbation of this sacred council, we orciain that 
the said religious, having ecclesiastical benefices appropriate, be 
compelled by the bishops every year to distribute to the poor 
paiishioners 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 

The inference to be drawn from this canon, and from the sub- 
sequent statute of 15 Richard 11. 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 tc- 
' Johnson's " Laws and Canons," ii. jfij^ 



A History of Tillies. 



L 



tained all the tithes to their own use. But the inference above 
generally applicable to all tithes. If not, what right had a pro- 
vincial synod to make, a canon, compelling appropriators who 
neglected the poor to distribute to the poor, under the severe 
penalty of sequestration, a portion of the appropriated property? 
and almost all this property, unquestionably, consisted of tithes. 

The vicar- perpetual of Henry IV.'s Act must not be con- 
founded with the later " perpetual curate," who by a recent Act 19 
now styled " vicar." The fornier is endowed with ihe small or 
vicarial tithes ; the latter is not so endowed. 

The most important parts of Henry IV.'s Act are, (i) per- 
manently endowing the vicar, which, as regards tithes, equalled 
one-third part ; and (2) giving the vicar as permanent a position 
in the parish as the rector.^ But the autocratic freehold tenui 
has been grossly abused. This abuse, within the past thirty year 
has much iiicreaseii, 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. 

' It is important to note (1) ihat Edgar's law gave the manorJBl priests a 
li^al right to one-third pail of Ihe tithes ; (z) that the bishops in apportioning 
Ihepermanentendovnnentof thevicar-perpetua], by4 Hen. IV., ch. xiL {1402), 
were guided by Edgar's Jaw in appropriating one-third part and selecting Ihe 
small tithes, to which, if insuflicicTit, they added a portion of the great tithes ( 
(3) that the vicnr, who previously held his position at the will of the patron, 
had by this Act obtained a freehold permanent position for life; (4I that 8,500 
vicars now beoeSced have been so circumstanced by Acts of Parliament. 




CHAPTER XLV. 



INFEVDATIONS -EXEMPTIONS PROM PAYMENT OF 
TITHES. 

Infeudations are the conveyances of the pepetual right of tithes 
10 la3'men. 

The Third Council of Lateran, held in a.d. iiSo, was the first 
to forbid infeudations. Such conveyances, although frequent on 
the Continent, were not so in England until the general disso- 
lution of monasteries. Very little of the lands, tenements, ami 
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 VIH. and Edward VI. 
The amount of confiscated property was about ^£'250,000 per 
annum. If this vast property had been placed under the 
management of Commissioners, it would realize an annual in- 
come at the present time, of eight and a half millions, quite 
sufficient to defray all the expenses which are now paid by the 
ratepayers for the maintenance of the po^r 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 pecrag^e. 



i6o A History of Tillies, 



The War of the Roses had swept away the ancient nobihty of 
England, and in theii places sprang up a crowd of poor hungry 
men who surrounded Henry VIII. and his children. Nothing 
could possibly turn out more opportune for them than the con- 
fiscation of the vast monastic properties which Parliament 
handed over to Henry VIII. and Edward VI. to do with them 
as they thought proper. What could possibly be better for these 
poor court sycophants ? We have only to open out the county 
histories of the country, and there we shall find very sad 
accounts of the manner in which the vast monastic estates had 
been given away to the ancestors of some of the aristocracy. 
Archbishops, bishops, and chapters had to surrender to the Crown 
numerous manors which had been given by Anglo-Saxon kings 
to their predecessors out of folcland which was the national pro- 
perty of the Anglo-Saxons. These manors were afterwards given 
away by the Crown to these poor hungry court favourites, and 
thus formed the tide-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 laj- 
owners of monastic lands could claim tithes from them. So, 
then, laymen who claimed tithes were called impropriators, be- 
cause they were improper persons to receive them. But the 
same may have been said of the lay-monks, nuns, military orders, 
etc., who had at one time been in the receipt of tithes. 

The total tithe-rent charge gross is £,A,osz,^^Z ; 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 abonl one-fourth of the tithes. To this must be added 



Exemption from Payment of Tithes. r6i 

the large estates which are tithe-free, and from whiuh enhanced 
rents are received. 

Exemption from Paying Tithes ey Religious Houses. 

All abbots, priors, and other heads of monasteries had ori- 
ginally paid tithes. But Pope Paschal II. exempted generally 
all the religiosi from tithes on lands which were under their own 
management. About a.d. ii6o. 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 
ma'iagement. The privilege did not extend to lands let to 
farmers, but only to those which they occupied before the 
Council of Lateran a.d. 1215, which confirmed the above ex- 
emptions. A fourth order — the Preraocstratensian — 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.' The Statute of 
Premunire was passed iri 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 
' Selden, " Hislory of Tilhes," pp. 40G, 407 ■, ri\\V\i»we, iftv 



1 62 A History of Tithes, 

aiding or assisting therein shall be put out of the king's pro- 
tection, their lands and goods forfeited to the king's use, and 
they shall be attached by their bodies to answer to the king 
and his council, or process praemunire facias shall be made out 
against them, as in any other cases of provisors." 

The lands of the four privileged orders which were thus 
exempted from paying tithes, are exempted up to the present 
day, because at the dissolution of the monasteries, the 31 
Henry VIII. c. xiii., provided that all lands held by the monas- 
teries, and exempted from tithes, should also be exempted when 
vested in the Crown, and the same Act extended the exemption 
to all those who should become possessors of such Crown pro- 
perty. There is also 2 Edward VI. c. xiii. This explains the 
fact that some of the present holders of monastic property pay 
no tithes ; some do ; and others are tithe-owners. 



CHAPTER XV. 



MONASTERIES. 



In giving a history of tithes, it is absolutely necessary to give 
a brief account of the monasteries and monastic property in 
England. 

Immediately after Augustine came to England, the age of build- 
ing monasteries commenced. Before his arrival there were about 
twenty-one monastic eslablishments in the island not of the Bene- 
dictine order. The first British monastery, properly so-called, 
was established at Giastonbtiry, 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 theu- 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 mvnachus, Greek pocnxd^^solitary. Nun, Latin 
nonna. The British monks and nuns married until the Bene- 
dictine rule was rigidly enforced by King Edgar and Archbishop 
Dunstan in the tenth century. The religious houses may be 
classified thus — cathedral churches, abbeys, and priories. There 
were four chief officers in the abbeys and priories — (1) the 
chamberiain, 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 ef.'^-^^.e.^ -, «a&. Vs^ 



164 -^ History of Tithes. 



the sacrista or sexton took charge of tiie buildings and church, 
and all the utensils, books, pictures, etc., in them. 

The Benedictine monks were originally laymen, working in 
a very praiseworthy manner with their hands to support them- 
flelves. Some were ordained as the needs of the monastery 
required, and although ordained, they were still monks, and 
resided within the walls of their convert. 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. Eetweea 
A.D. 85S 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 containei 
immense wealth. Tliis 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 privilege! 
granted by kings and nobles from time to time, which 
deposited for safety in these sanctuaries. A care fully- 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 scatiered 
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 sectilars and 
bringing the monks into the cathedral churches. In Wolsey's 
time the same ostensible reason could not be urged. But the 
revenues of a multiplicity of bishoprics were necessary to main- 
tain his pride and extravagant living, and to build palaces, which 
he presented to an ungrateful king. 

The leading church ideas of King Edgar during hU ccv^ 
were, (i) to rebuild the monaateiVes ■wVmjXv "Skj 'wi ^.vK!«■^ '^^'^ 



{i) to drive the mamed clergy out of the convents, replacing 
them by monks. Dunstan, Alhelwold of Winchester, and 
Oswald of Worcester (afterwards of York), were the king's 
chief agents in carrying out his schemes. It does not appear 
that any of the other bishops had taken an active share in the 
work. Before King Edgar's reign, the monasteries were filled 
with secular clergymen, who did duty outside their monasteries. 

The English monks passed through three reformations : (i) 
At the Council of Cloveshoe, a.d. 747, where no reference was 
made to Benedict's rule, although it had been framed in 529 and 
approved of by the Pope in 595. (a) At the Council of Win- 
chester, A D. 965, where Benedict's rule was prominently set forth 
for general adoption. The monks were henceforth to confine 
themselves to their cloisters, to have no parochial cure of souls, 
and lo adopt celibacy. These facts alone prove that the discip- 
line of the Roman Church on the Continent, was imported into 
the English Church long before the Norraan 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 Hue of erroneous argument is to show that the endowments 
of tlie Church of England were given to her when her doctrines 
were different from those of the Church of Rome. The system of 
doctrinal development which was going on in the Roman Church, 
on the Continent, was introduced and adopted in the Church of 
England by her hierarchy and priests. (3) At the Council of 
London, a.d. 1075, where monks were enjoined to adhere more 
strictly to the rule of Benedict, 

As I have stated above, before King Edgar's reign the monas- 
teries were convents of secular manied clergy, whose chlldrea 
kept up a monopoly of aW ft\t va\ii3.\i\tt a.^'jw^toients 



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 lat^e debt of gratitude. TJiey were better 
educated than the secular clergy ; were more refined, and were 
therefore better able to raise the standard of civiUzation in the 
country. That is what the married clergy could not then have 
done. The monasteries were the only schools where the children 
of the kings, nobility and gentry could be educated. King 
Edward the Confessor received his early training in the monas- 
tery of Ely. Their schools formed models for our most ancient 
universities. The monasteries were like so many burning torches 
in the midst of darkness and ignorance, and were the only 
sources which could then supply men intellectually capable of 
occupying episcopal positions. Some of the noblest benefactors 
to the Church were bishops taken from the cloisters. 

The Norman Conquest. 

At the time of the Conquest, there were in England about 130 
monasteries and cathedral churches, possessing about one-twelfth 
of the land. There were then nineteen bishoprics in England 
and Wales exclusive of the Isle of Man. Most of the Saxon 
bishops and abbots were replaced by Nonnans. The chang; 
was good. Some writers censure the Norman rulers for the 
change. But a belter 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 TeUgvou^ \\.Q\i.'SRa \i\ Kw^'^.-'^a.-t.'^'^ 



1 68 A History of Tithes. 



times, was held in common. But the Norman bishops changed 
this arrangement in the cathedral churches. They divided the 
property and assigned to the canons what revenues they thought 
fit, and kept the rest of the church lands for their own personal 
use. These bishops had also initiated another innovation in 
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, ai 
quite separate from the common fund, of which the four print 
pal officers had also their shares. Some of the Norman bishops 
purchased landed estates out of their own episcopal revenues, 
which they divided into prebends, and endowed prebendaries 
with them ; other bishops divided some of the episcopal estates 
into prebends. Landed estates were also given by private donors 
which formed new prebendal endowments. These kind of en- 
dowments ceased about the thirteenth century. By the Cathedral 
Act of 1840, all the separate estates, amounting to about ^60,1 
per annum, were vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for 
the Common Fund, 

At the time of the Conquest, ihe nineteen cathedral churches 
were composed of secular canons, except two, viz., Winchester 
and \\'orcester, wliich were composed of Benedictine monks. 
These two were subsequently increased to eight, viz., Camer- 
bury, Durham, Carlisle, Ely, Norwich, and Rochester, and so 
coniinued 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 Conquett, indicates 
that the seculars more than held their own in face of the power- 
fal patronage and protechon ol ^tv% ^A^m a.^d Archbisfaop' 



Monasteries. 169 


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 iis last 
abbots; Gloucester, by its abbots; Rochester, by Bisbop Gun- 
dulf, a monk; Bishop Wacelin, in 1070, commenced to rebuild 
Winchester, and William of Wickham finished it ; Bishop Wol- 
stan laid the foundation of Worcester in 1084, etc. 

The following table of monasteries, taken from Bishop Tan- 
ner's "Notiiia Monaslica," published in 1695, will give an idea 
of the powerful impetus which the Norman Conquest had given 
to their erection in this country. 




1 
1 


■I 
1 


i 
1 


1 


1 


1 


•i 


.1 


.1 
1 
3 


i 


il 


1 


William I 

William 11 


16 
7 
30 
'S 

6 

7 

4 

3 
3 

::: 


6 

40 

'5 
6 


6 

4 
5 

6 


35 

7 
9 
3 


4 
3 

9 
17 

4 
6 
S 


6 


14 
9 
13 

\ 


6 

8 

4 


4 

6 


:■ 


"■'::. 


42 

104 

,S 

[8 
36 

32 
19 

27 

"5 

1 










Heniylll 


Edward II 

Edward III 

Richard II 

Henry IV 

Henry V 

Henry VI 




ii'i 


144 


26 1 S6 1 52 1 12 




21 


20 


3 i I 




To 531, add 130 before the Concvviesf, \.Q\a\, fet-i.. 1 




^B 


■■ 


^H 




W^ 


^H 


^H 




^H 


i^ 


^H 


^^^^^H 



^P »7t 



A History of Tithes. 



Alien Monasteries. 
The governing bodies of the foreign or alien monasteries, W 
which landed estates, tenements, tithes, churches, etc., in Engi 
land were granted, had built priories in convenient parts 
England on their manors, and sent monks from their own raonas 
teries to occupy them. The principal duties which these montd 
performed, were to collect the revenues from the properties, and' 
transmit the money to the heads of the foreign monasteries, 
fact they were their resident agents in this country. It is stated ■ 
that not less than ^^2,000 a year, a sum equal to ;^6o,ooo 
the present time, was forwarded, in the reign of Edward III., 
Cluny, in France, by the twenty-six Cluniac priories in England 
King Edward I., in his wars with France, was the first to put i 
Stop to the transmission of money from the alien priories in 
England to the heads of the foreign monasteries in France. They 
were dissolved by Henry V. and Henry VI. 

Owing to the pomp and luxuries of the hierarchy and monastic 
bodies, a religious revolutionary wave passed over this country 
in the thirteenth century. The main indications were, (i) ihS) 
Lateran Council in 1215; (2) the appearance in England in i3X% 
of the Dominican, and in 1224 of the Franciscan preaching, 
friars; {3) the Mortmain Act of 1279- The religious mania for 
i)uilding and richly endowing monasteries commenced to declintf 
in Edward I.'s reign. The Franciscan order was founded in A. 
i2o8, and the Dominican in 1215. Pope Innocent IIL approv 
of both orders in 1215. The ruling idea of these mendics 
friars was the elevation of poverty to a virtue ; but, strange ( 
say, that before they were in existence many years they bees 
the richest orders in Christendom, Wherever they were locate 
they (became the strongest supvotVew ol ftvt Y^iiaK7j,a.ad for Vm 



Monasteries. 171 



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 sernnons 
and pamphlets, the friars strongly advised the people to pay no 
tithes to the parsons ; that tithes were but alms, and may be 
given to any charitable use, and that the parsons had no paro- 
chial rights to them. The result was that the people gave the 
tithes to the friars, both personal and predial, as alms. The 
parish priests seriously felt the diminution of their revenues. 
Convocation, of course, moved vigorojsly in the matter. "^ 

The begging friars knew how to draw water to their own 
fountains, and succeeded well. But " Holy Church " proved 
too powerful for them. They \cere pronounced kirdiis 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 VVickliffe, 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 
' Selden, p. 16&. 



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.' Oxford and Cambridge Universities petitioned Pariia- 
ment against this Act. Oxford took the lead and strongly 
protested against all church reforms and Improvements originat- 
ing within the Church (which our leading statesmen then advo- 
cated) by means of a better and an equal distribution of church 
revenues. Oxford urged in 1840 that a large State grant should 
be made to the Church in order to supply the existing deficiencies 
of religious instruction. This was simply an impertinent applica- 
tion for State aid when the revenues of the Church were wasted 
in a disgraceful manner by her own officers. The twenty-six 
archbishops and bishops appointed before 1836, had received five 
and a half millions of money from their tpheopal revenues alone. 
Counsel were actually engageii, 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 1S36 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 ihe 
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 properly of the Church, besides elicit- 
'"£ .;£4.ooo,ooo from private sources in the shape of contribu- 




' J and ^NicX., t. ti™. 



J 



Monasteries. 173 

tions, making a total of ^23,000,000, which represents an annual 
income of ;^69o,ooo," ^ 

In the 43rd Report (1891) of the Commissioners, the foUowing 
slatement 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 annua! 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 ;£z3, 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^i64,34o per annum in perpetuity, equi- 
valent to a permanent increase of endowment of say ^4,930,000, 
apart from a sum of about ;^36,ooo per annum, contributed by 
benefactors to meet the Commissioners' grants for curates in 
mining districts. Thus the total increase in the incomes of bene- 
fices made by the Commissioners or resulting from the benefactions 
accepted, and met by them, exceeds ;^97 1,700 per annum, and 
may be taken to represent a capital sum of about ^29,179,000."^ 

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. 

' " Hansard's Debates," House of Commons, 31st March, i8Sz. 
• 43rd Report oi the EcdesimtJcal Commissioners (,i8^v\,-%, -ri- 



i;4 



A History of Tithes. 



There were also grave and serious abuses in the Church ii 
Wickliffe's days. He was as hostile to the Pope's supremacy a; 
he was to the compulsory payment of tithes. He held that king- 
were superior to popes, and therefore that appeals from spiritua 
to temporal tribunals were just, rightj 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 supremacj 
of the popes. We, hving 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 11. and his Parliament, the practice 
of compelling people to pay tithes.^ 

If we examine the charters which appropriated tithes to monas- 
teries, we shall 6nd 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 ajid perpetual alms. Robert 
de Crevequer, founder of Leeds Abbey about 1137, gave the 
canons there in free and perpetual alms, all the churches 00 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 Bishra 



"V\Vi\Ol^ q!T\\\vC= 



Monasteries. 1 7 5 



of Chichester, to be held in fret, pure, and perpelual alms. The 
chapter received ;^437 a year tithe-rent charge; vicar, £,\(>-i. 
Wilham de Auberville, in 1192, gave to the priory of West Lang- 
don the rectories of Oxney and of St. Mary's, Liddon, in pure and 
perpetual alms.'- I have given here only a few examples to show 
how the tiihes 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 
Wicklifle gave some additional inrormation, 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 tiiat 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 thera 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, 

' See Hasted's " Uistoiy of Kenl," ed, 177S, under ihe aboie ^;«=.:iM;?.- 



F 



i 



176 A History of Tithes, 

and relieved the poor and repaired the church out of alms and 
contributions of the parishioners. Tliese 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 ihis misappro- 
priation commenced, and the inability of the poor to obtain redress. 
The following extract, taken from one of the charters granting 
tithes to monasteries, indicates how tithes were given : — 

Charter of Earl Randolph Gernons of Chester to the 
Monastery of Chester. 

" Universitati vestrce notum facio me dedisse in elemostna HM 
perpetuum Deo et S. Mariae ecclesiae S. Werburgse et Kudulpho | 
abbati et conventui dictje ecclesise pro salute anima; Hugonis 
comitis, prKdictffi ecclesiffi fundatoris ac pro salute anima; Ran- 
dulphi comitis palris mei, et antecessorum meorum, et pro salute , 
anim% meEe, et ChristianorLim omnium, omnem decimam integritdH 
et plenari^ omnium reddituum meorum civitatis Cestriae," etc' I 

This earl died in jv.d. 1153. Earl Hugh Lupus, the refoiinder, 
who died in iioi, granted many manors, churches, and tithes, as 
alms in perpetuity. All the early parochial records are lost, and 
therefore in dealing with the old parishes we are at a great dis- 
advantage, It is not so with the monasteries. The monastic 
bodies, free from Danish invasions, had carefully preserved all 
their charters of grants, because they had often to produce their 
title deeds when claims were made by others to some of the pro- 
perty which they possessed, and also wlien some of iheir jiro- 
perty had been lost or taken from them by force or by kings. 
It was not so with regard to lands and tithes held by parochial 
incumbents. 

' " MoixiiVicoTi," vol. i, J 




CHAPTER XVI. 

THE DISSOLUTION OF MONASTERIES. 

What precedents had Henry VIII. to guide him in d 
the monasteries ? 

(i) 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 ia 
1361. The most valuable of them were naturalized, and thus 
became free from Che yoke of any foreign mor>astery, and could 
elect their own priors. 

(4} Richard II. bestowed on the Carthusians several of the 
smaller alien priories which Edward III. had seized, 

(5) In the reign of Henry iV. the House of Commons sug- 
gested, in 1404, that the clergy, including the religioit, should be 
deprived of all their temporalities, in order to furnish funds for 
the defence of the kingdom and for the maintenance of a krge 
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 ind\.ca.\.'i 'Otvfi 'g.Q-«\-wfe 



A History of Til/u-i 



iinpo])u]arity 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 i3sr (25 Edward III, c. vi.), ana 
of 1353 (27 Edward III.), the Statute of Premunire in 1393, are 
all so many previous illustrations of the growing hostile feeling 
of Parliament towards the Church, monastic establishments, and 
the pope of Rome. 

(6) In the reign of Henry V, another attack vvas 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 Ihree 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 fund^ to build and endow his 
college— Cardinal College, now Christ Church, Oxford — the 
richest in that University. 

These are instructive and interesting facts. Large monastic en- 
dowments were devoted to building and richly endowing colleges 
and schools for the sons of the wealthy men of the country. 
In the Appendices will be found a complete account of the gross 
amounts of tiihe-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 
frotn the vicarial glebe lands, which these colleges and schoc 
also received, but I have not the information. But I supl 




The Dissolution of MonasUries. 179 

the large patronage they have al 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 dis- 
solving the monasteries. I shall now state his own action in the 

In 1533 {24 Henry VIH. c. xii.) the Statute for the Restraint 
of Api>eals to Home 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 
'535 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. Tti.^v:i.v 



A History of Tithes. 



