A HISTORY OF TITHES
A
HISTORY OF TITHES
BY THE
REV. HENRY WILLIAM CLARKE, B.A.
Trin. Coll., Dub.
Author of “The Past and Present Revenues of the Church of England in Wales,” and
“The Public Landed Endowments of the Church in Anglo-Saxon Times.”
SECOND EDITION
London
SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1894
PREFACE.
In my former[1] as also in my present work, I have taken Selden’s “History of Tithes,” ed. 1618, as my chief authority. I adopted his views on the interpretation of King Ethelwulf’s charter as having been the first legal title deeds of granting tithes to the clergy.
After carefully consulting the best authorities, especially Mr. Kemble, Mr. Haddan, and Bishop Stubbs, I have in my present work adopted their views, that Ethelwulf granted a tenth part of his lands and not the tithes of the lands of his kingdom.
I have also considered Archbishop Egbert’s alleged canon for the tripartite division of tithes as an anachronism.
In preparing my former work, I laboured under the great disadvantage of residing too far away from a good public library, where I could consult the best and most recent authorities on the subject.
Just as the sheets of my former work passed through the press, a third edition of Lord Selborne’s work, “A Defence of the Church of England against Disestablishment,” was published. And in the following year, 1888, appeared his “Ancient Facts and Fictions concerning Churches and Tithes.”
I could only then refer in the briefest manner in my former book to his first work. But his two works contain so many erroneous and fallacious statements, that I thought it a public duty to expose and refute them.
With this view and in order to prepare materials, I had taken steps to have access to the Library and to the manuscripts in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum.
I had not gone far with my work when I found it absolutely necessary to rewrite the whole of my “History of Tithes,” and to make the present work, as it really is, quite a new one.
I had not only to deal with Lord Selborne’s works, but also with historians, who wrote private letters to parsons against the threefold division of tithes, which letters contradicted statements made in their own histories which favoured the tripartite division of tithes, and the Church Grith law of A.D. 1014.
The tithe disputes in Wales brought forward crude, erroneous, misleading and ill-digested statements about the origin and history of tithes in this country. “Our Title Deeds,” by the Rev. M. Fuller, is a most remarkable specimen of that class.
Directly and indirectly, I have dealt with all these matters in my present work. I mention these facts in order to indicate the absolute necessity I was under of rewriting the whole of my history.
And now in reference to Lord Selborne’s works, which, owing to his high position, have influenced the opinions of many, one unsound mode of reasoning runs through many parts of them, especially his “Ancient Facts and Fictions.” I mean his inferences from negative evidence. And these inferences are so cleverly and shrewdly expressed, in the special pleading style, that although I knew they were wrong, yet I found it extremely difficult to prove how they were wrong, because they were based on negative evidence. This mode of reasoning in the hands of a shrewd, clever lawyer is most powerful, misleading and embarrassing; and is at the same time most difficult to answer from the nature of the evidence. In order to elucidate my meaning, I shall give one out of many examples. He wants, in support of a certain cause, to sweep away the Church Grith law (A.D. 1014) which enacts the tripartite division of tithes, and this is his mode of reasoning:—“Selden and Spelman were well acquainted with the Worcester (Cottonian) manuscript [he calls it “The Worcester Volume” on the same page]; and, as neither of them made mention of this Church Grith document, it may be inferred that they did not regard it as having the character or the authority of a law.”[2] The reader of the book would naturally suppose that Selden and Spelman had seen the “document,” although it is an unquestionable fact that they had never seen it, simply because it was never in Sir Robert Cotton’s library during his lifetime for them to see. I could not have proved this point if I were not aided by the official catalogue of 1632.
I have often thought that Lord Selborne’s error arose in his assuming that all the manuscripts which are now in the Worcester volume, Nero, A. 1, were in the same volume when Selden and Spelman consulted it during the life of Sir Robert. If I am right, it is a clear proof how unsound it is to draw inferences from negative evidence, and how careless he must have been in not having made himself quite certain that the “document” was in the volume for them to see. As this is a vital point in the discussion, I have devoted the whole of [chapter x.] in defence of this Church Grith law. But the most unfair part adopted by the opponents of this law is, that whilst they parade, with a great flourish of trumpets, the opinions of Price and Wilkins against the law, they carefully omit material evidence furnished by Archdeacon Hale, which is dead against their opinions (see [pp. 107, 108]).
Since my former work was published, there appeared in July, 1887, the Parliamentary Return of the Tithes Commutation of 1836. I have dealt with this important information in [Chapter XIX.], and also in the [Appendices].
In Chapter [XVII.], I have given a very full account of the enormous revenues received from tithes and house rentals by the incumbents of parishes in the City and Liberties of London for the spiritual work of small populations, and which revenues have become a public scandal because valuable endowments are thus wasted.
The “Redemption” of tithes is dealt with in [Chapter XVIII.]
I have inserted in [Chapter XX.] the Tithe Act of 1891.
[Appendix F] contains a summary by counties of the rent charges of England and Wales, taken from the return of 1887.
[Appendix G] is an analysis of the Tithe Commutation Return as regards (1) the number of old parishes; (2) parishes appropriated and their vicars; (3) parishes which had not been appropriated. Nearly one-half (or 3,864) in England were appropriated. It was worse in Wales, for of 834 old parishes, 468 were appropriated. When we add the sinecure rectories, pluralities and non-residence of incumbents, we can form a correct conclusion as regards the cause of the present position of the Church of England in Wales.
In addition to the above, I have also given the number of parishes in receipt of lands and money payments in lieu of tithes by numerous Inclosure Acts.