^ 



sequent conduct of the Kitig and his ministers was guided more 
by political expediency tlian 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 tha 
minds of the people against them. A Royal Commission was 
issued in t535 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 ;^2oo per annum, and transferred to the King all the monas- 
teries, priories, and other religious houses, all the sites, circuits, 
churches, chapels, advowsons, patronage, manors, granges, lands, 
hereditaments, tithes, pensions, annuities, rights, etc., which 
belonged to such monasteries; and that "The king shall have 
them in as large and ample a manner as the governors of those 
houses possessed them. Tiiat 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 lake the 
above property from the king shall have, hold, and enjoy the 
same in like manner, form, and condilUm as before the Ad oj 
Hisso/ulioi'" Those who Wok the property were ihereTore sub- 



ject to- the same limitations, privileges, and burdens as the 
nligidsi 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 ;^ioo,ooq. He gave small pensions 
to some abbots, priors, and monks; others he transferred to 
larger monasteries. The houses were stripped of their lead, bells, 
glass, and materials, which were sold to the neigbouring gentry. 

The conditions upon which all the vast monastic property was 
given by Parhament 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 CQ\j.t\.\e."K. 'M\\'ti.-»a>».- 



i 



182 A History of Tithes. 

ites, and also to exchange impropriated tithes for lands of equal 
value belonging to episcopal and capitular corporations. These 
exchanges were very numerous in the reigns of Edward and 
Elizabeth, Hasted, in his " History of Kent," makes the follow- 
ing remark, "Cranmer observing that his stately palaces excited 
the envy of the courtiers, passed them away with their estates to 
the King," For example, Otford Palace and its beautiful parks. 
Archbishop VVarham 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 VHI, Edward VI. granted the Little Park of 
Otford on lease to Sir Henry Sidney. Elizabeth granted Sergeants 
Otford and the Little Park on lease to Sir Robert Sidney. James 
I. granted the palace and Greater Park to Sir Thomas Smith. 
Edward VI. granted the parsonage and advowson of Shoreham 
with the Chapel of Otford to Sir Anthony Denny, who exchanged 
them with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for the advow- 
son of Cheshunt in Herts. The Chapter had £,Tit, lithe rent 
charge from Otford; there was no vicar; and £,^a(t tos. front 
Shoreham; total j/;i,so8 i6s. M 

Hasted says of Knole manor and manor house : " CranoMC 
observing miirmurings among the hungry courtiers of the areh- 
bishop's palaces, compounded with Henry VHI. to give up the 
best and richest manors ; therefore, in 1538, Cranmer gave 10 
the King the manors of Otford, Wrotham, Bexley, Northfletc, 
Maidstone, Knole, Sergeants Otford, Sevenokc, Shoreham, 
Chevening, Panters, and Brylains, 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 knovr d 
courtiers and favonritica lo wY\om \\\ese manors were granted, f 



I 



An Act was passed, i Elizabeth c xix., which authorized the 
Queen to talte 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 freei-V 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 bfe, 
because no charges of immorality could have been preferred 
against them. In 153G-7, there were but three surrenders. In 
1537-8 there were twenty-four. The Commissioners induced 
those who surrendered to persuade others to follow their example, 
for it was the King's policy to let the public see that the surrenders 
were voluntarily made. When persuasion failed, the Com- 
missioners used threats, and so we read that the monks of the 
Charterhouse were committed like common feVoTs \.q ■^'t^s^y^^-. 



A History of Tithes. 



where five of them died, and five more were on the point of death 
from the cruel and barbarous treatment they received within the 
walls of that prison. But the most revolting act of pure despotism 
on the part of Henry VIII. was the execution of Whiting, abbot 
of Glastonbury, Coke, abbot of Reading, and Beche, abbot of 
St. John's, Colchester. These despotic acts drove terror into 
those who had not yet surrendered. In 153S-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 abbej^s," 
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 tim& 
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 wliich appear in the Act which suppressed 
the smaller monasteries in 1535, 

In order to pass the above Acts, some of the nobility were pro- 
mised estates by free gifts from the King, others obtained them 
by easy purchase. The members of the House of Commons were 
also promised large shares, and of course Henry's agents dangled 
before the people : " No more subsidies, no fifteenths, no loans, no 
common aids," as the wealth of the dissolved monasteries was 
considered ample to maintain an army of 40,000 men, and so all 
taxation may in future be dispensed with ! The Church was also 
to be conciliated. There were to be twenty-one bishoprics create^ 
mth cathedrals, deana, and chapters all endowed out of the pn 



petty. This number was, however, reduced to six. Westminster 
existed oniy 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 collegesj no hospitals, and 2,347 chantries, with all their 
properties, were handed over to the King by i Edward VI, c. xiv., 
the preamble of which runs thus : " To convert to good and godly 
uses the chantries, or in erecting grammar schools to the educa- 
tion of youth in virtue and godliness, and in further augmenting 
of universities and better provision for the poor and needy." This 
provision for the use of the chantry estates lamentably failed. 
Neither the universities nor the poor were benefited. Like the 
monastic estates, the hungry and avaricious courtiers who sur- 
rounded the young king, had received the property for their own 
personal use. 

The capital value of all the property handed over to Henry 
VIII., Edward VI. and Elizabeth would equal j^2oo,c!oo,ooo 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." 



I 



CHAPTER XVII. 

TITHES AV 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 aoj. a year rental should 
give to God and the Church, \d. for every Sunday or Apostle's 
day, the vigil of which was a fast. If he paid only loi. a year 
rental, he was to give \d. This amounted in the former case to 
21. dd. in the pound, and is. yi. in the latter, per annum. Thtse 
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. Bishog^ 
Roger took up the subject immediately after his consecration i 
Bishop of London. The following are the facts of the case :- 

(i) In A.D. 1228, in the reign of Henry HI., Bishop Ro( 
surnamed Niger, or Le Noir, of Ixindon, made a constitution e 
modus, that every occupier of a house should oifer as his tithe b 
parish church, \d. for aoy. a year rental, and 1^. for loJ, a 
year rental, for every Sunday and every Apostle's day, whereof 
the evening was fasted. There were fifty-two Sundays and eight 
Apostks' days in the yeoLt thw -Ke^e fasted. Two shillings 1 



' ""^ 



Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 187 

sixpence a year was then the amount of the modus dedmandi 
which the former occupier had to pay, and one shilling and three 
pence a year the latter. The amounts would be less when any 
of the Apostles' days fell upon Sundays. 

The above particulars appear in the Records in the Town 
Clerk's office, London. It is a well-known point in law that a 
house qu& 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 lithe-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 zj. 6rf. 
to 3x. 51/. 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 
lo the payment of the extra 11^. The Arciibishop appealed to 
the Pope as to the soundness of his interpretation, and as a matter 
of course, Pope Innocent VII., in 1403, confirmed the interpre- 
tation. But the Pope's bull did not pacify the citizens of London. 
They considered the additional iid. a cheat— a fraud. Besides, 
the Pope's bull could not compel tUcitv 1q 'g's.-^ 'i^e. ■i.&&\v\'^^'^ 



1 



1 88 A History of Tithes. 



n 1453, however, it appears, by a record in the Town 
Clerk's office,^ that Archbishop Arundel's order is declared by 
the Common Council to be "destructory rather than declaratory,- 
and that it was obtained surreptidously and deceptiously, without 
assent on the part of the citizens, or summoning them." I should 
imagine that the Church, with its terrible ecclesiastical courtx 
made them pay the ^s. $d., for we find no change in the payment 
""til 1535, when the whole subject was considered by the Privy 
Council, who made an order for the payment of ts. gii. in iha 
pound. Therefore in the same year an Act was passed,* authoria-' 
ing the citizens of London to pay their tithes at the rate of 2s. 9/. 
in the pound. Ten years later another Act was passed,' " That 
the citizens and inhabitants of the City of London and Liberties 
of the same shall yearly, without fraud or covin, for ever pay th^f 
tithes to the parsons, vicars, and curates of the said City, and theif 
successors for the time being, after the following rate : For every 
loj. rent by the year of all houses, shops, warehouses, cellan), 
tables, etc., within the City and Liberty, i6^d.; and for every ao*. 
rent by the year, is. gJ. ; and so above the rent of 201. by the 
year, ascending from 10s. to las., 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 ia 
1670,* for the belter settlement of the maintenance of the parsons^ 
vicars and curates in the parishes of the city of London burnt by 
ihe 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 Iher^ 
in the rebuilding of the same, by taking away some houses, a 

' Letter Book K., 31 Henry VI. ' 27 Henry VIII. c 

• 37 Hen.y VIII. c. lii. 

• 21 & 23 C\iMVes VI., c Rv. 




ing the foundations of many, and the new erecting of others, so 
disordered, that in case they should not for the time to come be 
reduced to a certainty, many contrivances and suits of law might 
arise, be it enacted that the annual certain tithes of every parish 
in the City of London and its Liberties, whose churches have been 
demolished or in part consumed by the late fire, be paid accord- 
ing to the sum opposite each." 

Sec, 3, " Which respective sums of money to be paid in heu of 
tithes within the said respective parishes, and assessed as here- 
inafter is directed, shall be and continue to be esteemed, deemed 
and taken to all intents and purposes, to be the respective annual 
maintenance (over and above glebes and perquisites, gifts and 
bequests to the respective parson, vicar and curate of any parish 
for the time being, or to their successors respectively, or to others 
for their use) of the said respective parsons, vicars and curates, 
who shall be legally instituted, inducted and admitted in the 
respective parishes." 

In subsequent sections assessments were ordered to be made 
before the Z4th July, 1671, upon all houses, shops, warehouses, 
cellars, and other hereditamenls, except parsonage and vicarage 
houses. 

Three transcripts were to be made by the assessors, containing 
the respective sums to be payable out of all the premises within 
each parish ; one was for the Lord Mayor, the second for the 
Bishop of London's registry, and the third was to remain in the 
vestry. The payments were to be made in four quarterly pay- 

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 GTta.^. 'i^'A, ct ^-^-^ 



I go -^ History of Tithes. 

two or more of the barons of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer 
to issue warrants of distress. 

The payments made by 2z & 23 Car. II. c. xv, {1670} were 
increased by 44 George III. c. Ixx.xix. (1804). 

As the City and Liberties of London are converted into offices, 
banks, warehouses, etc., and are almost depopulated, it is im- 
portant and instructive to give the names of the parishes which 
appear in the Fire Act of 1670, with the respective annual sums 
allowed in 1670 and the modilied annual sums allowed in 1804. 
The first sum is for 1670, the second for 1804, and the third 
shows net income in i8go, with population from Clergy List, 1891. 

H = house. AJ).16T0. iD. 1B04. "t^^lJJ" Pop. 

£ '. £ '■ d. £ 

1, AH Hallows, Lombard Siraet ... 100 o 200 o o • 

3. S. Barlholomew, Exchange ... 100 o 200 00 * 

3. S. Bridget, alias Brides ... 120 o 200 00 " 

4. S. Bennet Fink 100 o aoo o o * 

5. S. Michael, Crooked Lane ... 100 o aoo o o • 

6. S. Dionia Backchurch 120 o 200 o o * 

7. S, Dunstan-in-the-East ... acxJ o 333 ^ 8 536 

8. S. James', Garlickhithe ... 100 o 200 o o * 

9. S. Michael, CornhiU 140 o 333 6 8now93S ii 227, 

10. S. Michael Basaishaw 132 11 220 18 4 250 

11. a. Mary, Aldermanbury ... 150 O 250 o O 250 l6ft 

12. S. Marlin, Ludgatc l6a o 266 13 4 " 

13. S. Peter, Cornliill no o 200 o o 8,150 B 19& 

14. S. Stephen, Coleman Street ... Iio o 200 o o 750 i,8oO 

15. S. Sepuiehre 200 o 333 ^ 8 sj6H4.570 

16. All Hallows, Bread Street, and 

S, John Evaoeelisi I40 o 233 6 8 * 

17. All Hallows the Great, and All 

Hallows the Less 20o o 333 & 8 618 

l3. S. Albans, Wood Street, and 

S. Olaves, Silver Street ... i;o o 2Sj 6 8 6S0 
19. S. Aiuie and Agnes, and S< 

JoliD Zachary 140 o 233 6 8 400 II 

30. 5. Auguslin wid S. Faith ... \-\i o 2S6 13 4 638 

















^^ 


Tithes in the City ai 


d Liberties of London. 


191 




£ 


.. 


£ 


I. 


ii. 


£ 


Pop. 


21. S. Andrew Wirdrobe, and S, 
















Anne, Elackfriars 


140 





m 


6 


S 


320 H 


,iiS 


22. St. AntholiD and St. John Bap- 
































23. S. Bennet, Graceehurch, and S. 
















Leonard, Eastcheap 


140 





233 


6 


S 






24. S. Eennet, Paul's Wharf, and 
















S. Peter's, Paul's Wharf ... 


100 





200 


□ 









25. Christ Church, Newgale Street, 
















and S. Leonard, Foster Lane 


200 





333 


6 


8 


461 H 


,386 


26. S. Edmund the IGng and S. 
















Nicholas Aeons 


iSo 





300 








MS" 1 


222 


27. S. George, Botolph Lane, and 
















S. Botolph, Billingsgate ... 


iSo 





300 








3S0H 


'95 


28. S.Lawrence,Jewiy,and S. Mag- 
















dalen. Milk Street 


120 


□ 


200 








683 


216 


39. S. Margaret, Lothbury, /lOO ; 
















and S. Christopher ^120 ... 


220 


Q 


365 


■3 


4 






30. S. Magnus and S. Margaret, 
















New Fish Street 


170 




283 


6 


8 






31. S. Michael Royal and S. Martin 
















Vintry 


140 





233 


6 


S 


235 


203 


32. S. Mallhew, Friday Street, and 
















S. Peter, Weslcheap 


ISO 





250 








• 




33. S. Margaret Pattens, and S, 
















Gabriel, Fenchurch 


120 





200 





on 


WS30 H 


1 78 


34. S. Mary-at-Hill and S. Andrew 
















Hubbard 


200 





333 


5 


8 


400 il 


295 


35. S- Mary Woohioth, and S. Mary 
















Woolchurch 


160 




266 


'3 


4n 


WSOO H 


3'9 


36. S. Clement, Eastcbeap, and S. 
















ManinOrgar 


140 





233 


6 


8 


350 1 


23S 


37. S. Mary Abchurch, and S. Law- 
















rence Pountaey 


120 





200 








590 H 


236 


38. S. Mary, Aldermary, and S. 
















Thomas the Apostle 


150 





250 












39. S. Mary-le-Bow ; S. Pancras, 
















Soper Lane, and All Hallows, 
















Honey Lane 


20O 





333 


6 


8 


* 




40. S. Mildred, Poultry, and S. 
















Mary Colechutch 


170 


° 


18^ 


h 


■i 




^ 




^1 






1 




^^1 


^^^H 



r 







^^ 


^ 


192 A History 


qf Tithes. 








£ s. £ s. d. 


L 


Pop. 


41, S. Michael, Wood Slreet, and S. 








Mary Slaining 


100 20O 


255 


i;i 


42. S. Mildred, Etead Slreet, and 








S. Margaret Moysea 


130 2l6 13 4 


2S0 


76 


43- S. Michael, Queenhilhe, and 








Trinity 


160 266 13 4 






44. S. Mary Magdalene, Old Fish 






J 


Street, and S. Gr^oty by S. 






I 


Paul 






■ 


45. S. Mary Somerset, and S. Mary 






■ 


Mounthaw 


110 200 




■ 


46. S. Nicholas Cole Abbey, and S. 






■ 


Nicholas, Olave 


130 216 13 4 




1 


47. S. Olave, Old Jewry, and S. 








Martin Pomroy 


120 300 






4S. S. Stephen, Walbrook, and S. 








Eenet Sherehog 


100 200 


774 H 


127 


49. S. Swithiii and S, Mary, Bot- 








haw 


140 233 6 8 


4S> 


243 


50. S. Vedasl. Foster Lane, and S. 








Michael-le-Queme 


160 266 IJ 4 






Total ...£n 


.64 .,^.2,240 .8 4^1 


,702 14,024 
out of the 86 


' These parishes are united to other parishes. 41 parishes 


are united thus— 








(i) Numbers I, 6, and 23=4 parishes, are united under one 


rector. 


wfaoae 


net aggregate annual income=;iaoo ; 


otal population, 48 1. 






(2) Numbers 1, 29, 40, and 47 = 7 ditto ; rector's ditto=^I,o6o and bouse; 


population, 661. 










pop.. 


1..63. 


(4) Number 4 and S. Peter-le-Poer= 


2 ditto; rector's ditto =^ 


1.000; 


pop., 


(S) Numbers 5 antl 30=3 ditto ; rec 


Or'sdillQ=jfs82and house; pop 


.43a- 


(6) Numbers 8 and 43=3 ditto ; rec 


tor's dilto=;f68o H ; pop., 474 




(7) Nnmber^ 12 and 44=3 ditto ; r 


ctor's ditlo=ji568 ; pop. 


1,100. 




1 (8) Numbers 16 and 39=5 ditto ; r 


Ctor'aditlo=;£8io; pop. 


272. 


M 


H {9) Numbers z2 and 3S— 4 ditto ; r 


ctor's ditto =^840 H ; pop., 1S5. ^1 


H (10) Numbers 24, 45 and 46=6 ditto ; rector's ditlo=^66o and t 


^m 


■ pop.. 397. 






■ 


m. (11) Numbers 32 and so=4 ditto ; rectors ditto =jC6oo H } pop., 36 


4 




= £8,050=7.163 populntkin. 


1 






^H 



Tithes in the City and Liberties of London. 193 

S. Peter-le-Poer and Bridewell included above are not ia the Fire Acta. 

The tolal incQines of ihe 37 incumbents from the 86 Fire parishes were in 
1893,^21,852; aggregate population, 12,00a 

By the revised Fire Act of 1804, j^l2,!4l of the ;£22,8S2, comes from the 
Fire rates paid by the ratepayers of these parishes; the balance, jflQ,6lI, 
comes from ground-rents and house-rents of properties which belong to the 
incumbents of the respective parishes. 

The average nbt annual income of each of the 3; incumbents was, in 1890, 
^£642, for an average population of 572, or £\ 2s, per head, including children. 

{a) a, Michael, Cornhill, has over j£'7oo a year from house rentals ; |^) the 
present rector of B. 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 Flee Act; i.t., ^£2,400 a year for 196 
parishioners including children. On next avoidance the .£^2,200 will be 
divided into five shares ; he gels one ; and four other benefices get £^40 each. 
His income will then be ,£440+^200 by Fire Act=/640, [c] The rector of 
S. Edmund the King and S. Nicholas Aeons has a net income of ^£1,150, for 
322 parishioners ; vii., ^£300 by Fire Act and /'Sjo from gronnd-renta and 
interest on^iS.ooo, the price of a. house sold belonging to the benefice [see 
a6th Report, p. 86, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners]. 

With respect to other parishes in the City and Liberties of 
London which are not included in the Fire Act, the incumbents 
received the tithes specified in the Acts 27 Henry VIII., c. xxi. 
and 37 Henry VIIL c. xii., viz., 2s. gif. 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. {[) 
the sujiport of the clergy ; (2) the relief of the poor ; and (3) the 
repairs of the church. Here is the tripartite division. ^ By the 
London {City)Tithes Act, 37, 28 Vict. c. cclxviii. (1864), annual 
fixed sums are paid in heu of tithes, but subject to a revision 
on the first avoidance of the benefice that happens after the 
e.tpiration of a period of 28 years from the passing of the AcL 



' Report of the Special Committee in relation to tithes, submitted t 
Court of Common Council, May, 1812, City Records. 




These are the benefices : — 

S. Andrew Undershafl ... Fixed si 

^. Katherine Colman 

S.OWe, Hart Street 

All Hallows, London Wall ... 

All HalloH,'s, Barking 

S. Elhelburgi 



Sec. 17 of this Act made legal the prospective agreements 
between the incumbent and vestry as regards the _fixdi^ annual 
turns in lieu of tithes, viz. :^ 



S. Alphege, London Wall, — 

as appeared in London Gazetlr, 31 Aug., 1869 ... 
St. Martin Oulwich, Threadneedle Hlreel.— 

as appeared in ioHi/fH GuMlIt, 24 Feb., 1S71... 
St. Peter-le-Poer, Brood Street,— 

as appeared in LondoH Cazclte, 2J Sept., 1864 



1 



By Sec. 18, A/i HaUmvs Staining, Mark Lane. Population, 

Agreement published in the London Gatttlt, ai March, 1865, 
Tithes commuted for fixed annual sum of ^£"1,600. Out of the 

proceeds of this tithe-rate, two new churches — All Hallows, 
Bromley, and S. Anthony, Stepney — have been built, and their 
vicars endowed each with ^500 per annum, and the balance 
is accumulating for the erection of a third church and the endow- 
ment of its vicar. 

The tithes of the following parishes have been commuted t 
local Acts. 




S. Andrew, Holbom. 4 George IV. c. cxviii. Fixed annua] nel aum 700 
S. Giles, CrippIegLite. 7 George IV. c. liv. ,, „ ... r,SoQ' 

S. Botolph wiihout, Bishopsgate. 6 George IV. c. clxKvi. „ ... 2,500' 

The rector of S. Giles-in-the-Fielda has a charge of ^300 net 
a year on next avoidance of S. Botolph without, Bishopsgate. 

Under the London (City) Tithes Act, 1879, portions of the 
sums payable as above have been redeemed, the consideration 
being such sum as will, if invested in 3 per cent, consols,, pro- 
duce an annual sum equal as near as may be to the annual 
amount of such rent-charge. The consideration is paid to the 
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who pay the dividends on the stock 
to the incumbents. 

It is important to give seriatim some further particulars about 
the above benefices. 

(1) Of the ;^2,50o of S. Andrnv Undershaft, w. S. Mary-at- 
Axe, eight parishes receive in the aggregate ^500 a year.^ 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, sio; popula- 
tion, 315. 

(2) The fixed tithe of S. Catherine Colman is ^1,550, out of 
which six parishes at Bethna! Green receive in the aggregate 
^400, S. Thomas Charterhouse ^150, the rectors of S. Gi!es-in- 
the-Fields ;^ioo, and S. Mary, VVhitechapel, £,^oa per annum.* 
Bishop of London, patron ; rector. Bishop Wilkinson ; income, 



' .Subject to revision every ten years. In 1890 the value=/"l, 100 

' Revised every ten years. In 1890 the value=,Cl.500 per annum. 
» See Orders in Council, dated 8th August, iSSJ, and 8lh June, 1854. 
* Ibid., 20th May, 1847 ; 7tb May, (877 ; and Jlti Sai«uj.vi, ■Ci'yi.. 



igS A History of Tillies. 



sCh5°° psi^ annum, including ^i, loo a year froKi rentals. Churcli 
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 t 
London sticks fast to his own j£ 10,000 a year, and gives nothing 
to his suffragans from this immense income. 

(3) S. Oiave, Hart Street, w. All Hallows Staining. Rector's 
gross income, ^2,050,1 of which S. Olave's, Mile End, has ^6« 
per annum, and house. Church accommodation, 250; popul&< 
lion, 430. 

(4) All Hallows, London Wall; fixed tithe .^^1,700; churcl* 
accommodation, 250; population, 535 ; patron, Lord Chancellor j 
present rector was appointed in 1834; on next vacancy ;£i,40O 
will be divided into four parts; the rector will lake one part 
j^35o + i^300=jC6so; HoiyTrinily. Barking Road, £350 ; & 
Gabriel, Canning Town, .;^35o j St. Luke, Victoria Dock, ^350. 

(5) Ail Hallows parking: fixed tithe, ^2,000; church ac- 
commodation, 600 ; population, 350 ; the incumbent has 4 curates 
for a population of 350 (1) ; they are all well looked after, 

(6)5. EtJidburga ; fixed tithe, .^^950; mcome, ^1,050; 
church accommodation, 300; population, 199. On next avoid* 
ance, ^^400 a year will be given to S, Botolph without, Aldgatc 

(7) S. Alphege, London Wall; fixed tithe, .£^1,350; church 
accommodation, 200; population, 31 ; on which S. George-il 
the-East has a charge of ^^5°° P" annum. The rector has 
;£92S for 31 of population ! 

(8) S. Martin Outwich, Tlireadneedle Street, was pulled 
I down and sold; fixed lithe, ^2,250, Three churches erected 
\ out of proceeds, and vicars endowed, thus. The charges oB 



Tithes in the City and Liberties of London 197 

this lithe are £fiaa 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, 
ivith house. Population, 541, 

(9) S. Peter-h-Poer w. S. Benet-Fink ; fixed tithe, ;^i,7iS ; 
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 £^io'^ to Holy 
Cross, S. Pancras. The rector has a gross income of ^1,000 a year. 

(icj) S. Gites\ CrippUgate ; commuted tithe, ^1,800 ; subject 
to revision every ten years; in 1890 the va!ue = ;^i,ioo, with 
house ; population, 2,473 i S. Luke's, Old Street, has a charge of 
^iQO a year net. 

(n) S. Martin, Luigaii, w. S. Mary Magdalene and 5. 
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 puhlished in the London Gazette of 19th March, 
1878, for 3, fixed annual sum of ;^4,ood, 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,ooo per annum. What does the vicar get who has to look 
after the 1,200 parishioners? X468, plus j^ioo from the E.C., 
arising out of local claim. The minor canons must have received 
;^io,ooo at least for that lease. 

(12) S. Mary Abehurck 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, 1S73, taking ;^3oo net a 
year, which it had from 1867, from S. Peter's, Cwc&Si, 



r 



198 A History of Tithes. 

(14) S. Dunstan-in-tke-East ; income, iCS'ifi^ ^^°^ house pro- 
perty chiefly ; population, 442. 

{15) S. Bartholomew the Great n<. Smithfield ; mcotns, j£(i$o ; 
population, 2,373. 

(16) S. Botolph without, AUersgnte. By 7 Geo. IV. c. cxvi., the 
tithes were commuted for a fixed sum of ;^i,i5o per annum pay- 
able to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster as rectors. This sum, 
less ^£"300 a year payable to the vicar, they leased, and the lessee 
retains ^850 a year. Income of vicar, ^390 ; population, 3,330. 

(17) S. Botolph without, Bishopsgate, has been given. Has a 

(18) S. Dunstan-in-tlie- West, Fleet Street. By i Geo. IV. c lix., 

the tithes were commuted to an annual payment by the rate- 
payers of ^359, of which ;^5 went to the Crown. By an order 
in Council dated i6th April, 18S6, S. Thomas in the Liberty of 
the Rolls was united to the above parish, but the church of S. 
Thomas was taken down and the site and materials sold. The 
proceeds are to go towards building another church elsewhere, 
erecting a new parsonage for the rector of S. Dunstan and aug- 
menting his income, which is ^500 per annum ; population, 2,300. 

These eighteen incumbents receive ^£18,632, or average of 
over ;^i,ooo each per annum. But it must be noled that the 
lessees of three parishes receive ;^ii,3So per annum, in lieu of 
tithes, from the ratepayers, viz. : S. Botolph without, Aldgaie, 
^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 eightei 
incumbents receive j£i3>34i per annum for an agijregale popiil 
lion including children, of 3,886, or ^£3 <)s. per head. 

The populations aie laV^etv tiota t.l\« census of 1881; 



is probable that a considerable reductfon in population 
appear from the census returns of 1891. But the clerical ii 
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 ;£i5,7oz 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 jet 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 ;£^i3,34i for an aggregate 
population of 3,886 forms the coping-stone not to a public scandal, 
but to s. public disgrace, in this Christian country. 

But the greatest public disgrace of all is to see the Bishop of 
London himself receiving j^io,ooo net per annum, with three 
suffragan bishops not paid by him, but paid out of parochial 



Then, on the top of the hill, is S. Paul's Cathedral, with a net 
income of ^25,000 pet annum, and with palatial residences, 
which recently cost ^20,000, close to the cathedral, for the 
canons. Truly it may be said of Ihem, Lac et lanas ovium Christi 
suscipiunt, sed curam gregis Domini deponunt. 



A History of Tithes. 



The City of London Tithes Act of 1S79 (4a & 43 Vict, c 
clxxvl) provides for the commutation of tithes and payments 
lieu of tiihes arising or growing due in certain parishes in the City 
of London, and for the redemplion of rent-charges charged upon 
lands under the above Act. 

By the Christ Church (Ciiy) Tithe Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. 
c. xciii,), S, Bartholomew's Hospital receives in lieu of tithes the 
annual sum of £,\,Zoo, which is levied and collected as tiihe 1 
by the hospital from persons rateable to poor rates in that parish. 
Tithes in arrears are recoverable by distress in the same ma 
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, _;j^2o,oao, of the tithes of the parish of S. Botolph 
without, Aldgate, Disputes arose after the Act of 1879 a 
payments to be made to Mr. Esdaile in respect of tithes. 
Act was therefore passed in 1881, called, " The City of I<ondoil 
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 ;i£^'5,5oo a year was to be 
paid by the churchwardens to the tithe-owner after the agth 
September, 1881, by two half-yearly payments. The cost of 
making and collecting the tithe-rates is to be paid by the rate- 
payers, and is to be exclusive of the ;£6,soo. The owners of 
houses can redeem the tiihes as if they were rent-chai^e under 
the Tithes Commulalion Act of 1S36. 




CHAPTER XVni. 

THE COMMUTATION ACT OF 1836,' 

Up to the time that this Act was passed, the tiihe-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 Faley, " 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." ^ 

" The tithe," says Adam Smith, " is always a great discourage- 
ment both to the improvement of the landlords and to the 
cultivation of the farmers. The one cannot venture to make the 
most important, which are generally the most expensive, improve- 
ments, nor the other to raise the most valuable, which are 
generally, too, the most expensive, crops, when the Church, which 
lays out no part of the expense, is to share so very largely in the 
profit." ^ 

' 6 & 7 William IV. c. Ixxi. 

' Palsy's " Moral and Political Philosophy," ii, 406. 

' Smilh's " Wealth of Nalions," iii. 274. 



I ani 



A History of Tithes. 



Agricultural depression, during the four years previous to 1S361 
and the growing discontent of agricultural tithe-payers, dennanded 
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, 
three principal propositions were: (i) To substitute a money 
payment in lieu of tithes in kind ; (2) The rent-charge to bear a 
fixed proportion to the rent payable on the land; atid {3) To 
redeem the tithe by twenty-five years' purchase, or the creatioO' 
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 i;o simila 
foundation. Tithe was founded upon produce, but rent was noL 
Lord Althorp would make tithe to fluctuate with rent, retaininf 
a fixed pro[«rtion yf rent-charge. In principle it wag a ux 01 
capital, and therefore failed. 

In 1835, Sir Robert Peel, when Prime Minister, introduced 1 
Bill on the same subject. The principle contained in his Bill 
was that there should be a fixed money payment in the shape 
a corn-rent in lieu of tithes, varying yearly according to the pria 
of the three corns — wheat, barky, and oats ; that it should be 1 
voluntary arrangement between the tithe-owner and tithe-paye)^ 
The machinery to carry out this Bill was to appoint three Com 
missioners, viz., two by the Crown, and one by tlie Archbishoj 
of Canterbury. These Commissioners sliould appoint Assistanl 
Commissioners. Wilhin a month after he had introduced thil 
Bill, his Government went out of office, on the Sth of April 
'835- 

Lord John Russell, a member of Lord Melbourne's Govern 
waich succeeded Sir Robert Peel's, took up the subject of lithe) 
b/ in Iroducing a Bill on the 9th of February, 1836. "Tith^ 



The Commutation Act of 1S36. 203 

said his lordship, " was a discouragement to industry, a penalty 
on skill, a heavy mulct on those who expended the most capital 
and displayed the greatest skill 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 na.ion." 
This remark has again and again been quoted by the opponents 
of tithes, and it has as oRen 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 
commule the tithe, whether paid by modus or composition or 
otherwise, into a corn-rent payable in money and perfnanent in 
quantity, but fluctuating yearly in value, so that in future any 
improved value given to land would not increase the amount of 
the rent-charge. The corns were to be wheat, oats, and barley. 
The base of calculation was to be the average tithe paid for the 
seven years previous to Christmas, 1835. The arrangement was 
. to be voluntary up to the ist October, 1838, then compulsory. 
The Bill was at first but tentative, and was materially changed in 
its progress through the House. 

The Commutation Act made a great change. The tithes were 
no longer to be paid on the produce or increase of the land, as 
stated in the Mosaic Law, upon which law the payment of tithes 
in the Christian Church was founded. Before the passing of the - 
Act, the tithe-owner had to sue the tithe-payer for arrears, but 
after the Act was passed, he had the power to distrain on the 
land for arrears, and the Act further empowers tlw. *.\\.W-Q'«^'e.v 



204 A History of Tithes, 



to go on any other land belonging to the same land-owner which 
may be in the same parish to recover the arrears of rent-charge, 
should the land from which the tithe was due be unable to satisfy ; 
his claim and costs. The tithe-owner has a prior claim to the 
landlord's. ' 

The following statement will serve as an illustration of Lord 
Russell's Act. A money payment was fixed by the Tithe Com/r 
missioners on an average of seven years' payment of tithes. Let 
this be ;^ioo ; the third of which, or ;^33 6j. 8^., is for whe?;t, 
a similar sum for barley, and oats. The average prices of ^he 
three corns per bushel for the seven years' previous to 1^835 
was — for wheat, 7^. o\d, ; for barley, y. 11 2^.; for oats, 2^. gd. 
The tithe-payer has to pay in respect of his ;^ioo rent-charge 
the price of 94*95 bushels of wheat, 168*42 bushels of barley, 
and 242*42 bushels of oats. Early in January of every year 
a duly authorized advertisement is inserted in the London 
Gazette by order of the Comptroller of Corn, stating the average 
prices of wheat, barley, and oats for the seven years then next 
preceding. The serious objection to this plan is that the average 
prices of the three cereals are calculated on the prices sold to the 
millers, which included the cost of freight of one or more middle- 
men, instead of calculating on the prices sold by the farmers. 
This false system enhances the value of the rent-charge. "" 

Supposing that for any year, say 1885, wheat was advertised 
in the London Gazette at 5^. \\d, per bushel ; barley, 35" \\\d, ; 
oats, 2 J. Z\d.^ what has the tithe-owner to receive for ;^ioo 
tithe-rent charge ? 

He receives (94*95 x 6i|il -h 16842 x 47|^. -H 242*42 x 32^^.) = 
;^90 I ox. z\d. 

The 80th section of the Act says that " any tenant who shall 
pay any such rent-charge shaVWie ^tv\!\\\^^\.o ^^^\^r.\. >^^ ^Tcsavktit 



Tlie Cummutation Act of 1S36. 205 

thereof from the rent payable by him to his landlord, and shall 
be allowed the same in account with his landlord." There are 
few inslances in which the tenants deduct the tithes from their 
rents according to this section. The general practice is that the 
farmer, in his lease or agreement, agrees to pay the tithes him- 
self to the tithe-owner, and the rent is computed accordingly. 
The tenant therefore pays the rent-charge for the landlord. 
If a tenant should take a farm without making any such agree- 
ment, then the 8oth section comes into force. But in the other 
case the landlord contracts himself out of the 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 185a. 

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, accai^W^i. ■^■«i 



2o6 A History of Tithes. 

low tithes in years of agricultural depression, but the clerical 
appropriators and all the impropriators strictly exacted every 
part of their tithes. 

When the Commutation Bill was passing through Parliament, 
it was urged that many landlords were often absent from the 
country for a considerable time, and therefore if the rent-charges 
were not paid, the tithe-owners would find it very difficult 
to get payment from absent landlords, who had no agents in 
the country. The law was therefore framed to enable the 
tithe-owners to distrain on the lands for arrears, just in the 
same manner as the landlords could distrain for arrears of rent. 
This was the origin of dual landlordism as it appears in the 
Act. 

The rent-charges are liable to parliamentary, parochial, county, 
and other rates, charges, and assessments, to which the tithes 
were liable. The great injustice of tithe-rent charges is that 
they are levied only upon agricultural produce, thus leaving free 
of such charges the extensive city and town lands. The lands in 
the vicinity of large cities and towns, which produced a rental 
of ;^3 per acre, and tithe, ioj., when converted to building 
purposes produce enormous ground-rents, besides a reversion 
of the house property at the expiration of the leases. In such 
cases the tithe-owner receives no tithe, on the building value. 
Thus the value of the landlord's acre is increased one hun- 
dredfold, but the tithe is not increased, and thus the growing 
value of the land leaves no part of it for the support of 
religion. 

Let us take, for example, the enormous house properties in 
London held by three dukes, viz., Westminster, Portland, and 
Bedford, They pay but a staaW ^xaowwt of rent-charge compared 
with their rentals. 



The Commutation Act of 183G. 207 

When the Commutation Act was passed, there was much 
boasting by the supporters of the Church as to the humility of 
the clergy who had not peliiioned Parliament, or held any 
meetings to protest against the Bill while passing through Parlia- 
ment There was good reason for such silent acquiescence. 
The Church made a good bargain under the circumstances. 
The expenses of collecting the tithes in kind sometimes reached 
50 per cent, of the gross value. The tithe-owner is now relieved 
of all this expense and trouble, and the Act has given him a 
firm security. 

Sir James Caird, in his book, entitled, "Landed Interest," 
says, "Since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, in 183G 
to 1876, the rent of tithable land increased from thirty-three 
millions a year to fifty millions a year. The titiie-rent charge 
in 1S36 was four millions, and is about the same Etill." He then 
asserts that the Church has lost two millions a year by the Act. 
In 1890, there is a considerable reduction in the rentals through- 
out the country, owing to agricultural depression. The repeal 
of the Corn Laws has led to the introduction of such large 
quantities of wheat from foreign countries, that our farmers, with 
their heavy rents, rates, taxes, and tithe-rent charges, are unable 
to compete with foreign producers. It is calculated that what 
is produced in England and Wales for the maintenance of the 
population, would only suffice for three months out of the 
twelve, and that nine months' provisions are imported from 
foreign countries and from Ireland and Scotland. It is therefore 
doubtful that if the Commutation Act were repealed, whether 
the tithe-owners would receive more from tithes in kind than 
the gross rent-charge of four millions per annum. But it would 
be utterly unreasonable, and practically impossible now, to repeat 
this Act, as Church defenders want, and have a re-va.lia.^i.'s^s.-. 



i 



The Commutation Ad of 1S3G. 



.ind!! 
: to" 






and even some go so far as to assert that the tithe in kindM 
should again be collected Now, one statement is sufficient to" 
overthrow these assertions, The main object of the Commu- 
taiion Act of 1836 was to prevent lithe-owners from receiving 
an increased quantity of tithes from increased agricultural im- 
provements. So long as this system continued, landlords and 
tenants were always unwilling to sink capita! in agricultural \tsk- 
provements, because a large part of the profits would be claimed 
by the tithe-owners who had not expended a shilling lo realize 
these profits. But all this was changed by the CommutatioB 
Act; and, consequently, both landlords and tenants have ex- 
pended, since 1836, enormous sums of money in improvements. 
Therefore, if there were now a re- valuation, it would be estimated 
upon present improvements, which it was the main object of 
the Commutation Act to prevent. And the rc-valuation wouU 
be a gross injustice on those who sank their money in improve* 
raents. On the other hand, I must admit, in justice to th0 
tithe-owners, that the repeal of the Corn Laws had never beat 
anticipated when the Act of 1836 was passed, and it is ttA 
unquestionable fact that the repejl of these laws has brouglif 
about the present diminution of rent charges, which are based 
upon the prices of three cereals, the most important being whealjg 
which has been and will be the most important and extenstv^ 
article of importation from foreign countries, and its growing 
diminution of cultivation in England and Wales. The tith^ 
or lithe-rent charge being national property, and no compea 
sation being made when the Corn-Laws were repealed, whid 
obviously would afllect, in course of time, the prices of the cered 
in England, it seems to me that an act of injustice to this cttt 
of property was perpetrated when the Corn-Laws were rejKale^ 
tad when no counteiba.Va.T\c\ft%com\iensalion was given, ( 



vision made in the Act to meet any future diminution of this 
property helow par, which diminution may be traced to the 
operations of this Act. This national property should be care- 
fully safeguarded, especially against landlords, who, in the 
majority, are the law-makers. 

Redemption of Tithe-Rent Charge. 

The force of this observation is keenly felt when the property 
is put up for sale. It will be difficult to frame a Redemption 
Act, for one party wilt calculate the price at par value ; another 
parly, at the current annual value, which is now so much below 
par. And it is uncertain when the upward turn in the average 
annual value will occur, and when it does occur, it will be very 
small and slow. This is what makes the redemption question 
so difficult to deal with. In the Tithe Act of 1891, the pro- 
vision for redeeming the tithe-rent charge is omitted and post- 
poned. In framing a Redemption Bill, everything will turn on 
the meaning attached to the word value. Two values will be 
the salient points for discussion: (1) Present market value of 
the tithe-rent charge; and (?) a fair value. The most opposite 
opinions will be found to prevail on these two vital points. Let 
us take ;^ioo of the "commuted value," and put it in the 
market for sale. The present value (1891) of the ;£ioo is 
£lZ 3^- Sl*^' Present purchaser will reason thus ; Depre- 
ciation, £24; rates and other charges, .;^20=^ioo — 44=;£56. 
Having arrived at this amount, the next important question the 
purchaser will ask himself. How many years' purchase shall I 
give ? Some will say twenty, but a reasonable man will say 
twenty-five, and will offer 56 x 25 = ;^!, 400 for the ;^ioo of the 
"commuted value." Again, there is a powerful t.ia4,i, ^xiSi. 



210 A History of Tithes, 



among them the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would probably 
not sell at ;^i,4oo. They would start from par value and only 
allow a deduction for rates and other charges, />., ;^i 00 — 20 = 
;^8o, and would not sell for less than twenty-five years' purchase 
on this value, />., ;;^8ox 25 = ;^2,ooo. These are the salient 
facts with which the framers of any Redemption Bill will have 
to deal. There may be a modus vivendi arrived at by ** splitting 
the difference," and selling ;^ioo say for ;;^i,8oo, 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,ooo. * 

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 



;f 4,059, 124 



The recipients of (i) and (4) are stated in the Appendix. 

In 1 89 1, the depreciation is ;^967,4i9, and the total gross 
value is ;^3,o6i,7oS. Assuming ;^2,ooo to be the price by Act 
of Parliament of ;^ioo commuted value; the Government would 
advance to the landowners ;^58,83 7,965 at jQa, per cent., and 
would hand over stock at j[^2\ per cent, to this amount to the 
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in trust for the parochial incum- 
bents and clerical appropriators. They would pay the dividends, 
amounting to ;^i, 705, 200 per annum, to the incumbents, etc., just 
as they do the dividends on other properties vested in them. 

Novfj in 1 89 1, the same tithe-owners receive about ;£^i,734,i52 
net. The depreciation in \a\ne ol V\\}cv^ ys*,^^ \s\a.>5 ^^.^^-^t 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,ooo. 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 £rom its 
leading principle in the second reading of the BiU. 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 thai if they were to pay a rent- 
charge on the average of these seven years, Ihey would continue 
liable to a very heavy charge, while the owners of arable land or 
common land in their neighbourhood, paying very low tithe com- 
position, would come into competition with them and thus ruin 
them. This argument had actually influenced his lordship even 
against his own will, and so he introduced an extraordinary rent- 
charge, calculated on each acre, in addition to the ordinary 
rent- charge on hop grounds, orchards, and market-gardens, 
brought into new cultivation. In introducing this Bill, and before 
t!ie 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 raiglit be converted into orchards or gar- 
dens in future, liable to increased tithes. Orchards were a pre- 
carious and uncertain description of property, and frequently 
did not bear in certain years ; and in respect qC ^a.ii.t'^NsiAW'''' 



213 A History of Tithes. 



the Legislature allowed the question to be opened again from 
time to time, it would give rise to incessant disputes." * 

Although he thus modified his views in the second reading, 
yet he was thoroughly opposed to the principle. And his pro- 
phetic words slated 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 1S36, up 
to the present time, this extraordinary rent-charge has been a 
fruitful source of discontent, because it is a tax on capital 2 
labour, against which the principle of the Commutation Act 1 
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 p.iy the 
extraordinary vent-chai^e, which in some cases reached as high 
as 30J. per acre. When this amount was added to the ordinaiy 
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 
I Hansard'i DeXiaV^s, vuV ■«.«. Fell, q, iS/i. 



The Comtnutation Act of 1S3G. 213 

since 1862, the reduction of about ^4 $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 u, (sd. 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 
cltarge was dUtinguUhed at the time of commutation. 

In 1839 (2 & 3 Vict, c Ixii. a. 27) an Act was passed in a 
quiet manner wliicii 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 pre- 
amble of which it is stated that the extraordinary rent-charge 
levied under previous Acts, is an impediment to agriculture, and 
therefore the Act should have been limited, and power given to 
redeem the same. It is enacted that after the passing of this 
Act, no extraordinary charge shall be made or levied under the 
Tithe Commutation Acts on any hop ground, orchard, fruit 
plantation, or market-garden newly cultivated as such. The 
Land Commissioners are authorized to fix the capital value of the 
extraordinary charge payable on each farm or parcel of land at 
tlie date of the passing of the Act. The third section indicates 
the manner in which the capital value is to b& ^sceftsmas.^. %^^1^ 



214 -^ History of Tithes, 

land is to be charged with the payment of an annual rent-charge 
equal to four per centum on the capitalized value of the extra- 
ordinary charge, in lieu of the extraordinary charge. This rent- 
charge shall be payable half-yearly on the days on which the 
extraordinary charge was made payable. Arrears of rent-charge 
are to be recovered in one of the High Courts of Justice, or a 
County Court, " or in the same way that rent charge in lieu of 
ordinary tithe is recoverable, and subject to like conditions, or by 
' entry upon and perception of the rents and profits of the land 
• subject to such rent-charge." The rent-charge is not to be sub- 
ject to any parochial, county or other rate, charge, or assessment. 
The rent-charge may be redeemed by the owner or other person 
interested in any land, subject to an extraordinary charge or rent- 
charge substituted therefor. The redemption money is to be 
paid to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, to be applied for 
the benefit of the incumbent, if the owner be the incumbent of a 
benefice. Provision is made for the redemption of the rent- 
charge in other cases of ownership. If the tenant had contracted, 
before the passing of the Act, to pay the extraordinary rent- 
charge to the owner, he shall do so no longer, but pay to his 
landlord during his tenancy the rent-charge substituted for the 
extraordinary charge. The landlord is then made liable for the 
payment of the rent-charge to the owner, notwitstanding any 
agreement to the contrary which the tenant had made with his 
landlord. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are empowered tc 
adjust the fixed charges made before the passing of the Act, on 
the income of benefices in receipt of extraordinary tithes ir 
favour of other benefices, or of district churches or chapelrie* 
within the parishes of which the incumbents are in receipt oi 
extraordinary tithes. 
Lord John Russell, wlieiv inUodMCAtv^x^^ TKxJcv^ Q,^\s.xx\NiXa.^^^ 



The Commutation Act of 1S3G. 215 

Bill, said these words : " The income of the clergy will now flow 
from the landlord and not from the farmer, and the clergyman 
will be relieved from an alternative that too often exists, either 
of making personal enemies by pressing his demand, or of injur- 
ing himself by abandoning it. His lordship, in his " Recollections 
and Suggestions," makes the following statement : " All the 
evils of the tithe system were the subject of fair compromise and 
permanent settlement by the Act of 1836. Three Commissioners, 
two of whom were appointed by the Crown and one by the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, were empowered, after examination, 
to proceed by certain fixed rules to a final adjudication. In 
about seven years this process was completed, and a work from 
which Pitt had shrunk was accomplished." 

In reading this statement one may smile at the "permanent 
settleiTient." Ever since 1836 there has been a continuous 
struggle going on down to 18S6 on the subject of " Extraordinary 
tithe-rent charge." 



CHAPTER XIX. 

TITHES OF CHURCH IN WALES, 

As the Church of England in Wales is becoming one of the burn- 
ing political questions of the day, I shall give a sketch of the 
value and appropriation of the tithe-rent charge of Wales, includ- 
ing the parishes in Monmouth and Salop, which are in Welsh 
dioceses. The figures are taken from the official Tithe Commu- 
tation Return of 1887. 





Bangor. 


LlandafT. 


St. Asaph. 


St. 
David's. 


Total. 


Per- 
centage. 


Clerical Appropriators 
Parochial Incumbents... 
Lay Impropriators 
Schools, Colleges, etc. 


£ 

9,559 

27,939 

5,941 

2,378 


£ 
12,297 

31,306 

9,748 

273 


£ 

31,047 
42,618 

21,732 
1,736 


£ 
26,831 

47,307 

23.389 
2,164 


£ 

79,734 

149,170 
60,810 

6,551 


26 9 

50*4 
20-5 

2-2 




45,817 


53,624 


97,133 


100,488 


296,265 


lOO'O 



By the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when 
Parliament vested in them the tithe-rent charges of all the arch- 
bishops, bishops, chapters, etc., a large quantity of rent-charges 
was annexed to benefices. The following table indicates the 
ownerships in 1890 : — 



Titlus of Church in Wales. 





Baneot. 


Llandaff. 


Si. Asiph 


St. 


TowL 


Pti- 

cenlago. 


Ecclesiastical Coramis 


35,7Si 
4,9&9 

i,6i6 


£ 

8,347 
9; 646 

— 


.Is 

58,499 
20,565 
1,736 

, 2,215 


1 8^74 
56.939 
21,978 


57.'S8 
S.380 
.3. 53 1 


146 

63-0 


Lay Impiopiiatars 

Schools, Colleges, etc. 








45,8.7 


53,624 


97.133 


100,488 


296,26s 


,„o. 



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 
i8j6, changed hands, either by sale, wills, etc. 

The endowments of the Welsh bishops and Cathedral churches 
were taken from the parochial tithes. This meant spiritual desti- 
tution in such Welsh parishes. The Norman conquerors seized 
and held the Welsh episcopal and Cathedral endowments ; then 
the bishops and chapters seized the parochial tithes, and at the 
time of the Reformation, the Crown annexed additional parochial 
tithes in augmentation of episcopal and capitular incomes. These 
tithes were not, as in England, monastic, but were actually taken 
from the parish clergy by virtue of the Crown's prerogative as head 
of the Church. 

Diocese of Bangor. 

Bishop 0/ Bangor had from 16 parishes, ^5,560 ; viz., ^3,258 
in his own diocese; .;^ 2,302 in the diocese of St, Asaph, The 
Ecclesiastical Commissioners (E. C), when this property was 
vested in them, annexed ^3,701 to parochial incumbents in the 
diocese, and retained to ^^1,859, 



^ 



218 A History of Tithes. 



3 



Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry held ;^I,4S6 loj. from 4 
parishes. The E. C. annexed to parishes jQ&^Z ^^- 9^-t ^"^^ r*' 
lained to ^593 Sj. 3^, 1 

Jesus College, Oxford, ^£'1,089 gj. lail. This college annen 
to the two parishes ^£239 171. ^d. A 

The principal of this college ^738 loj. 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 :— 

£ ». i- 

Dean 1,020 o o from two parishes 

Treasurer... .,, ... 200 o o 

Archdeacon of Merioneth 327 ij 11 

Prebendary of Penrynydd 434 14 o 



^1,88! 9 ■ 






By an Act of r James II. (1685), the Dean and Chapter re 

ceived the tithes of five parishes in Montgomeryshire for th« 
service and repairs of church. They amount to ^1,616, which 
they still possess. 




Diocese of Llandaff. 



BjsmI 



The Bishop received ^1,872 from 11 parishes. The Bisll 
of Gloucester and Bristol received ^^430 from two parishes. 

The Chapter received ^£4,487 from 28 parishes. And ir 
addition to this enormous sum, the Chapter's separate estntei 
amounted to ^£1,922 tiom 16 ^aiwtes. Here, then, is a total a 



Tithes of Church in Wales. 219 

^6,409 per annum, taken from 44 parishes by the Chapter of 
Llandaff. 

But this is not the end of the depletion of parochial endow- 
ments. The Dean and Chapter of Gloucester received ;^2,6i8 
from 12 parishes ; and the Dean and Chapter of Bristol ^^966 
from s parishes. Here, then, is a total of ;£^I2,Z97 per annum, 
taken from 76 parishes in this diocese alone by two bishops ^nd 
three chapters. 

Diocese or St. Asaph. 

This was the most lamentable diocese in Wales. 

The Bishop received j£'8,i2i per annum from 23 parishes. 

Bishop of St, David's, ^800 from one. 

The Dean and Chapter received ;^i,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, ;i^i,987 ; Precentor, ^^1,585 ; Chancellor, 
^868; Treasurer, ^350; four Prebendaries, ^1,294. 

The Dean and Chapter ofOxford, £,'2-.$iz f™"" 4 parishes. 

The Dean and Chapter of Winchester, ^2,205 from two 
parishes. 

The Vicars-Cboral 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, wliich has already 
been stated under "Bangor Diocese," or ,^25, 830 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 j£6,22l c^itOTWSuti N-i^a.^- 



220 



A History of Tithes, 



The rectors of these benefices had no duties whatever to perform, 
They received handsome incomes and nothing to do for them. 
Here was the rich harvest for the bishop's sons and other relatives 
The benefices were all in the bishop's patronage. Bishop 
Luxmoore, who was bishop of St. Asaph from 1815 to 1830, had 
an income of ;^i 2,000 per annum, and his two sons and two 
relatives had between them ;^i 5,000 a year from the diocese, 1.& 
;£2 7,000 per annum received by the father, his two sons and two 
relatives, at a time when the total net receipts by all the worliing 
clergy of this diocese amounted to only ;^i 8,000 per annum.^ 



Diocese of St. David's. 

The Bishop received ... £a^S^Z ^^oia 25 parishes in this diocese 
Bishop of Gloucester and 

Bristol ... ... 845 „ 4 parishes. 

Bishop of Chester ... 260 ,, i parish. 
Bishop of Lincoln ... 400 „ 2 parishes. 



Total ;£^6,o68 for four bishops from 32 parishes 



Chanter and Chapter received 
Dean and Canons of Windsor 



... 6,324 from 34 parishes 
... 1,824 )) 5 i> 



Total ;£8,i48 



* For full particulars on this subject, see my book, ** Past and Presen 
-Revenues of the Church of F.tigjaivd in Waks." 
' jCSoo from St. AsapVi a\tea.d7 ^in^tv. 



Tithes of CJmrch in Wales. 



221 



Chapter's separate estates : — 



Precentor 
Chancellor 
Prebendaries ... 
Vicars Choral ... 
Archdeacon of Brecon 
Archdeacon of St. David's 



Total ;^i 1,815 
Four sinecure rectories ;^97i 



£ 








384 


from 


2 


par 


327 




2 




8,892 




37 




1,063 




6 




785 




4 




364 




I 





ishes. 



Summary of this Diocese. 



Four Bishops 

Two Chapters 

Separate Estates and Prebends, etc. 

Four sinecure rectories 



6,068 

... 8,148 

11,815 



;^26,03i 
971 



Total from 123 parishes ... ...;£'27,oo2 



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 la.^%^4, \x. Ss» 



222 A History of Titfies, 

now 1 89 1, i.e.^ fifty-one years after the passing of the Act, and ye 
sixteen leases of the thirty-seven are still running. And so all th^ 
rent-charges of these parishes have for so many years beei 
diverted from these parishes, and so parochial destitution ha 
continued in this diocese. As the leases expire, the Ecclesiastica 
Commissioners come into possession of the property, and then 
but not till then^ are steps taken to annex to parishes certaii 
portions of this property. The Ecclesiastical Commissioner 
have often, in a very kind manner, granted to parishes in England 
and Wales annuities out of the common Fund, in regard to loca 
claims, in anticipation of the lapse of the leases on tithes, lands 
mines and house property. 



tlthe-rent charge now in possession of the 
Ecclesiastical Commission in Wales. 

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are in possession (1889) of- 

InW^ales proper... ... ... ... ... ... ;^29,i6 

In Monmouth ... ... ... ... ... ... 4,50 

xn oaiou ... ... ... ••• ... ..• 20 



Total amount commutation value in their possession in 

the four Welsh dioceses ;£^33>88 

Of the ;^29,i69, I shall give the gross amount of tithe-rer 
charge in each county, and also the amount still outstanding o 
beneficial leases. 



Tithes of Church in Wales, 



223 





£. 


s. 


d. 














Anglesey 


901 





oin 


possession 


of E. C. 










Brecon 


2,387 


14 







and ;^6o3 


6 


8 


on lease, St. David's 




















[Diocese. 


Cardigan 


1,117 


I 







450 








,, 


,, 


Carmarthen 


3,821 


4 


4 




1. 123 


6 





f, 


», 


Carnarvon 


777 


II 


8 


,» 












Denbigh 


6,714 


19 


3 




581 


6 


8 


1, 


St. Asaph's 


Flint 


2,776 


6 


8 














Glamorgan 


4i70S 


16 


9 


>, 












Merioneth 


611 


17 


9 














Montgomery 


726 


18 


I 














Pembroke 


2,286 


3 


10 




820 


16 





»» 


St. David's 


Radnor 


2,342 


12 


3 




2,192 


18 





,, 


, , 



;^29,i69 5 8 inposs. of E.C. ;£"5,772 13 4 on lease in 189 1. 



In this statement we get the actual amount which was outstand- 
ing on beneficial leases in 1891, viz., in St. David's Diocese, 
;^5,i9i 6 J. 8^. on the prebendal tithes only; in St. Asaph's, 
;^58i ds, Sd. 

The annual payments out of the Common Fund in 1889 to the 
Church in Wales were the following : — 

£ 



Bishops 

Deans 

Canons 

Minor Canons 

Domus and Fabric 

Four archdeacons 

St. David's College, Lampeter 

Interest on Capital Grants for Cathedral repairs 



17,100 
2,800 
5.600 
1,270 
1,800 
1,060 
1,500 

893 



To parochial incumbents 



Total from the Common Fund 



32,023 
... 35,611 



» • • • • • 



— ;^67,634 



The net annual income derived by the E. C, fot y^"^^ ^^^ss. 



224 ^ History of Tithes, 

property in Wales was ;^28,796. Therefore ;;^38,838 was a fre 
grant out of the Common Fund to the Church in Wales in i88< 
and the amount was much larger for 1890. 

The value in 1889 of ;^29,i69 commuted tithes in Wales, wa 
;^23,oi4, which was all that the Ecclesiastical Commissionei 
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 th 
commuted tithes. The amount in possession of the E. C. varie 
from year to year on account of (i) depreciation of value ; (2 
the falling in of beneficial leases, and (3) annexations of all 
part of this property to parishes to satisfy local claims when th 
leases expire. 

The total gross revenues from tithes^ glebes, Common Fund 
E.C., Queen Anne's Bounty, etc., of bishops, chapters and incum 
bents, in the four Welsh dioceses were in 1890 ;£'32S,226; curates 
etc., ;^55,ooo 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>83i 

Ecclesiastical Commissioners 43)30i 

Total 233,727 

Impropriators 57»I58 

Colleges, schools, hospitals, etc. 5»38o 

;g 296,265 

So, in 1 89 1, the net amount of the ;^233,727 which goes tc 
the Church is ;^i 30,872. This net amount varies annually. 

757 incumbents in the twelve Welsh counties and Monmoutl 
receive ;^i86,595 gross tithe-rent charges from these thirteet 
counties. Average for each, gross ^£24^^ and in 1891, net j£iso. 
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 VI 1 1. 

An Act to make better provision for the Recovery of Tithe Rent- 
charge in England and Wales. 

[54 Vict. c. viii, 2'6th 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 : 

825 <^ 



226 A History of Tithes, 



Liability of owner to pay tithe rentcharge, and modification oj 

contracts with tenants, 

I. — (i) Tithe rentcharge as defined by this Act issuing out < 
any lands shall be payable by the owner of the lands, notwitl 
standing any contract between him and the occupier of such land: 
and any contract made between an occupier and owner of landi 
after the passing of this Act, for the payment of the tithe ren 
charge by the occupier shall be void. 

(2) Where the occupier is liable under any contract mad 
before the passing of this Act to pay the tithe rentcharge, the 
he shall cease to be bound by that part of his contract, but h 
shall be liable to pay to the owner such sum as the owner ha 
properly paid on account of the tithe rentcharge which sue 
occupier is liable under his said contract to pay, exclusive of an 
costs incurred or paid by the owner in respect of such tithe ren 
charge, and every receipt given for such sum shall state expressl 
that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rentcharge : Provide 
that where the lands, out of which any tithe rentcharge issues, ar 
occupied by several occupiers who have contracted to pay th 
tithe rentcharge, any of such occupiers shall be liable only to pa 
such proportion of the sum paid by the owner of the lands oi 
account of that tithe rentcharge as the rateable value of the land 
occupied by him bears to the rateable value of the whole of th( 
lands occupied by such occupiers. 

(3) Such sum shall be recoverable from the occupier by distres 
in like manner as is provided by sections eighty-one and eight) 
five of the Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of th* 

reign of King William lYve YoviivVv, cK^.^tet seventy-one, and th( 
enacimQD^s amending those secUovvs, ^xv^t^c>\. oSi^^Tm^^. 



Tithe Act, 1S91. 227 

Recovery of tithe rentcharge through County Court. 

U. — (i) Where any sum due on account of tithe rentcharge 
issuing out of any lands is in arrear for not less than three monilis, 
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, rind 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. 

(j) Where it is shown to the Court that the lands are occupied 
by the owner thereof, the order shall be executed by the appoint- 
ment by the Court of an officer who, subject to the direction of the 
Court, shall have the like powers of distraint for the recovery of 
the sum ordered to be paid as are conferred by the Tithe Acts on 
the owner of a tithe rentcharge for the recovery of arrears of tithe 
rentcharge, and no greater or other powers; and if there is no 
sufficient distress the person entitled to the sum ordered to be 
recovered may proceed to obtain possession of the lands under 
section eighty-two of the Tithe Act, i83(5> 

(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 Tilhe 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 

' 6 & 7 Will, IV. c. Ixxi. 



k 



228 A History of Tithes, 



between the said lands and the lands in the other parish in 
proportion to their rateable value, in which case the payment of 
such apportioned rent by the occupier to the receiver shall in 
every respect, as between the occupier and the owner of the lands, 
be deemed to be a payment on account of the total rent payable 
to the owner of such lands. 

(4) Subject to the prescribed regulations, the County Court shall 
have the same powers over receivers as in any other case, and 
may confer on the person appointed receiver any powers which 
the Court can confer upon persons appointed receivers, but the 
court shall not have power to order the sale of lands. 

(5) Any sum ordered by the Court under this section to be 
recovered shall be payable by a trustee in bankruptcy, sheriff, 
or officer of a Court who is in possession of the lands, in like 
manner as if it were tithe rentcharge recoverable under the Tithe 
Acts. 

(6) Where the occupier of the lands out of which the tithe 
rentcharge issues is liable under any contract made before the 
passing of this Act to pay the tithe rentcharge, and is conse- 
quently liable by virtue of this Act to pay the amount thereof to 
the owner of the lands, the owner of such lands shall serve notice 
of such liability on the owner of the tithe rentcharge, and there- 
upon, before an order under this section is made, there shall be 
such service on the occupier in addition to the owner as may be 
prescribed, and a hearing of such occupier if he appears and 
desires to be heard. Any owner of the lands who fails to serve 
such notice as aforesaid on the owner of the tithe rentcharge, shall 
not be entitled to recover from the occupier any sum which he 
has paid on account of the tithe rentcharge as aforesaid, unless 

and until he has, after noUee lo \.Vv^ ocevi^ier of his application 
for the same, obtained from V\ve CovvcvXtj CqwxX. ^ c.^\'C\^^'ax& ^-^x. 



there was good and sufficient cause foe the failure to give such 
notice, and that the occupier has not been prejudiced tliereby. 

(7} Rules under this Act may regulate the procedure practice 
and costs under this Act in County Courls, 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 lithe rent- 
chai^e, 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 incidenlal 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.' 

(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, iS88,^ have any power to imprison any 
such occupier or owner by reason only of the non-payment of such 
tithe rentcharge or other sum, and shall in any other case have no 
other or greater powers of fine or imprisonment than are conferred 
by the County Courts Act, 1888. 

Rules. 

III. — (i) The Iiord 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 

' 51 & 52 Vict. c. xxi. 






230 A History of Tithes. 

prescribed by rules under this Act. In framing such rules, regard 
shall be had to making the procedure as simple and inexpensive 
as is practicable. 

(2) Every rule under this Act shall be laid before each House 
of Parliament within forty days next after it is made, if Parlia- 
ment is then sitting, or, if not, within forty days after the com- 
mencemen of the then next ensuing session, and if an address 
is presented to Her Majesty by either House of Parliament within 
the next subsequent forty days on which the said House shall 
have sat, praying that any such rule may be annulled, Her 
Majesty may thereupon, by Order in Council, annul the same ; 
and the rule so annulled shall thenceforth become void and of no 
effect, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings 
which may in the meantime have been taken under the same. 

Lands occupied rentfree^ 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 amoutil'wVivchs.Vv^.ll have been recovered from 
him under this section in res^ecX ol xSJCcv^x^tc^cJcvw^^ ot ^^^xs^^nrx^ 



Tithe Act, 1S91. 231 

interest thereon at the rate of four per centum per annum ; Pro- 
vided furtherj 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.— ([) An application to a County Court for an order under 
tliis 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 JLidgment 
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 0/ owner of tithe rentcharge. 

VI. — (i) Any rate to which tithe rentcharge is subject shall 
be assessed on and may be recovered from the owner of the tithe 
rentcharge, in the like manner and by the like process as on 
and from any occupying ratepayer; and so much of any Act 
as authorises any rate on tithe rentcharge to be assessed on or 
recovered from the occupier of any lands out of which the tithe 
rentcharge issues is hereby repealed. 

(2) If the collector of the rate satisfies the County Court that 
he is unable to recover in manner aforesiid any rate assessed on 



A History of Tithes 



the owner of any lithe 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 i^ 
make such order as aforesaid in respect of any future rate, eithef 
generally or during the time limited by the order, 

(4) Tlie expression "rate " in this section means a poor lat^ 
highway rate, general district rate, borough rale, and every other 
rate assessed on an owner of tithe rentcharge by a public authority 
for public purposes ; and the expression " collector " means I 
overseer, surveyor of highways, rate-collector, or other persoa 
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 b« 
dissatisfied with the determination or direction of the judge of the 
County Court in point of law or equity, or upon the admission « 
rejection of any evidence, the party aggrieved by the judgment 
direction, decision, or order of (he judge may appeal from the 
same to the High Court, in such manner and subject to sucli; 
conditions as may be for the time being provided by the rules of 
the Supreme Court regulating the procedure on appeals from 
inferior courts to the High Court. 



Tithe Act. isn. 



Remission of tillte rentcharge when exMtding two-thirds annual 
value of land. 

VIII. — (i) AVhere a sum is claimed on account of tithe rent- 
charge issuing out of any lands, and tlie County Court is satisfied 
tliat, if the sum claimed is paid, the total amount paid on account 
of the titiie rentcharge for the period of twelve months next pre- 
ceding the day on which the sum claimed became payable, will ex- 
ceed two-thirds of the annual value of the lands as ascertained and 
entered in the assessment for the purpose of Schedule B. to the 
Income Tax Act, 1853,' or as certified as herein-after mentioned, 
the Court shall order the remission of so much, whether the whole 
or part of the sum claimed, as is equal to the excess, and the 
amount so ordered to be remitted shall not be recoverable; and 
if the Court is satisfied that neither such remission, nor the 
liability thereto, has been taken into account in estimating the 
rateable value of the tithe rentcharge, the Court may remit such 
amount of any then current rate assessed on the owner of the 
lithe rentcharge as appears to the Court to be proportionate to the 
amount of the remission of d the rentcharge. 

(2) Where the lands out of which any tithe rentcharge issues 
are assessed for the purposes of the said Schedule B. together with 
other lands, the surveyor of taxes for the parish in which the lands 
are so assessed, on the application of the owner or occupier of the 
lands, shall divide the annual value in such assessment between 
the lands out of which any tithe rentcharge issues and the other 
lands, and give notice of the annual value of the lands as deter- 
mined on such division to the applicant and to the owner of the 
tithe rentcharge; and if either of them is dissatisfied with the 
annual value so determined, he may appeal to the general com- 



' 16&17 Vic 



234 -^ History of Titlus, 

missioners of income tax for the division in which the lands are 
assessed, and those commissioners, after due notice to and 
hearing the parties or their agents if any of them wishes to be so 
heard, shall finally determine the proper division of the annual 
value ; and the annual value of lands so d^ermined as aforesaid 
shall, for the purposes of this section, be the annual value of the 
lands as ascertained for the purpose of the said Schedule B. 

(3) For the purposes of this section the owner of tithe rent- 
charge shall have the same right of appeal as the owner of lands, 
whether under the enactments relating to the said assessment or 
under this section. 

(4) If in any case the annual value of any lands is not ascer- 
tained and entered in the assessment for the purpose of the said 
Schedule B., the general commissioners of income tax for the 
division in which the lands are situate shall, on the application of 
the owner or occupier of the lands, ascertain the annual value of 
the lands for the purpose of tjie said Schedule B., and inform the 
applicant of the same. 

(5) The commissioners of taxes shall on demand and payment 
of one shilling give a certificate of the amount of the annual value 
of any lands under this section. 

(6) Where it appears from any award that a special appor- 
tionment has been made in pursuance of section fifty-eight of the 
Tithe Act, 1836,^ 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 

» 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. Ixxi. 



Tithe Act, 1891. 235 

lands, and a remission of tithe rentcharge has been made by a 
County Court under this section, the amount paid by the owner of 
the lands on account of tithe rentcharge shall be divided between 
the owners of such lithe rentcharges in proportion to the amount 
thereof as fixed by the apportionment or any altered apportion- 
ment, 

(8) This section shall not apply to any lands other than those 
used solely for agricultural or pastoral purposes or for the growth 
of timber or underwood. 

Definitions. 
IX.— (i) A reference in this Act to the " owner" of lands or 
tithe rentcharge, — 

(a) if the ownership of the lands or rentcharge is vested in the 
Queen in right of Her Crown, means the Commissioners of 
Woods, in substitution for the Queen ; and 
(J>) if the ownership of the lands or rentcharge is vested in the 
Dulie of Cornwall, means the keeper of the records of the 
Duchy of Cornwall, in substitution for the Duke of Corn- 
wall ; and 
(<r) in any other case, means the same ofBcers or persons as are 

mentioned in the Tithe Act, 1836.^ 
(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,^ and which is subject to the like incidents as such 
tithe rentcharge as aforesaid; but does not include a rentcharge 



Bjs 



A History of Tithes. 



payable under the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, iS86,* 
nor a renlcharge payable under the Tithe Act, i36o,^ in respecl 
of the tithes on any gated or stinted pasture, nor a sum or n 
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 und( 
this Act. 

I Commencement and application of Ad and saving. 

I X. — (i) This Act shall extend to every sum on account ( 
tithe rentcharge which first becomes payable on or after tlie half 
yearly day of payment of such tithe rentcharge which occurs ne« 
after the passing of this Act, whether such sum accrued before or- 
after that day, and shall not extend to siims due on accouil 
tithe rentcharge which were in orrear before ihe passing of thi* 
Act, nor, except so far as relates to the assessment and recoveiy 
of rates, shall it extend to tithe rentcharge issuing out of the lands- 
of a railway company. 

(2) A sum on account of tiihe rentcharge shall not be re- 
coverable under this Act unless proceedings for such recovery 
have been commenced before the expiration of two years from the 
date at which it became payable. 

(3) Nothing in this Act shall alter the priority of any lithf 
rentcharge in relation to any other charge or incumbrance upol 
any lands. 

(4) Any enactment in the Tithe Acts or in the Extraordinai| 
Tithe Redemption Act, r886, directing any expenses, rentchar^ 
or other sums to be recovered as tithe rentcharge, shall, 1 
respects any sum becoming due al^er the passing of this Act, t 



Tilhe Act, 1891. 237 

construed to refer to the recovery of tithe rentchajge 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. 

Xir.— (i) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland. 

(2) This Act may be cited as the Tithe Act, 1891. 

(3) The Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of 
the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter seventy-one, 
intituled " An Act for the Commutation of Tithes in England and 
Wales," is in ihis Act referred to and may be cited as the Tithe 
Act, 1836, and that Act and the enactroenls 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) Tlie 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 Acls 
for the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales," is in 
this Act referred to and may be cited as the Tithe Act, 
i860. 

(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. 



A History of Tithes. 



I ih 

e> 

|E 



Fees under Section t of the Tithe Act, 1891. 

Where the sunj 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 : 

„ .... ("One shilling for every five pounds and 

For notice of appli- - . , . 

, „ \ fraction above five pounds or anv mul- 
cation to the Court 

I tiple of five pounds of the sum claimed. 

(One shilling and sixpence for every five 
pounds and fraction above five pounds 
or any rauUipJe of five pounds of the 
sum claimed. 
But the total fee in any one case shall not exceed — 

For notice of the application Tea shillings. 

For making the order Fifteen shillings. 

Remark on the Tithe Act, 1891. 

I. i. The main principle of this Act, is that the tithe rent- 
charge is in future payable by the owner of the lands and not by 
the occupier, unless he is also owner. The same prind|ile 
existed in the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. But unfottun- 
ately the 80th section of that Act, out of which landlords con- 
tracted themselves, says that "any tenant who shall pay any 
Buch rentch.irge, shall be entitled to deduct the amount iheteof 
from the rent payable by him to his landlord, and shall be allowed 
the same in account with his landlord." Very few tenants dc- 



Tithe Act, 1891. 239 

ducted the tithes from iheir 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 inlention of the Commutation Act in making the 
landowners liable to the payment of the tithe rentcharge. The 
Lords made a wise addition to subsection i, viz. that, "Any con- 
tract made between an occupier and owner of lands after the 
passing of this Act, for the payment of tithe rentcharge by the 
occupier, shall be void." The Bill on leaving the Commons, pro- 
vided, in subsection 2, for contracts made before the passing of 
this Act, but made no provision against contracts made after the 
passing of the Act, thus leaving the door open to contracts 
which may be made ii^^rthe 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 rentchaige paid by the owner of the lands 
and due by the occupier under a contract made previous to the 
passing of this Act, according to section 85 of the Act of 1836. 
The present Act thus transfers the unpopular system of distraint 
from the tithe-owner to the owner of the lands. No doubt section 
85 was framed with a view of preventing tenants escaping pay- 
ment by removing produce and stock from one field to another. 

II. I. To recover the tithe rentcharge through the County 
Court is new machinery. It is a new buffer between the tithe- 
owner and tithe-payer ; it removes all immediate friction between 
the clergyman and his tithe-paying tenant. TVit ^laJisvaas. ^^. 



i 



240 A History of Tithes. 



''i'ees"atid. "costs,"was the most contentious point ii 
the Bill through Committee of the House of Commons. 
Lords introduced the amendment, that " costs " should be re 
covered as in the case of an ordinary action in the County Court 
This amendment will be extremely irritating to the small lamt 
owners, especially in Wales. It will also be a fruitful source 
irritalion to tithe-payers and of legal persecution by tithe-ownen 
through their agents. The Lords' amendment, introduced b| 
Lord Selborne, was truly compared by Sir William Harcocn 
to " tares sown araor^ wheat," The Tithe Act of 1836 ga«^ 
zi days to the occupier to pay his tithe after it had fallen du^ 
but this Act gives three months to the owners of the lands. 
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 o 
distraint, take possession of the lands, and derive all the advon 
tages of the tillage, and keep possession for years without r 
ing any compensation to the occupier. This is but one of tl 
many cases which show that the Act was wholly framed in il 
interest of the tithe-owner, and disadvantageous to the I 
payer. The security and stringent means for recovering tJUl 
rentcharge are all advantages to the tithe-owner. 

II. 5. The tithe-owner has a prior claim to ali other en 
ditors. 

II. 9. The owner of the lands, or the occupier, cannot b 
imprisoned for non-payment of the tithe rentcharge, but may b 
fined or imprisoned as regards other matters in the execution a 
County Court warrants. 

IV, The object which the framers of this section in tb 
House of Lords had in view was to prevent collusion, as staid 
in their debates, between the owner of the lands and 



r 



Tithe Act, 1891. 241 



occupying tenant. They based tlie assertion on the groundless 
assumption that certain landomiers and farmers wovild enter 
into a conspiracy to defraud the tithe-owner. This discovery 
was reserved for the Lords. So section 4 contradicts section i 
subsection r. 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 asmall rental ; or tlie lands 
may have been let on beneficial leases on payment of a fine 
ivith a smalt reserve rental. But all these are common arrange- 
ments without any reference to collusion. The Lords, however, 
thought differently. But tlie most important point for consider- 
ation is, iliat this section upsets the main principle of the Act, 
namely, that the landowner, and not the occupier, should pay 
the tithe renlcharge. This section makes the latter pay it under 
certain circumstances, but which he can recover from his landlord 
in the manner slated. 

VI. I. In consequence of a decision in the Law Courts, if a 
tithe-owner should make default in payment of rates, as many 
have done, the only remedy for the collector was to recover from 
the occupier for a debt whidi 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 — thetithe-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.^j-i.i -visiL'iv 



242 A History of TWies. 



rate-collectors, tithe-payers, and landlords, had to go through the 
above legal process to get payment of the rates from them. And 
so this subsection was framed in order to put a stop to such con- 
duct on the part of tithe-owners, who are now bound to pay the 
rates, and it also repeals any part of any Act which authorizes 
payment from the occupier of rates on tithe rentcharge. 

VIII. I. This is generally called the " Relief Clause." Quite 
a misnomer. This paltry relief was given for the great benefits 
and advantages which the tithe-owners derive from this Act 
The relief will affect only a few farms in each county. In esti- 
mating the annual value of the lands, the valuable building 
erected will be taken in the valuation, and so tend to diminish 
the amount of remission of tithe rentcharge. 



APPENDIX A. 

Archbishops and Bishops. 
« 
Statement of commuted tithes in possession of Archbishops 

and Bishops in 1836. See (i) and (4) at p. 210. 

£ s. d, 

I. Bishop of Bangor 5,56011 10 in 3 counties from 17 parishes. 

,, Bath and Wells... 1,831 11 o in Somerset ,, 
Archbishop of Canterbury 30,713 16 7 in 4 counties ,, 



Bishop of Carlisle. . . 



5. 



)) 



10. 



M 



7,353 16 2 „ 2 

14,702 16 4 „ 8 

2,118 18 I ,, I 

1,181 16 9I „ 2 

16,764 3 4 ,» 7 

1,027 10 o „ 2 

Gloucester&Bristol 10,191 i 4^ ,, 7 



Chester . 
Chichester 
Durham . 
Ely ... . 
Exeter 



• • • • • • 



15- 



), 



20. 



»» 



Hereford ... 
Lichfield ... 
Lincoln . . . 
London . . . 
Llandaff ... 
Norwich ... 
Oxford 
Peterborough 
Rochester. . . 
Salisbury . . . 
St. Asaph 
St. David's 
Winchester 
Worcester. . . 



8,022 16 4 

7,128 12 7 

7,676 7 I 

7,538 4 I 

2,936 7 7 

7,926 7 4 

4,844 19 9 

140 o o 

4,451 9 4 

3,683 14 5 

8,126 o o 

5,363 o o 

3,685 o o 

1,803 I 6 



» 3 

„ 4 

», J 

>, 3 

,, 3 

„ 2 

„ 4 

„ 3 

„ 2 

„ 4 

„ 7 

„ 2 

,, I 



25. Archbishop of York ... 24,944 13 7 



1, 



,, 
,, 
,, 
,, 
,, 
,» 
,» 
,, 
,, 
,, 
»« 
,, 
», 
,, 
,, 
,, 
,» 
,, 
»« 
,, 



,» 

,, 

,, 

,» 

,, 

,, 

,, 

», 

,, 

», 

,, 

,, 

,, 

,, 

,, 

,, 

», 

•, 

,, 

,, 

,» 



II 

67 

13 

31 

7 
6 

48 
4 
35 
38 
II 

15 
II 

12 

20 

10 

I 

7 

4 

21 

24 
4 
5 

36 



,» 
,, 
>, 
,, 
,, 
,, 
,» 
,, 
,, 
,» 
,, 
», 

,» 
,» 
,, 
,» 
,, 
,, 
,, 
,» 
,, 



;ti89,7i8 II o 



from 458 parishes. 



It must be noted, that these are commuted tithes; but the 
tithes were much higher in value. 



243 



244 



Appendix B. 



APPENDIX B. 





Chapters. 
















£ 


s. 


^. 










Dean and Chapter 


of Bangor 


1,6 1 6 








in I county 


in 5 J 


>ari.> 


»» 


Bristol 


11,578 


2 


7 


in 5 counties in 34 


», 


»» 


Canterbury 


22,548 


8 


4 


„ 5 


>, 


39 


,» 


»» 


Carlisle 


12,104 


19 


7J 


„ 3 


, » 


30 


»r 


>» 


Chester 


1,028 


13 


5 


„ I 


,, 


6 


f » 


»» 


Chichester... 


8.883 


8 


2 


„ 3 


,, 


26 


»♦ 


»» 


Durham ... 


15,321 


19 


li 


„ 3 


», 


25 


,» 


>» 


Ely 


10,762 


16 


2 


1, 4 


»» 


15 


,r 


n 


Exeter 


14,636 


17 


4 


„ 4 


,, 


51 


,r 


»» 


Gloucester. . . 


6,654 


2 


3 


„ 4 


,, 


25 


»» 


>> 


Hereford ... 


10,371 


I 


2 


„ 4 


,, 


45 


»• 


»» 


LichBeld . . . 


6,738 


9 


5 


„ 5 


,, 


18 


»» 


>» 


Lincoln 


5,111 


3 


3 


„ 6 


,, 


19 


»» 


tf 


LlandafT ... 


4,642 








„ 2 


,, 


29 


»» 


it 


London 


10,681 


4 


II 


,1 4 


,, 


17 


, » 


»» 


Manchester 


2,596 


10 


11 


„ I 


,, 


I 


»» 


»» 


Norwich . . . 


11,329 


3 


8 




», 


39 


»» 


»» 


Oxford 


39,785 


I 


10 


„i8 


,, 


82 


» r 


>» 


Ripon 


1,376 


8 


3 


„ I 


,, 


2 


»» 


»> 


Rochester ... 


15,394 


18 


4 


„ 4 


»» 


39 


»» 


>> 


Salisbury ... 


11,282 





8 


„ 5 


,, 


33 


» t 


>» 


St. Asaph ... 


3,018 


10 


lO.J 


„ 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 


„i6 


»> 


6i 


,» 


f> 


Winchester 


14,988 


10 


5 


„ 7 


,, 


25 


>» 


t» 


Worcester... 


12,033 


4 





„ 6 


f , 


23 


»» 


^. t> 


York 


6.357 


3 


9 


„ 3 


»» 


21 


»t 



af3i4,276 14 3 



in 798 [KirLihcs. 





Appendix C. 




245 




APPENDIX C. 










P.t«:n. Clinn- 




P.ci«n- 




Dean. 






darits. 'louil. 




£ 


£ £ 


£ 


£ £ 


1. Chichester 


■ '.439 


853 525 


S91 


7.755 ".403 


Diirhim 


■ 1.457 


_ _ 


— 


3.615 3.072 


Ely 


— 


_ _ 


— 


3,406 3,406 


Exeter 


2-505 


21S 1,054 


1,219 


2,100 7,193 


5. Hereford 


S43 


S03 655 


479 


r,668 4,14s 


Lichfidil 


■ 3.330 




— 


14,853 18,173 


Lincoln 


6,47s 


9 - 


— 


9,310 15,797 


St. Paul's, London . 


. -^ 


SSj 1,7.1 


1,592 


3,850 6,936 


Saiisbnry 


5. 507 


2.4^9 3.^53 


3.258 


16,819 30,366 


IQ. Wells 


2,041 


353 340 


800 


4,934 8,470 


York 


4,412 


563 ',094 


— 


6,465 12,534 


Southwell Coll. Cliurch — 




_ 


3.504 3,5^4 


lleyl«bury ., 


— 


_ 


_ 


1,288 1,288 


Dean of 5. Buryan 


— 


-^ ^ 


— 


- 1.050 




— 


_ _ 


_ 


— 232 


Wales— 










Bangor 


1,020 


_ _ 


200 


435 1.655 


LbndafT 


— 


- iSS 


435 


i.ogS 1,71s 


St. Asapli's ... 


.,98s 


J, 585 868 


350 


1,294 6,085 


19, Si. David's 




384 326 




8,892 9,502 
^'4^,492 


I have given £i 


4,276 


as the total 


tithe-rent charges of 


29 chapters; to this add ^^158,770 for separate prebend al and 


vicars-choral estates, etc, am 


we get the 


enormous revenue of 


^473.°46- or ^716,0 


in tithes for 29 c 


lapters 


and only for 


tithes, without regard to the chapters' landed and 


nineral estates. 


There is nothing siml 


ar to this to be found in any other Chris- 


■ The Bishop of Lichfield had as 


Prebendary £ 


540 per 


annum, which is 


included here. 










> Archdeacons not included here. 








^ Included in Bishop's. 




^^ 







1 



246 


Appendi.'c C. ^^^I 


tian country in the woild 


It is even shocking when we add llJ 


above to their respective chapters, \u. :— j 




£ £ £ 


1. Chichester 


8,883 + 11,463-20,346 


Durham 


iS.3«+ 5.072 = 20,394 


Ely 


10,762+ 3,406= i4,i6S 


E»Let« 


14.636+ z.igj-ai.Sa^ 


S- nereFoKl 


10.371+ 4.148= i4.5'9 


Lichfiekl 


6,738+18,173-14.911 


Lincoln 


5,111 + 15,797 = 20.908 


London 


10,681+ 6,936=17.617 


Salisbury ... 


11,281+30,366-41.648 


Wells 


7.382+ 8,470-15,852 


II. York 


6.357 + ".S34-i8.S9» 


Bangor 


1,616+ 1,655= 3.»7» 


Lbndaff 


4,641+ i,7'8= 6.i6o 


St. Asaph ... 


3.01S+ 6,085= 9.103 


IS- St. David-5 ... 


6>3^3+ 3.5°* = '5.8*5 



^^265.542 

A'.JI.—The Vicats-Chora] of len Caihedrals possessed ^£10,278 llthe-ml 

charEe, ajid as Archdeacons had/": 7,906, of which the Archdeacon of Surrey 

Iiad ;£4.5J9 per annum, a must scandalous amount from paii^cs in Siittcjr 

and Hampshire ; ihe Arclidcacon of Catiitrbury had j£3,<xi9 per nnnum. 

Summary of A, B, and C : — 

Archbishops and BLshtips 189,718 

Chapters 314.276 \ 

Sepamle estates of I'ruicipals and I ^,^46 

Prebendaries 148.49a [ 

Vicars-Choral often Caihedrals ... lo.3;8 ) 

Tirenlj-.two Archdeacons '7-^S^ 

Sinecure Reclories in Wales, erroneously in- \ g^ , 

scrieil nmong " Clerical Appropriators " ) 

^681.695 

A very useful lesson is derived from a study of ihe lithe-rc»l 
charges in possession of tlie Colleges of Oxford and Cam 
bridge in 1836. 



Appendix D. 



247 







APPENDIX D. 










Oxford, 










£ 




£ 


I. 


King's 


• • • 


357 


10. Brasenose 


"S 




Corpus Chrisli ... 


• V • 


i»333 


Balliol . . . 


1,491 




Exeter 


• • • 


807 


Queen's ... 


2,451 




All Soul's 


• • • 


2,355 


Trinity . . . 


2,620 


5. 


Magdalene 


• • • 


2,886 


Merton . . . 


5,125 




University College 


• • • 


2,958 


15. St. John's 


779 




Jesus 


• • • 


'3,576 


Wadham... 


955 




Oriel 


• • • 


1,487 


17. Winchester, 


or New 




Pembroke 


• • • 


292 


College 
Total . . . 


... 10,311 




;£'42,898 








Cambridge, 










£ 




£ 


I. 


King's 


• • • 


10,408 


II. Queen's ... 


10 




Catherine's Hall 


• • • 


430 


St. John's 


5,048 




Jesus 


• • « 


1,543 


Clare 


2,004 




Christ 


• • • 


2,637 


Downing 


5 


5. 


Corpus Christi ... 


• • • 


150 


St. Peter's 


639 




Magdalene 


• • • 


1,318 


Trinity . . . 


33,441 




University College- 


• • • 


4,110 


17. Trinity Hall 


976 




T^mniflniipl •.. 




4S1 
3,154 








Pembroke 


• • • 

• • • 




;^67,646 


10. 


Gonville and Caius 


• • • 


1,292 






Oxford 


• • • 


••• ••• ••• ••• 


^^42,898 




Cambridge 


• • » 


• • • 


••• ••• ••• 


67,646 



Total for 34 Colleges <;^iio.544 

Schools, Charities, and Hospitals =;£'8o,52o5 
Companies and Corporations =;tio,97' 



1 ;^3,o67 is from eight parishes in Wales ; and of this amount, the Principal 
of Jesus College, Oxford, is the owner of ;f 1,532 lOJ. 

* ;£'2,402 for the Margaret Professor from Terrington, in Norfolk. 

8 Including Winchester School, ;f 7, 258 pel* annum; Eton, ;^8,484; Wim- 
bome, /'2,4i6. In Wales, All Soul's has ;£'875 ; University, Oxford, £yj ; 
Christ College, Cambridge, £yjo. 



1 448 Appendix D. 



^^M Christ Church, Oxford, has ^39,785 of tithes from eighty-two 

^^H parishes in eighteen counties. I have not included the amount 

^^H here, because it is placed among Ihe Chapters, )'et all the pro- 

^^H perty Is collegiate. 



Summary of Colleges, Schools, etc, : — 

£ 

Osfotd, 17 Colleges 42,898 

Cambtiage, i; Colleges 67.646 

Winchester School 7.Z5S 

EtonCoUege 8,484 

Wimbonxc ... 2,416 

Other smaller SchooU 11,362 

Hoapilals 32,000 

Charities 8.176 



^ 



x\ Corponitioi 
Piiblic Companies 
CJovernors distributim 



jC 1 96.055 



The disclosures made in the Tiihe Commutation Return tt 
1887 (Lord Wolmer's) as regards the extent of the prebendal am 
other separate estates, are most astonishing. The four princlpi 
officers — Dean, Precentor, Chancellor, and Treasurer— of cert 
cathedrals, were endowed with separate estates in tithes and 
lands, in addition to their shares of the Chapter propertia 
Then the prebendal estates were in the aggregate enormous. I 1 
am now dealing only with tithe property. And it is well to 
remark again that we should add one-half of the commuied 
value to tlie commuied value in order to ascertain the origini 
tithe value, according to Sir JoJin Caird's opinion, that the c 
muled value of tithes = 4 millions, was 2 millions less than t 
tithe value = 6 millions. I must also remark, that the rents 
of the episcopal, capitular and prebendal tithes, trere onljr < 




third their raclc-rental value, because the owners had for c 
turies let all their properties on beneficial leases for years, or 
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-re n I al value of 
the episcopal, capitular, and prebendal properties. The lease- 
hold property with which the Act of 1840 vested the Commis- 
sioners was ascertained to be only one-third of its rack-rental 
value, and it was also found that the same remark applied 
to all the church properties which were let on beneficial leases. 
This was a vital discovery. The ConimisBioners set about their 
Herculean work of enfranchising all Uie leasehold estates in 
order that they should oblain 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 stili running on, although it is 
now fifty-one years since the Act of 1840 was passed. 

It was never anticipated by Sir Robert Peel, Lord Russell, 
and other Church reformers, that the net income of the Common 
Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be over one 
million per annum. Any person who would have said so then 
would have been considered insane. In 1840 the idea of enfran- 
chising all the leasehold property of the church was not for one 
moment thought of, and if it were, that it could never be realized. 

Without going into the history of the Ecclesiastical Commis- 
sion, it is essentially necessary to state that this Commission 

3 cleared away, as far as public patronage is concerned with 



2SO Appendix. 



Acts of Parliament, the gross, yes, the disgraceful waste of 
church endowments. For instance, the present Archdeacon of 
Surrey, instead of receiving about ;^6,ooo a year, of which 
^£"4,539 came from the tithe* rent charges, has a canonry in 
Winchester Cathedral, gross income ;^i,ooo per annum, and the 
vicarage of Frensham, with net income ;£^4oo and house. An 
Order in Council divided, respecting vested interests, the Arch- 
deacon's enormous income among poor benefices and endowed 
new churches in the parishes where the tithes arose. This is a 
good specimen of all the operations of the Commissioners. 
Incumbents possessing enormous^incomes, whose benefices were 
in public patronage, have been dealt with by Orders in Council, 
and by private Acts of Parliament, in a similar manner, on the 
next avoidances, when the new incumbents were appointed, on 
very reduced incomes, and the residue divided among the poorer 
incumbents in the same parishes. Then as regards the episcopal, 
capitular, and prebendal revenues, the Commissioners allow the 
bishops and chapters their incomes as set forth in Acts of Parlia- 
ment and Orders in Council, and with the residue of the immense 
property, they satisfy local claims of parishes where the tithes 
arose or landed estates were situate. As for the prebendal pro- 
perties, separate estates of capitular offices, sinecure rectories 
and dissolved canonries, the Cathedral Act of 1840 vested them 
in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the good of the Common 
Fund, but Parliament allowed local claims on the tithes only. In 
a subsequent Act (i860), the local claims were extended, rather 
unwisely, to all kinds of church property. Hence we find many 
country parishes, with a population of a few hundreds, richly 
endowed and furnished with comfortable, well-built parsonages. 
The incumbents claim this by virtue of the extension clause of 
the local claims. The Commissioners have therefore been 



Appendix. 251 

bound to satisfy local claims of hundreds of parishes with popu- 
lations varying from 150 to 300, while the teeming population* 
of the town parishes have to go without help from the ahove 
resources. About ^^360,000 per annum has been given out of 
the Common Fund to satisfy local claims up to 1890. The Com- 
missioners were opposed to this extension clause, and it was not 
in the Bill, but was inserted and carried by members of Parlia- 
ment after the Bill was introduced, who had churches on their 
oivn estates, and in their neighbourliood, where large chutci> 
endowments existed. The clause included all the lauded 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 lai^e 
incomes of adjacent parishes, arising from local claims. 

For example, the Finsbury estate in London consists of tliree 
acres of Innd, which were given, in the fourteenth cenliuy, by a 
layman to St. Paul's for the support of one prebendary. The 
Corporation of London leased Ibis estate from ihe dean and 
chapter, and built valuable houses upon it. The .\ct of 1840' 
vested this properly, on the expiration of the lease, in the 
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In 1867 the lease expired, and 
the Commissioners carae into possession of ;^6o,ooo 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 i86c, 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 hirge 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 F. 

t clintges, copied from tlie Pirliamenlary 1 









,«,m,. 




Counties 


X^is^^-' 'fli^S^T"'] "^iS^^ 


P151l.lt 10 ScliooL,, 


IWford . 

SS; ; 

Vonct. . 

Heitfnni . 

Lncwler. 
Monnouih 

RutU>ii<] ' 

ilL: 

Wcumiuelai 
Wills . . 




." 


i 

ii 
zi 

US 

M 

11 

■756 


18,605 

IS 
l;i 

II 
ii 
II 

'S:6s4 

9,,697 


fJ:;s 
:ss 

3S 

ii 


8,86^ 
6.\ll 

.SI 

'i-i 
J:| 

ill 






fiifcojs 


».»77.539 


705.174 


■87,89? 


WALEf 

Anjleay. 
Brecon. . 
Cardigan. 
(JirmarlUen 

I)=nWgh . 






^■.667 

i:| 

'^&7 


£.3,065 


3,S 




Engbnd . . . 


6.4,03:1 


a.s??:i^ 


705!!^ 


e,>59 


Total . . 


/681,69s 


£».4>5.'>V \ tllA.^K \ [.^*i>* 








Cenenl totn 


of the too. it™ 


i, £*,<w.v*. 





2S4 



Appendix G. 



APPENDIX G. 

Analysis of the Tithe Commutation Return in Appendix F, showing (i) the number 
of Old Parishes in England and Wales ; (2) the number not appropriated, and the 
number appropriated, to which is added a full explanation of the analysis. 

England. 











Collegiate 




Parishes 


Total 
number 

of 
Vicars, 


Total 




T^sk iw^ n 1 9 1 


Appro- 


Impro- 


School, 


Appro- 


with 


number 


Counties. 




priated 


priated 


Hospital, 


priated 


Vicars but 


of 




AVCCil/l da 


Rectors. 


Rectors. 


etc., 


Vicars. 


without 


Ancient 










Rectors. 




Rectors. 


Parishes. 




I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


Bedford . 


25 


3 


12 


7 


21 


6 


27 


53 


Berks . . 


65 


26 


33 


6 


54 


7 


61 


137 


Bucks . . 


63 


9 


42 


I 


36 


10 


46 


125 


Cambridge . 


40 


19 


8 


19 


32 


5 


37 


91 


Chester . . 


SI 


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 


3^ 


7 


II 


3 


13 




13 


57 


Kent . . 


176 


143 


63 


13 


i8x 


10 


191 


405 


Gloucester . 


28 


II 


31 


I 


21 




21 


71 


I^eicester . 


75 


7 


33 


3 


35 


II 


46 


129 


20 Lincoln. . 


188 


38 


67 


8 


89 


32 


121 


333 


Middlesex . 


23 


8 


14 


I 


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 


:6 


6 


21 


II 


32 


U2 


Northumber- 


















land . . 


18 


16 


43 


3 


43 


3 


46 


^3 


Nottingliam 


41 


27 


22 


8 


45 


8 


53 


106 


Oxford . . 


74 


20 


25 


II 


40 


4 


44 


134 


Rutland . 


24 


6 


2 


— 


6 


I 


7 


33 


Salop . . 


X16 


8 


87 


4 


75 


4 


79 


219 


30 Somerset . 


252 


89 


107 


4 


156 


8 


164 


460 


Southampton 


171 


33 


48 


31 


87 


9 


96 


292 


Stafford . . 


46 


32 


53 


I 


56 


5 


61 


137 


Suffolk . . 


3 '9 


16 


123 


10 


93 


15 


108 


483 


Surrey . . 


74 


13 


42 


I 


35 


3 


38 


133 


Sussex . . 


160 


59 


62 


8 


104 


10 


114 


299 


Warwick . 


48 


7 


45 


18 


53 


16 


69 


134 


Westmore- 


















land . . 


13 


3 


8 


2 


13 


I 


14 


27 


Wilts . . 


»3i 


69 


50 


12 


lOI 


12 


113 


274 


Worcester . 


73 


31 


16 


I 


36 


7 


43 


128 


40 York . . 


155 


117 


156 


27 


186 


34 


220 


4«9 


TotaJ . 


4158 


1 1346 ^ 


I i%90 


y ^^^ 


V^^^'^ 


V ^27 


2972 


8022 



1 

Appendix G. 255 ■ 


APPENDIX G {contimici). 1 


Wales. | 








1 ™. 




Finishes 




T01.1 


CoumicB. 


^l^tt 


Reclori 


Impro- l»i>« 


?E 


«iih 
Vicaobu 
without 


■? 


fltimber 

at 
Andent 




■ 




J 


Rcclon. 




Reel on. 


P^.hcl. 


Anglesey . 


SO 


10 


13 


4 


5 


^ 


S 


77 


Brecon . . 


27 


Z4 


IS 


' 


24 




25 


69 


Cardigan . 


IS 


'5 


3' 




24 




24 


62 


Carmarthiii 






39 




36 




3M 


7S 




40 




13 


5 






18 


69 


nenbigh . 






7 




iS 




23 


S6 


Flint . . 




•S 






■s 




■S 


3' 


Glamorgan. 


5S 


29 


29 




41 




45 


119 


Merionelh . 




s 


4 




5 




S 


34 


Montgomery 


26 


IS 






19 






ss 


Pembroke . 


63 


27 


40 




49 




52 


'34 


12 Radnor. . 


18 


26 




> 


17 


3 


20 


SO 


Tola). . 


366 


221 


206 


3a 


171 


20 


agi 


834 


In England . 


4'58 


1346 


IS90 


3o« 


164s 


3^7 


1972 


S022 


Total in England 


















and Wales . 


45J4 


156S 


2095 


311 


3916 


347 


3afi3 


8856 


Column I indicates that nearly one-half of the parochial tithes 


in England and Wales were appropriated to archbishops, bishops, 


chapters, monasteries, colleges, etc There are 8,856 old parishes 


in England and Wales. Columns 2, 3, and 4 give the nnmbcr of 


appropriated rectories, total 3,985. So we have 3,985 old parishes 


deprived of their rectorial tithes. Who have these ? Column 2 are 


a rcli bishops, bishops, chapters, vicars- choral, and archdeacons. 


Column 3 are what are sometimes called "Lay Rectors," i.e., im- 


propriated rectors, namely, laypersons in receipt of rectorial titlies. 


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 








^^^ 


^^H 


^^^ 


^^H 


^^H 




^^^^ 



256 Appendix G. 



^^963, 390, or nearly a million a year. Appendices A, B, and C, 
give the rectors in column z. Appendix D gives the 321 ia 
column 4. As regards column 3, the tithe-rent chaises are dealt 
with as piivate properly, 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.' Again, the 
1,568 clerical rectors in column a employed only 1,176 vicars,, 
and the remaining 391 parishes had no vicars. Again, the 
2,096 impropriated rectors in column 3 employed only 1,5^5 
vicars, and the remaining 564 parishes had none. Again, the 311 
college, etc., rectors employed 207 vicars, and the remaining tor 
parishes had none. 

I refer the reader to the summary of tithe-rent charges at page 
253. (i) The Clerical Appropriators having ^681,695, number 
1,568. They are classified in Appendices A, B, and C. (i) The' 
Parochial Incumbents leceiving X'i4iS.o4<'i 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 ;^~i96,os5; they number 321, and are classified in Ap- 
pendix D, page 247. 



■ 1116 3 

^^^ inents in li 



APPENDIX H. 
I-ANDS AND Money Pavmekts in Lieu of Tithes 
The number of parishes in ivhicli awards were made under the 
Inclosure Acts, in 29 counties, was 989. ' These parishes do not 
appear in the Tithe Commutation Return of 1887. 



Taiishes ... 435 . 
Add the lithc^ 

number at > 4,524 . 

page 255 ) 



Total ... 4,959 i,63[ 2,573 J35 3.Sn 9-S4S 

To 9,845 are added 200 benefices in London, Canterbury, Isle 
of Man, etc , which receive tithe-taxes from houses, also fixed and 
variable incomes from commuted tithes. Therefore, 10,045 
benefices derive incomes from tithes. The total number of bene- 
fices is 13,979- Of the remaining 3,934, 4G4 are not endowed 
with tithes or glebes, and 3,470 were formed between a.d. 1818 
and A.D. 1S90. 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 impropriatei, that is, aliaiaied 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. 

' Parll .iiii en tary Return, " Tithe Co'iimulalion," pwbliaVLti i<i\'o.'^Ki&v,\'«i-\ - 



APPENDIX I. 
Aggregate Summary of Revenues of Church of England. ' 







EDdoxrmcnlt. 


T 


Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Sees 


... 87,827 


M 


Calhedral and Collegiate Churches 


... 197.400 


III 


Ecclesiastical Beoelices 










V 


Queen Anne's Bounty 


5.469,171 



^ 



■ ,- J . - , /- S.7S3-557 

Its capitalized value is about ;£, 1 40,000,000. 

The return deals only with ihe ffrmatiai/ sources of revenues. 
Hence it omits fees, pew-rents and Easter offerings. The return 
was made from values in 1886. The Commissioners' ow-n gross 
income in 1890 was ;^r, 320,000, and not ^1,147,827. The 
gross income of the beneficed clergy is by this return Jf 4,810,661 
or gross ^^344 a year each, net ;f 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 rakabU value of the episcopal, capitular and par- 
sonage houses=Xi '■ 151 +^18,928 + ;!C5 18,054 respectively = 
^548,133. The rack-rental value is about jC8oo,ooo a year. 

Dealing with the fluctuating part of the beneficed clergy's in- 
come, we may safely estimate fees, pew-rents and Easier offerings 
at ^1,000,000 a year. In arriving at this amount I have been 
guided by certain well-known official data, (i) The average fluc- 
tuating incomes of the 1 1 5 rectors in the old parish of Manchester 
were, for 1890, ^142 each, (i) The 987 benefices of Wales and 
Monmouth had, in 1890, j{^io 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., ;j48,ooo. 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: — ;^3,94i,o57 + 
jC^I^.^os + ^617.000 (C.F.) -1- ^1,000,000 = Z5.S30,66a or 
^415 each ; net ^£334 calculated like the net ;£36j above But 
^6,000,000 a year for the 13,979 incumbents is nearer the truili 
Add to 11,667 with parsonages, a rental of ^52 ^ V^" for house - 
net average for each of the 11,667 ^386. We have, at lust, a 
correct idea of the immense u'«illh of the beneficed clergy alone. 

' Taken from lire PaiWamc^i^M^ ^iAm<i\ vk.1. ijuUkihe'l, vir., " RcTCinic* <rf 
the Church of EnfiUnd," ay-i ol i^wt, \^\. 



index! ^^^^H 


Al«l, 3. 


Baron, John, 105. ^^^^H 


Abnham, I. 


Bede, II ; speats but once of tithes, 1 


Adam, 3, 6. 


to be paid to poor, at ; his account II 


Aiivowsons, sale of, rj. 




Adhvold, King of Notlhumliria, 42. 


8(, 82. 


Aidan, Bishop, 36. 


Cellatmine, Cardinal, J, 6. 


Alcuin, 35. 


lieneficcs in England and Wales, 257. 


Alfred, King, 67. 


Birch, his '■ Cartularium Saxonicum," 


Alien Priories, property of, 139; 


37. 39. SS, 61, 143 ; discovers ear- 


BDnual amount sent to Clnny in 


liest Anglo-Saxon census MS., gi- 


France, 170 ; dissolved, 170. 


Birinds, firtl AwliLiishop of Vo(k. 35, 


Allen, John, his " Inquiry into the 


Bishops, first distributoi^ of church 


Royal Prerogative," 58. 


revenues, iS; British Bishops (a,d. 


Althorp, Lord, 202. 


597). 3S ; Anglo-Saxon, 93- 


Appendices, sa Table of Contents, 


lllunl, in his " History of the Refor- 


p. xvi. 


mation" telb of the condition of the 


AposloUcal Constitutions, 5-7. 


poor at the ilissolution of monas- 


Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, 


teries, 1 28. 


increased Uishop Roger's modus for 


Blaekslone, Judge, quadripartite di- 


City of London, 1S7 ; the record 


vision, 18, 23 ; church endou-ments, 


of the Corainon Council on this 


24, 25; monks, 88; his vieivs on 


modus, 188, 


the origin of arbitrary consecration 


Asser, SS- 


of tithes, .48. 




BOeland defined, 57. 


Athon, John de, his "Constitutions 


Boniface, Archbishop of Mentu, 40. 


of Otho " ; refers to canon lair 


British Churches, ancient, no tithes 


which makes rectors repair chancel 


paid to, 14. 


iindnaveofchui-ches, 124, note I. 


Brewer,J. S., 11, 17, 119. 




Bromton, John, abbot of Jervaulx in 


IlaUrcd, King of Kent, his witan de- 


Yorkshire, 48, 49, 114, 115. 


clined to ratify a grnnt of folcland, 


Burnet, Bishop, his criticisms on 


58. 


■Wharton's "Anglia Sacra," iKi,i^. 







Cain, 3- 

Caitd, Sir James, valued lillies at si 



millioi 



, K07- 



I 



Canons, Cakhyth (Clielsea), A. n. 787, 
p. 43' 

Canute, King, his laws, 121 ; made 
use of tliirty-six out of llie forly- 
fivearticlesof the "Church Gtilh " 
Laws, 121 ; parishioners to keep 
churches in repair, 156. 

Ouiterbury, primacy of, 37. 

Catalogue of Sir Robert Cotton's lili- 
ry, in A.D. 1632, 99, 100 ; second 
italogue, 1695 ; third, 1705. 

Cave, Dr., Iiis character of Whatlon, 

Chancel, to be kept in repair by 

owners of tithes, 156. 
Charibert, king of Paris, 13. 
Cbarlej (Charlemagne}) king of 

France, makes his lirst public law 

for payment of tithea, a, d. 779, pp. 

33. 34. 40. 
Christian ministers, how maintained. 



Church Defence Institution, II. 

Church of England established in the 
liingdom of Kent, 14, 15; in 
Northumbria, 36. 

Church Criih Law, art. 6, enacts the 
tripartile division of tithes, 95 ; 
Thorpe, Ltngard, Slubbs, and 
Freeman acknowledge thia law, 
96, 97 ; chapters x,, xil refute the 
opinions of opponents of this latv. 

Church-Scot, 77, 78. 

Church Revenues, 358, 

Clergy, their share of Church reve- 
nues, iS, 79, 13a, 358 ; " They h»d 
not the sole use of tithes," 31. 

Codex Diplomat icus, Kcmblc, 59, 
*', 63. 



Colman, liishop, 37, 38- 

Comber, Thomas, Dean of CarlisI 
supports, like Dean Priileaui, ll 
divine right of persons to Ibl 
tithes, and abuses Selden for havinj 
denied it, 53. 

Commons, House of, (letiUoned tl 
Crown against paying tithes foC- 
limber, 136 ; succeeded in 1372 ii 
limiting power of canon of A.D. ] 
as regards timber, 136-138. 

Commutation Act, aoi ; Taley's 
Adam Smith's deGnitlons of tit 
201 ; "commuted value," delinedi 
203 ; an illustmiiun of the, 3 
formula used to find the septcn 
average, 204; the 80th sec. lefl ■ 
loophole by which landlords c 
traded themselves out of payment 
204i 205 i erc'^^ injustice of payiaf 
tithes on agricultural produce onlf^ 
306; tithes valued in 18363' 
millions, 307 ; who shared ibl 
profits? 207, 2Cp8. 

Confession, The, lis power for e: 
ing tithes, 38. 

Conslantinc, Emperor, 7. 

Cotton, Sir Robert, his library, ; 
loi ; Church Crilh law not in 
library during his life, 99 ; Li 
Selborne says it was, 101 ; nol 
the official catalogue of 1633, j 
99, too; first mentioned in Wantejr 
catalogue of 1705, p. loo. 

Cotton, Sir John, 100, lol ; 
A.D. 1703 ; Ad of I'atliai 
passed in 1702 vesting librat7 li 
trustees, loa 

Councils, synod at Westmintli 
*-!>- "7S. i33i In *•». "195 
Archbishop of York, 133 ; An 
liidio^ Winchelsey's synod 




London, a.d. 1*95, 134 [ synod 
at St. Paul's, London, i.ix 1343 ; 
(ilhing all mnnner of timber, 135; 
the House of Commona fiequently 
pelilEooeil against this canon ; ar- 
bitrary appropriation of tithes 
abolished by the third I^teran 
Council, 148; again in A.D. 1215, 
150 ; Archbishop Stratford's coun- 
cil in London in A.D, 1342, the 
4th canon of which provided for 
poor, 157 ; the third I.aleran coun- 
cil had forbi;]den " iiifeudationa," 
159- 

Crab, Friiir, 10. 

Cranmer, Archbishop, surrendered 
lamied estales_to Henry VHI., 181. 

Cronnvell, Earl'of Essex, his advice 
to Henry Vni., Iioiv and why to 
divide the monastic lands, 125, 
iz6. 

Cuthbert, .'Vrchbi^ihop of Canterbury, 
40. 

Daneseld, 17. 

Danes, treaty witli, between Edwntd 
Ihe Elder and Guthmni II„ for 
payment of litlics, 69. 

Decretals, forged, of Isidore, 10, 

1*^^^. S'f Simon, bis " Parson's 
CooiiseJler," 128; he said, "The 
poor have a share in Ihe tithes," 
ijg ; a brief sketch of his life, 130; 
I'Otd Selborne quotes a garbled 
edition of Dele's Counsellor, 130, 
13'- 

Deusdedit, Atchbishop of Canterbury, 
37- 

Dil)dln, Mr. Chancellor, in his new 
edition of Dr. Brewer's work 
wrongly translates "portiones," 1 1, 
17, 22, 23 ; differs from Brewer on 



the division of lilhes, 
maltrial tvidmci, 1I9 ; his e 
on the " Penitential " of Theodore, 
iig; his "blend," 119. 

Diocese and pariah nl one time, syn- 
onymous, 83. 

Dionysius, "Exiguus," mentions no- 
thing about tithes, 5. 

Dominicans, 170. 

Dunstan, Archbishop, I4S, 1G3 ; First 
episcopal pluralist, 165. 

EaJbert, bishop of Lindisforne in 
A.D. 686, paid tithes to the poor, 
but not to ihe Church, ai, 51. 

Earl of Chester, charterof, 176. 

Ecclesiastical Commission created in 
1836, particulars of its "Common 
Fund" in 43rd Report, 141, 173. 

Edgar's, King, laws, 79 i manorial 
churches received one-third of the 
tithes, 79 ; threefold division of 
churches, So; first English law 
expressly appropriating tithes, 80 ; 
canons of, 86 ; imi-^nant gloss, 86. 

Edmund, King, the laws of, 771 
bishops to keep churches in repair, 
.56. 

Edwin, King, 36. 

Ed«-ard the Confessor, his alleged 
laivs for tithes, ig. 

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. 
Engtishm.-in's Brief, 9, 13S, 139, 142, 
•43. MS- 



Eiht 

i; 

i: 



^H liln 

m 



KsdaJIe, Edward JeFTries, owner of 
tithes of St. Bolotpb williout Ald- 
ga.te, with particulars, 199, zoo. 

Ethelbert, king of Kfnt, became a 
Christian, 13; created and endowed 
three bishoprics, 15 ; the Anglo- 
Saxon Church was tfiiis State Es- 
tablished, 15, note 3 ; enacted no 
laws for payment of tithes, 19. 

Ethelbert, King of East Angles, 48, 
lelred II., called the Unready, re- 
turns from exile, A.D. 1014, p. 102 ; 
Church Grith law for the tri- 
partite division of tithes, 94, 95, etc 

EthelwulPs, King, charters, 59, 60, 
62, 65. 

E<on Domesday, jS. 

Extraordinary lilhe-rent charge, how 
it originated, zti, 213 ; redeemeil, 
= 13- 

Felix, a Burgundian missionary, 35. 

Fire Acts, 18S, tga 

First Fruits nnil Tenths, thdr origin, 

F&lcland defined, 5G. 
Franciscans, 17a 

Freeman, E. A., on lawyers, 25 ; on 
letter of Kentish men to Alhelstan, 
75 ; on lithe law passed at Great- 
anlea, 75 ; on Edmund's law, 79 ; 
contradicts himself on the Church 
Grilh law lo8-llo; letter to Ful- 
ler, loS-109; his pedantry and in- 
Fuller, Rev. M., "Our Title Deeds," 
its cnors, 19, 6S, 69, 73, ti6, 119 ; 
dedicated his work to Lord Scl- 
bome, 1 19 1 Freeman's letter lo 
him about the " Church Grith law," 
lo^ 109 1 omits nialti-ial niHeuct 
it Price's opiivion, ^t,^ \ ^*ms 



over the Ihreefold division 
Church revenues staled by Ibfl 
rectors of Reading, 132 ; 
thi-eefold division in Grith ta*, 
117; fails to " shake lis aathority," 
iiS, 119. 

Georgt, bishop of Oatia, 42. 
Grealanlea, Council of, 74. 
Grith and Mund, 9S- 
Culhrum I., King, his treaty > 

Alfred, in which there was noihlq; 

about tilhes, 67 ; received from Kiiv 

Alfred East Anglia and Natthma 

berland, 69. 
Guthrum II., his Irenty with E 

the Elder in which ihe Danes w 

lo pay lillies, 69, 

Habam, King Etht1rci]'<< utilitiaiin 
of, 95- 

Iladdan and Slubbs' "Concilia'' 
on Ethelwulfs charter!:, 6 1 , 63, 65 
Ihcir opinions on Theodote' 
" Penilenlial," 20-23. 

Mate, William, archdeacon of I 
don, first questioned Itic tripartli 
division of tithes. 85 ; foundation d 
his arguments, 107 ; gets Frit 
opinion on the Church Grith b 
107 J seeks and receives euumI 
opinion, which isadvcrse lo Priced 
107 ; Selbomc, Fuller, Dibdia 1 
others avoid quoting this advc 
opinion, 107. 

Ilallani, Henry, 8i. 

Hasted, the historian of Keat, 175. 

Iligbert, Archbishop of LichfieM, 41 



llolinshcd, 48, 
, Ilonotlus, Archbishop of 



C«iHcil»4| 



Hook, Deaa of Cliiuhcsler, 15. 
llowley, Arclibishop of Canterbury, 

Huntingdon Ibe clironicter, 54. 

Ina, King, CUnrch-scot in hU Laws, 
A.D. 690, p. 78; tillies not niun- 
lioneil, 78. 

Inclosure Awards, 257. 

Incumbenls of churches, now free- 
holders, but up to A.D. iiSo held 
their positions according to will of 
patron, 148 ; before Richard I. and 
Jolin, lay patrons, nominaled, in- 
sliuited, and inducted Ihem 150. 

Infeudatiou) defined, 159 ; third 
Lateran Council, A.D. ilSo liad 
forbidden them, 159. 

ingnlph, SS, 65, 66. 

IrJE^ missionaries, II. 

Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, forge<l 
decretals, lo. 

Jaeubetl, Archbi>liop of Canterbury, 
40. 

Johnson's, John, "Laws and Cus- 
toms," 69; founded on "Concilia," 
105 ; the Church Crith law un- 
known to him, 105. 

Josselinc, secrelary lo Archbishop 

Parker, 101. 
Justus, Bishop, 15, 16, 36, 37. 

Kemble, John, S, 14, 33 ; on OITa's 
grant, 50 ; his six canons in testing 
charlei3, 59 ; hla opinions on Elhcl- 
ttuirs charters, 63-65 ; supports 
Athelstan's tithe-law, 71; synods 
and councils not ilifTerent in mean- 
ing, 74, 79. 



Kennett, Bishop of Pelerborough, on 
one -third of tithes to manor 
churches, S5, 86 ; "the parish 
priest was the bank," 24. 

Kentish men, kller of, to .'^Ihelstan, 
7S- 

Limbarde, William, his collection of 
Anglo-Saxon lan-s, A. I). 1568, 104. 

Landlords' or manorial churches, 33, 
24 ; earliest account of, 25, 36 ; 
Edgar's laws giving them one-third 
of the tithes, 26, 79 ; how this mu- 
//wv/ passed into the Tii^n/f accord- 
ing to Lord Seliwme, 113, 149. 

Liturentius, Archbishop, 36. 

Legaline Councils in England, 42. 

I.indisfarne, bishopric of, 36. 

Lingard, Dr., on Bede'5."Tribututn," 
22 ; on Et;bert's excerplioa;, 30 ; 
on Athelstan's law, Ji; his re- 
marks on the letter of the Kentish 
men to King Athdstan, 75 ; on 
Church Gtithkw,96, 116. 

London, tithes in the city and li lien les 
of, 1S6-100 ; lint Fire Act enacting 
tithes, iSS ; second Fire Act, 190; 
parishes receiving tithes by these 
Fire Acts enumerated, 190-19Z ; 
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, Ihelr incomes and 
populations, 194-zoa j the tripar- 
tite division of church revenues in 
London churches, 193. 



JMogdebui^h c 
Malroesbury chronicler, 54. 
Manorial churches, see Laud lord', 
churches. 



^ 



Mnrkel-ganiens Act of 1873, how it 
{)rigiDn.ted, zil ; orclianls. III. 

Masfon, proviDcial council of, ID, ll. 

Mellilui, Bishop, 15, 16, 36, 

Mcniiicant frEara, 170; their niling 
iilca, 170 ; theirvictvs about tithes, 
171. 

Milrain, Uean of St. Paul's, 34, 

Mirror. The. 127. 

Monasteries in England, their number 

up 10 A.D. 1115, pp. 143, 146. 1*7, 

iGg ; annual value of their pro- 
penies, 159; bricfaccountof, 163- 
1S5 ; monasteries commenced to 
decline, 170; precedents to guide 
Henry VIII. in dissolving monas- 
teries, 177, 178; total number dis- 
solved, and their annual value, 
185 ; the three abbots who were 
exsculed, 184. 
Monks, 18, 88 J the four privileged 
orders exempted from paying tithes, 
l6t ; these lands still exempt, i6z. 

Noroian Conquest gave a great im- 
pulse to building monasteries, 16S ; 
number of bishops. 16S. 

Odo, Archbishop of Cauterbury, 87, 
88 ; the source of his canon on 
tithes, SS. 

Oflii. king of Mercia, full particulars 
of, 40-41 ; his alleged law of tithes, 
A.o. 794. p. 47- 

Old Latin translators, III, I12 ; Ihey 
omit fifteen Anglo - Saxon laws 
which Thorpe has published, til. 

Oswy, king of Notlhumberland, 37- 



Coiutitullon 



A.o. iaj7,p. 




Parish Churches, Iheir origin. Si, 93; 
Selden's opinion, S4 ; opinions of 

"Parochia," different meanings, 8j. 

Parsonage houses, number of, 3^8. 

Paulinas, first Archbishop of Vork, 36. 

Peel, Sir Robert, solved the lithe 
problen, 3ax, 

" Penitentials" of Archbishop Theo- 
dore, zo, 21. 51. 

Pepin, King, 34. 

Perpetual curate, how it differs troni 
,1a,, liS. 

Peter's pence, 41. 

Poor, the. Archbishop Theodore finl 
refers to tithes paid to, 51 ; Bishop 
Eadbcrl gave tithes to, 51 ; titha 
to poor in Edgar's law. 85 ; Arch- 
bishop Stratford, 4th canon in 1341 
gn pnyirg a part of tlw tithes l», 
157 ; fiist Poor Law Act, iij j 
Bkckstonc 011 the, 127 ; the people 
also supported the poor in Kdgar'i 
canons, 68, 127; "the poor have 
■ share in the tithes," says Degge, 
1291 fourAetsof Parliomenl giiir^ 
the poor b right to a part of the 
tithes, 131 ; 43 Elii-, c. ii., for re- 
lief of poor, Ijl. 

Popes: Clement I., 5, 6; Gregory 
the Great, 11, 13} his reply W 
Augustine's letter, 16, 35 ; Sylves- 
ter, 17, 129; Simplicius, 17; 
Gelasius, 17; Honorius III., 37; 
Boniface V., 37; Viiali 
Adrian I.,40t 4' ; Aleianders 111,"* 
letter to Englisll hierarchy 
mniidiH^ the people to pay titlnn'1 
133 ; Innocent III. 
ordered payment of lilhes, 149. 

Popuialion in .Anglo-Saxon 

Vi\ti«, VJchacO, his 0|»nioti of 



39 i 

! 



265 



"Church Grilh Law," 106; Ihe 
value of this opinion, 107. 

Prideaux, Dean of Norwich, 47 i 
his mistaken inlerpietation of Ot&'s 
gra.iit, A.D. 794, p. 50 ; his mislEiken 
interpietation of Ethdwulfs chnr- 
ters, S3, S4; supports Athelstan's 
alleged tithe law, 72 ; abuses 
Sclden 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, 309 ; two 

values on it, when forming Bill for, 

toy ; illustrations oi Ihe mc^m 
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 tec- 
torial tithes repair chancel and 
nave, 124, note i. 

Roger, Bishop of London, his modus 
dicimandi for the city of London, 
186 ; tripartite division of these 

Roman Mission to England, 13, 141 
35' 

Russell, Lord John, borrowed Peel's 
machineiy for tithe problem, 202, 
2031 orieinaled eitraordinary tithe 
rent charge, 211, 212; his " perma- 
nent settlement " of the tithe ques- 
tion, a delusion, 215. 

Saxon Chronicle, 54. 

Schmid, Dr. Reinhold, published 



Church Grilh Low in his " Anglo- 
Saxon Laws," 108; Thorpe's 
opinion thereon, 108 ; referred to 
by Hale's unnamed correspondent, 

Selborne, (he Earl of, 5. lo, 49 ; hi« 
views on the Church Grith law, 

96 ; quotes Stubls' private letter 
against tripartite division of Cithei, 

97 ; wrongly quotes marginal writ- 
ing on MS. of Grith law, tot j 

law, 102 ; his witnesses to upset 
this law, 102-116; their evidence 
against him, 102-116; omiti 
material eoidencc which militatu 
against bis views on this law, 105, 
107 ; his fallacious inferences from 
ni^alive evidence, 102-106; quotes 
Freeman's letter to Fuller on 

Church Grith law, 108; incorrect 
and misleading description of con- 
tents of Ihe " Worcester Volume," 
Nero, A.I, 117, 118; his remarks 
on 15 Rich. IL c vi. open to grave 
objections, 154; his opinion as to 
the origin of tithe en<Iowments to 
parishes, 149. 
Selden, John, 3, 5, 10, M ; on legt- 
tinecouncilsof A.n. 787, pp. 43,45; 
onOfTa'slawsofA.D. 794,p. 48; his 
interpretation of Etbelwulfs char- 
ter, 65, 66 ; hut expresses a douhE, 
66 ; his remarks on the treaty be- 
tween Edward the Elder and Guth- 
mm II., 69; supports Athelstan's 
lithe law, 71; supports Edmund's 
law, 79, 83 ; his remarks on 
Edgar's laws, 84 ; quotes Egbert's 
excerptions from Ihe Worcester 
Volume, 103 ; his use of the ex- 
pression, "arbitrary ci 



266 



Index, 



of tithes, meaning that a layman 
could give his tithes without the 
sanction of the bishop, to whatever 
spiritual person he willed, 149. 

Smith, Dr. Thomas, his catalogue of 
the Cottonian library in a.d. 1695, 
loO; Church Grithlaw omitted, 100. 

Soames, History of Anglo-Saxon 
Church, 40. 

Spelman, Sir Henry, 5, 67; his 
"Concilia" in a.d.. 1639, p. 103. 

Statutes — 

— 17 Edw. III. c. 28, 136, Com- 

mons petition against timber 
tithe. 

— 18 Edw. III. c. 9, 136, Com- 

mons petition against timber 
tithe. 

— 21 Edw. III. c. 48, 136, Com- 

mons petition against timber 
tithe. 

— 25 Edw. III. c. 37, 136, Com- 

mons petition against timber 
tithe. 

— 45 Edw. HI. c. 3, 136, petition 

granted. 

— 12 Rich. II. c. 7, 127, Support 

of poor by towns. 

— IS Rich. II. c. 6, 153, 157, pro- 

vision for poor and vicar. 

— 16 Rich. II. c. 5, 161, Act of 

Premunire. 

— 2 Ilen. IV. c. 4, 161, against 

purchasing bulls for exemp- 
tion. 

— 4 Hen. IV. c. 12, 154, per- 

petual vicar created and en- 
dowed. 

— 19 Hen. VII. c. 12, 127, support 

of poor by towns. 
— 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, 179, i^- 
straint of appeals to Rome. 



Statutes {continued) — 

— 27 Hen. VIII. c. 20, 179, for 

payment of tithes. 

— 27 Hen. VIII. c. 21, 188, tithes 

of City and Liberties of Lon- 
don. 

— 27 Hen. VIII. c. 26, 127, sup- 

port of poor by towns, etc. 

— 27 Hen. VIII. c. 28, 180, mona- 

steries under £20Q a year dis- 
solved. 

— 28 Hen. VIII. c. 16, 179, pope's 

power over tithes abolished. 

— 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13, 184, mona- 

steries over ;f200 a year dis- 
solved. 

— 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13, 126, owners 

of abbey lands to use hospi- 
tality. 
--31 Hen. Vin. 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 25, 9^. in the £ in London. 

— 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 13, 76, pay- 

ment of personal tithes. 

— 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 13, adds to 

27 Hen. VIII. c 20, and 32 
Hen. VIII. c. 7. 

— I Eliz. c. 19, 183, tithes in ex- 

change for episcopal lands. 

— 13 Eliz. c. 20, 131, proats of 

benefices to the poor, 
-r- 18 Eliz. c. II, s. 7, 131, confirms 

the above Act. 
— fl^T^^XvL. Q.. 7.^ \'vv^ for relief of 



St»tules {conlinutd) — 

— 22 and 23 Car. 11. c. 15, 188, 

Fire Act ior lithes in Loadon. 

— 44 Geo. III. c. 8g, 190, increases 

lilhes in London. 

— 6 and 7 Wm. IV. c. 71, 201, 

Commutallon Act of 1836. 

— 6 nnd 7 Wm. IV. c 77, 141, 

created Ecclesiastica.1 Com- 
mission. 

— z and 3 V[cL c. 62, 3. 27, 213, 

on tithes of orchards. 

— 36 and 37 Vicl, c 42, 213, on 

tithes of market gardens. 

— 49 and 50 Vict. c. 54, 213, re- 

demption of exlraordinary 
tithes. 

— 54 Vicl. c. 8, 225, for recovery 

of tithes. 

Slcpheiu, tierjeaDt, lithes as odiousi 
=3- 

Stratford, Archbisliop of Canterbury, 
his Canon set apart a portion of 
the tithes for the poor, 97. 

Streaneschalch (Whitby), 37, 38. 

Stubbs, William, Bishop of Oxford, 
4S ; supports Athelstan's lithe law, 
7'. 79i 83 ; supports Grilh law of 
A.D. 1014 in his " Cons lita lion al 
History," 96, 97; contradicts his 
historical statements in private 
letters as regards this law, 97; 
Selborne quotes one of his letters, 
97 ; the bishop quotes Stratford's 
canon recognising the claim of poor 
to a share of the tithes, 97 ; admits 
that the poor have a claim on the 
tithes and other church endow- 
ments, 157. 

Terra Regis defined, 58. 

Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, 



39, 40; lirst to hQ,ve mentioned 
tithes, 30, 51. 

Theophylact, Bishop of Todi, 42. 

Thorpe, Benjamin, 14, 67, 72 j his 
opinion on Willcins's "Concilia," 
106 ; frequent references. 

Tillesley, Archdeacon, 6. 

Tithes, Uld Testament quotations uf 
their payment, I ; their appropria- 
tion to monasteries, 8 ; how lirst 
given to the Christian Chnrcli, 8 ; 
the clergy hod not the sole use of 
them, 21 ; LegatJne Council in Eng- 
land, A D. 787, for their payment, 
43 ; first civil law in England for 
their payment, 44 ; Lord Sel- 
borne's opinion on the 17th In- 
junction of the Legatine Council 
45 ; Athelstan's law on, 70 ; deB- 

nition of, 76 ; duties of parish 

priests for their tithes in pre-Re- 
formalion times, 142 ; these duties 
no longer performed, 144; parishes 
held their tithes by commait righl, 
but monasteries by grants or pre- 
scriptions, 151 ; traced from their 
origin, 151 j appropriated lo 



= of 1 



. kinds 



"51 i 



tithes of Church in Wales, 2 
222; commuted in 1836, 201 ; in 
London, 186-200. The total 
value in 1836 of commuted lilhes 
according lo counties see Appendix 
F ; see Appendix G for the number 
of parishes in England and Wales 
paying lilhes, and the number of 
rectors and vicars receiving them. 
For their divisions, see the heading 
"Triparlile." 
rriparlile division of lilhes, by the 
laivs of Kdgar, 79 ; of Ethelruil 
II's, 95; of Canute's, 121 -, tU* 



^Bm 



I 



n London, 193, is slated 
by the reclots of ReadinE, 132. 
. TripattUe division of Church revennes, 
7, I?, 82, 86, 95, 1S9. 
Truslees of Sit R. Collon'5 Ubrary, 



Vergil, Folydore, Archdeacon, 4S. 

Vicar, orgin of, (51 ( Ihe "petpelual 
vicar" of 4 Hen. IV. c. 11, r54, 
'55 ; 'li'S '^w as regards the vicar 
19 important in two ways, liS ; not 
originally a freeholder, ijE; num- 
ber of vicars employed in the old 
parishes receiving tithes, see Ap- 
pendix G i a list of the small or 
vicarial tithes, 15s ; generally en- 
dowed by the bishops with one- 
third of the tithes following Edgar's 
appropriation, 158, note 1 j vicars 
owe to Acts of Parliament their 
endowments and permanent free- 
hold position, 15S, note I ; Lord 
Selbcrne's remarlcs on 15 Rich. 
II. c 6 open to pave objections, 
154. 



of. 



Wales, tithes of the four 
216-224 ; Bangor, 217, llS ; Llan- 
daff, ziS, 219; 5i. Asaph, 219, 
220 ; St. David's, 2ZO-222 ; tilhe- 
rent charge in possession of Ecclesi- 
astical Commission io Wales in 
the year 1889, 222, 223 ; amount 
of prebendal tithes still outstand- 
ing on leases, 223 ; amount paid to 
the Welsh dioceses out of the Com- 
mon Fund in 1SS9. 223; the net 
annual receipts from Wales in iSSS, 
234; the gross income for 1890, 



224 ; Church and Noncon(onni> 
populations respectively, 124. 

Wanley, Humphrey, his calalc^MOf 
the Cotlonlan Library, l(NX 

WnsserschUben, Professor, on dte 
" Penitential " of Theodore, l» 

Wendover, Roger, 48, 54. 

Werbnigh, St., monastery at Chcslei, 
charters and grants to it by llK 
Earls of Chester, 176. 

Wharton, Henry, division of tltltei, 
18; allHclicd Degge'a " Paraon'l 
Counsellor," 128 ; attacks Blshof 
Buinet's " History of the Rdbrml- 
tion," izg i his character by the 
bishop and by Dr. Cave, 129. IJO; 
the bishop's exposure of the enon 
of" An glia Sacra," 129, note] : he 
had two parishes at the age of 14, 
and wrote his " Defence of Plun- 
lites," 129; Degge attacked pllll* 
lists, 1 28. 

Wheeloclc, 105. 

Wichlilfe, John, bis views abo 
tithes, etc, i_';, 174. 

Wighard sent to Rome in A.D, 664 
be consecrated Archbishop of 
Canterbury and died there, 39, 

Wigbood, a French abbot, 42. 

Wilfrid, 35, 38. 

Wilkins, David, the first to pubO 
the '• Church Grith Law " in 1 
"Anglo-Saion Laws," loj ; 1 
omitted it in his "Coodlia' 
the character of his writings 
by Thorpe and Aichdeacon 
correspondent, 107, loS. 

Wiltenagemol.whal constitutes k, 

Wolscy, Cardinal, 141. 



FGIAL SCIENCE SERIES. 
SCARLET CLOTH, EACH 2a. 6d. 
.. k and WajsL 

•' Xothinff tbab Profeaaoi Bogns vt 
peOplB."— Alhmimm, 
OliLUi&tlan : Its Cania uid Can. Edvabd Cibfentbo. 

" No pausing plscB of polomice, bnt ■ pennanBiit poBaession."— SsoiiiiA Xnriw. 
OnlntSHsnDe ot Soolallim, Dr. Schifflb, 

" Precisely the manual needed. Brlet, lucid, tail and irtas."— Briliih WnHy. 
DuMlnlsm and PolltiflS. D. G. BiTCHCS, M.A. (Oxon.). 

' New BditiDQ, with two additional Eseaya oa EmuH Etolutioh. 

" On« of the most Buggestile books ve haie met wlth."~IiI«Mrji World. 
Ballfloii of Boolallim. £. Bbltobt Bu. 

EtUu ot Eoolsllim. E. Beuobx Bu. 

" Mr. Bai la by far Che ablett ot the En|;llah eiponeata ol Socialism."— ITcitnfiutcr 

T, Th« Drink Qneatlon. Dr. Eatb Mitcbeij^ 

" Plenly of interestliig matter (oi reflection, '—eraphie, 
8. Piomotlan at Oineral Happlneti. 

" A reasonfld accuunt ol the moBt advanced ac 
trine hi a clear and readable [onu."— ScoMman. 
BDjIand'i Ideal, So. 
" Tbe Hterar? paweT Id Dnmtitakable, tbolr tr 

their eDthualaini."— PoJI Mall Gaxtli. 

BoolKllini In England. SmmiT Webb, LIi.B, 

" Tba beat eeneral 'lew of the aubjeot from the modarn SoeiallBt iAAii."—AIUrui\uit, 
Prince Biimarok and State Soolaliim. W. H. Dawson. 

" AsucclDct. we digested review of Gemmn social and economic U't^BlatioasiDOe 
1870."— Salnninj ikntii. 
Qodwin'a Polltloal Jnitlm (On Property). Edited by H, B. Salt. 

" Shows Qodwln at bis best ; with an ioteiesting and inlorming iDtrodnction.-— 
SiOigms EtfaLd. 
the Story of tbe Frenoh BeTOintlon. E. Belfoht Bix. 

(lie CD'Oparative aommoDwealth. Laubenci Qhohldku. 

" An independent eiposltion of the Socialism rtt tbe Mara ichooL" — Conttrnpofary 

Bbbhabd BOBAHaUBT, M.A, (Oion.), 
elery student of tne Nineteenth Century spirit.'- 

" Ho one can complain of not befse ahie to understand what Mr, Boeangael 
means. "-PHiJ MM CoatK. 
16. OhultT Or^nlMtlOD. 0. S. Loch, Seoretary to Charity OrgBnieaHon 

Sooietj, 
" A perfect little mumsL'—AtlwHum. 
" Deserves a wide circDtatlon."-&oliii<a», 
IT. Tfaoreau'i Anti-Blaxary and BefOrm Papert. Edited b; H. S. Sai.i. 

"An Uitereating collection of easays."— idimry World. 
18. Seir-Help a Hondred Yean Ago. 

■' Will be BtndiBd -nth mncb bsnafit by all who i 
of the condition o( the poor."— Mom in jj Pojl 
IB. Tha Hav York State BeroTmatoli M &Vm\n_ K:iA~u.s.^n.'e.' 

^^K"^ raluable contribution to ttoalltaialuia otvsnoVosl"—^'''"'' "''^^ 



I 



SOGUL SOmNCE 8EEIES— (Coiilinuaif). 



90 


Oommon Banw >bout Weman. 










"An admirable ooUeotlon of pipBrs, adiocaClng In the m 


OBt Ubsial apirtl tin 










Bl 


lbs UDMrned [nsFgrnent. 


"— iWlo. 




W. H. D*»wt. 


aa. Our Destiny. 


LlTTBJIIlO GBOXLeHA 




"A vary Tiaordni little book, dealing 


witb the InfluencB o 


Soctallam OD nu»al> 


08 




■TlDk. 










Dr. Edwibs and B. Uabx ATiuia. 




•■ Will glTB i gopi ld« Dt the condiHo 


of the w 


rking Clara 


ea la Anieii<a, *aJ a 






e formed. 


— SwUim. 




W. Luirr. 




ProL BHII.B Di LiTiun 




" An eloquent plea on moial and bcq 


uomical gronnds for 


aimplidty of !«,-- 


as 




Rev. 


W. SroBBS, ILL 




"Itia BdmiKible book bUquW be clmulated in 


™ry villas 


e In the ooonhj/- 


Ifi. Th> BVDiaUon at Property. 






Pioi. luiiBom. 




■■ wul ptoiB Intetoitlng and proatab 


e to alls 


DdenM o! 


sconomlo UMoiy.-- 



P. Orlma aod Iti Gkbui. W, Doit< 

" Can hatdl; fall to Bo^ast to all rsaden seieral new and pregnant reflectioM <■ 
(ha TObJeot"— .^"li-^Moom. 
%L Prlnolplaa of Btats InteFfareDW. D. G. Bttcbib, M, A. 

" An intereittng; contrtbutton to tha conttoieiBj on tba functluoa o( Uw Blala.'- 
ei<upDir BiraU. 
W. OenoBD SmIbUidi and F. Laiialls. W. H. DxwaoK. 

" Ab a biographical blatoiy of German i^odatlatio movemente duHnff thla E^ator* 
It ma; be acoepUd u oompleta."— Arifu* Wvtty. 
fV, Tha Pdtm and th* OODUlMiaa. < H. M. Tbohfsok, B.A. (CauUbV 

" Sbons common HnM and fainiMa in hli aignments."— SniCiNuin, 
BL Origin of Propaity la Land. Fvbtel. db CouiANOia. Bdited, with ao 
Intioduotory Ohaptac on tha Bogliah Manor, by Prof. W. J. Asbl.bt, ILA. 
" His ilev« are clearly staled, and are north reading."— Kiluriliiy Jtnutt. 
BS. tha Engllah EepnbUa. W. J. Linton. Edited b; KraBTos Piuooa. 

" Chsracteri^ed by that vigorous Intellectuality which has marked hii lau Ula it 
Uterary and arllatlc B£tlTlty''-Sf<ii0r>u> Bcrald. ^ 

B8. Th« Ca-Operatiira KotatnaDt. Beat&io P^yrrtB 

" Without doubt the ablest and moat (ihUosophical analyiia of the Co-OpRatlie 

9i. Malghbonrbood GnllSi. Dr. Stutixui Ootr. 

" A moat 'Uggi'atiie little bouli to anyone inlereated hi tha • 



:cBllent— nay, even biUllant— 



Bfl. OotlODki from tha Haw Standpoint. B. BsLroBT Bax. 

BT. DlatFlbDtlnC Da-Oper&tlva Boolatlu. Dr. Luioi Fieeahiouo. Edited o) 

F. J. Sxau. 
" Dr. Pliiamiglla baa gathered together and nonped a wide arrar of tacta and 
atalJHtlcs, and thay apeak lor MMxa»lrm."—Sptii£cr. 
88. OalluUdim and 8oo\oa\am. B^ k.^i'cQ-ai-i. ^&mA'e^ W. muvoBS. 
"An admirable crilio\»nifeTa«e'ft:J™" """ "' '""~ 

W •* Mux and Lai«all6 " -DaUv cmibium- 



SOCIAL SCIENCE SERIEB-(Oo«i«»rf). 

SB. Tha London Projrftinnia. Sidnet WmBS, r,r.,R 

" Brimlul ot eicellent ldett.--AWi-Jacolin. 
«L Tha Madarn Stats. 

" ; bouk; w«U worth a plmce In lbs Ubr 

HiNHT QiOBom. 
" Written wItliitrikmgaDUlty.ilniliara to HttractsttsntioiL"—irflKU(bCArDnMl. 

45. Tha BevoluIlonKr; BplrlC pracsdlDf (be Fronob RBVOlntlon. 

Feui Eocudun. With a, Prelaoo by Profeuor HniuT. 
" Tbe student of the Prench Baiolation will Sad In it an aicflllant tntrodnctiaB Co 
tbe HtuUy o( tbat mtajtrophe.*'— SsoiimaiL 
43. tbe Btudant-i Han. Edw^kd Aibuho, D.So. 

"One of the moat practically asitnl of apjla ths Seriei.''— O(nvo» Biroid. 
44 A Short nUlory ot FarlLamant. B. C. Seottowb. M.A. (Oiod.). 

" Deala jeij cacefuUr and conipletel; mth this aide of oonBtitotional hlitorr.-— 

is. Povarty: Iti Ganeiii and Bicfoi. J. Q. Oodabd, 

46. Tfaa Trade Polio; ot [niparlal Federation. Miubice H. Hestei, 

"An interaHting contribution to the dlscuaaloii."— PuWuiwi' CirciUar. 

47. Tbe Dawn ot RadioalUm, J. Bowi,b8 Dalt, LL.D. 

'^ Forma an admirable pEctuTB ot au epoch more preijnant, perbapi, with political 
Inatnictiun than uny other in tbe world'a bistoi;.''— Sni/y ^rlfffrajjA. 

48. The Daalitata Ulan Id Orest Britain. Autioui White ; Montioue Chiokui- 

TBOBPE. Q.C. ; W. A. M-ABTHnB. M.P.: W. H. Wilkikb, &o. 
" Uuch Taluable information oonceming a burning (lueitlon ot the dtj~—Tima. 

49. Ulegltlmaeii snd tbe Intlnenee at Beaieni on ConduoL 

Albebt LErriHowxLL, M.D. 
' ' We have not often leen a work baaed on atatiatlca whioh la more oonthiuoDiiT 

CO. Oonunerclal Grlaea ottba Nineteenth Oenlnry. H. M. Htndiun. 

"One of tbo beat and moat permanBntly useful volnmoa of the RBriaa."— Httmry 

SL The State and Penalona in Old Xge. J. A. Spekheh atid Ahtsbr Aclutd, M.P. 

" A cu^nu and csLitiona eiamlnatlDn ol the queBt,lon."-7iinei. 
62. The Fallaoy ot Savlpj. John M. Bobkbtsor. 

"A plea lor the reorganlnatlon of oopeoclal and induatiial ayalom,"— ^wtter. 
E& The Iriab Peaunt. Akom. 

"A real contribution lo the Iriah Pn>blem by a oloae, patient and diipaiainule 
IniBstti^lot."— Daili/ ChroaieU, 
M. The Bfteoti at KaobloaF; on Wagea. Prof. J, 3. NtoBOLBOs, D.So. 

" "-' ■ -'ariy atated, impHrtially written. "—ti!erar» World. 

, brlgbc, clear, and uucooienlioiutL'— 

Soolallsni, Utopian and EolentlRc Fbbuericx Sue 

Land National I aatl on. A. B. Wu.] 

"The most instructive and convincing of tbe popular woika on Che aabjecC"— 

The Ethio at Uanr; and Interait. Rev. W. Buaauui. 

"The wort Ib marked \iy genuine ability."— jVi>nA BriiiiA Airricitlau-aluL 
The Emanolpatlon ot Women. ASEI.Z Cbbpaz, 

" By far tbe moat comprehenaive. lominoua, and penetrating work on Chia queeUoa 
that I have yet met with ."-fclroil /row Mr, OUJisIoIiil's Fr^faa. 
BO. Tbe BU&C Houn< Qneitioll. John £L Bdbebtbqh 

"A very cogent and aaatained argument on wlmt la at present Che nnpopular 

fl]. Drnnkenneai. Geoboe R. Wo-boh, M.B. 

JTnliona! Oliirrsir. 

62. Tbe New Reformation. 

" A atrikiuEOreKritatloB c 

63. The Agrlonltnnil Labourer. *" "" " '^•^•.^r^'''^^ 



iJ Wa portion, vrtth ii.?v««'ii™* ™ »»:(!», s&MS)is»,'iSM*. 



lo tbe aocial Bt4etioeaet\o»"— N-w* ■"*■" 



SOCIAL SCIENCE ^ESlh^-(ConU7iaed). 



U BOWLBI. I 



— ManekeBter Quard'Ot 
67. History nI Roobdalo Plonnn. 

"The flTBb couLplete edition, lirougbt di 
leei."— Co-operative Hias. 
66. BIgbta at WomBD. 

■■ AdTnrates and upponenta iv-ill find it an ftdmitabla storehouse of pncsdoiti, 
collacUd from authentic Bonrces, cuefuU; brongtit up to date, suppoitad by tout 
references, aod oonveniantly armnged."— Doav Ohronide. 

LaCKB WOBTHINOTOK. 

TO. Bonra, Wagei, and Frodnetlon. Dr. Brentaho. 

'■Snbatantiallyanawwork on tlie relation betwe ^ ......... ... - 

■ad the work done— chatscteriaeil hy all ProfeaBOt 
And fulness of hifltorical detail/' — Econcmie Seviev. 
71. RlM of Hndam DamoorBiej. 
"A very uaefia little volume, 
political ideaa."— Baity Cltnmitl 
70. Land Syitams of Sastrataala. Wil Epps. 

" A. latidable and very nsefnl attempt to pUoe before political thinkem an outline 
of the mstbode «)iicb govern tbe use and allenadon of tbe public land of the 
AujtniJagitui ColoniBs."— rinwi, 
78. The Tyiuiny of BoDliillim. YvsH Otriol. 

I Edited with Introdtiotion by J. H. Lavi. 

■ "IS. OuyoC isBuiart, lively, ttenclunt. and intereating."— itoilil ChmitU- 



DOUBLE VOLUMES, Each 3s. Bd. 

1. LUSof Bobert Q«en. IiUTD Jons. 

" A worthy record of a life of noble ftcHvitfes."— AfancftMjn- Rromlnsr. 
a. Tbe Imponlblllty of BoclM Dunaeraoy : aBecoudFartot "TbeQnintemiioe 
of SoeiallBiD ". Dr. A. ScHim.!. 

■■ Bitremeiy valuable as a criticism of Social Domncracy by Ibe able«t Urt^ 
tepraaenlatlvo ol State Sodaliam In Germany,"— fticr. Jouma! o/ EiMa, 

» In Bn^&nd In ISU. Frudbbioe Bmoha 
L 18«, witU a preface written In 1881.* 
i. Tbe PrlDolplei of SoolEil EDonomy. Tvbs Qdiot. 

"An iDtcrestineuidiueiKBtli'e work. It iiaprolonnd treslose on aodal eooDOBr> 
and an Invaluable celloction of fscte."— Spucioler. 

tS. BOCUI PSM*. Br. SCHVLXE-GAEVIBinTI. 

Edited by Obibah-Willes. 
" A Btndy by a conipetent observer of tbe [nduaCrial niuvsmeui in Engliuul,u 
Aa iBtai de>elopmenU of trade uuioniBni."-T>»i«. 
SWAN 80NNENSCHBIN & CO., LONDON. 



J 



„,, lllllll 

3 '2044 018 927 6M 



■ ThU book .houId_b. returned^ 

THE BORROWER WILL BE CHARGED 
AN OVERDUE FEE IF THIS BOOK IS 
NOT RETURNED TO THE LIBRARY ON 
OR BEFORE THE LAST DATE STAMPED 
BELOW. NON-RECEIPT OF OVERDUE 
NOTICES DOES NOT EXEMPT THE 
BORROWER FROM OVERDUE FEES. 

Harvard College Widener Library 
Cambridge, MA02138 (617)495-2413