But the most important statistics are given at [page 257] as regards the gross aggregate amount of the “Revenues of the Church of England.” Hitherto, very small and misleading amounts of these revenues have been given. But the Parliamentary Return, made up in the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and just published, has now given the public, for the first time, a generally correct idea of the gross annual amount, from permanent sources, of these revenues, and also the number of benefices and parsonage houses with their rateable value, which is much less than their actual value.
The Return is defective; (1) because it is framed on values in 1886, and (2) it omits the large fluctuating income—about a million a year—from fees, pew-rents, and Easter offerings. Correctly, the gross income in 1890, was £6,825,730. But the permanent income capitalized equals £140,000,000.
My best thanks are due to Walter de Gray Birch, Esq., of the MSS. Department of the British Museum, for his kind assistance and courtesy; also to the officials connected with the Library.
Henry William Clarke.
CONTENTS.
| Introduction, [pages xvii.-xxiv.] | |
| Difficulties in writing a true history of tithes, [xvii]. No tithes paid forcenturies after the Christian Era, [xviii]. Canons passed for their payment, [xviii].Papal interference in the British Church, [xix]. Custom of paying tithes ineighth century, [xix]. Population of England then, [xx]. Norman monksinitiated appropriations, [xx]. Infeudations condemned by Lateran Councils,[xx]. Monastic lands granted by Henry VIII. and his children, [xxi]. Changesmade by Ecclesiastical Commission, [xxi]., [xxii]. No physical transfer of Endowmentsat the Reformation, [xxiii]. Present trustees of Church Endowmentshave only a Parliamentary Title, [xxiii]. A Roman Catholic Bishop’s views onpresent movements in Church of England, [xxiii]., [xxiv]. | |
| CHAPTER I. Before the Christian Era, [pages 1-3]. | |
| Abraham the first recorded payer of tithes, [1]. Old Testament passages forpayment of tithes, [1]. When tithes ceased to be paid by Jews, [2]. Heathennations paid tithes, [2]. Story about Adam having paid tithes, [3]. | |
| CHAPTER II. From the Christian Era to the Council of Masçon, [pages 4-12]. | |
| Maintenance of ministers in Apostolic times, [4], [7]. Alleged “ApostolicConstitutions,” by Pope Clement I., [5]. Anglican divines supporting claim totithes on such constitutions, [6]. Emperor Constantine’s edict, [7]. Divisions ofofferings and oblations, [7]. Are Christians justified in adopting the MosaicLaw for the payment of tithes? [7], [8]. Tithes first given as voluntary offerings,as alms, [8]. Fiction and facts mixed in “Englishman’s Brief,” [9]. Earliestsupposed council which ordained payment of tithes, [10]. Spurious, [10]. | |
| CHAPTER III. The Roman Mission to England, [pages 13-19]. | |
| Landing of Augustine in England, [13]. Cordial reception by King of Kent,[17]. Christianity established in his kingdom, [14]. Creation of Archbishopricof Canterbury, and Bishoprics of London and Rochester, [15]. Augustine’squestions to Pope Gregory and his reply, [16], [17]. How Bishops and theirClergy were at first maintained in England, [17]. Brewer’s and Dibdin’s translationof “portiones,” [17]. Quadripartite division, [17]. Blackstone’s opinion,[18]. Bishops’ churches, and chapels of ease, [18]. Did Augustine preach paymentof tithes? [19]. King Ethelbert’s grant of tithes a fiction, [19]. Fuller’smisleading statements in “Our Title Deeds,” [19]. | |
| CHAPTER IV. The First Documentary Statement of Tithes in England, [pages 20-28]. | |
| Theodore’s “Penitential,” by “Discipulus Umbrensium,” [20]. Its genuineness,[20]. Bede’s silence about it, [21]. Bede in evidence as to the commonlaw right of the poor to a share of the tithes, [21]. Landowners’ churches,their origin, [23], [24]. The parish bank, [24]. Edgar’s law of giving one-thirdof tithes to Manorial Church, [26]. Domesday’s testimony as to the one-third,[26]. Mother churches had remaining two-thirds, [26]. Church seats free, [27].No pew rents, [27]. Tithes first voluntary, afterwards compulsory, [28]. The“Confessional” and its power to get tithes, [28]. | |
| CHAPTER V. Archbishop Egbert’s Works, [pages 29-32]. | |
| His “Penitential,” [29]. His “Confessional” and “Excerptions,” [29]. The“Excerptions” not Egbert’s, [30]. Effect of this on Roman Catholic Church,[30]. Selden’s opinions on the “Excerptions,” [30-32]. | |
| CHAPTER VI. The First Public Lay Law for the Payment of Tithes, [pages 33-52]. | |
| Law of A.D. 779, by King of France, [34]. Milman’s observations on theworking of this law, [34], [35]. Quarrel between Augustine and the BritishBishops, [35], [36]. Gloomy aspect of Roman mission, [36]. Arbitrary assumptionof Papal authority over Anglo-Saxon Church, [37]. King Oswy’s decisionabout keeping Easter, [37], [38], [39]. How Theodore was appointed Archbishop,[39]. The Pope’s supremacy over Church of England dates from A.D. 668, p. [40].Early instance of endowed bishops neglecting their flocks, [40]. King Offa andPope Adrian I., [40], [41]. Lichfield an Archbishopric, [41]. First legatinecouncil in England, A.D. 787, p. [42]. Councils at Colchyth (Chelsea) and inNorthumbria, [43]. Twenty injunctions passed, [43]. The 17th referred to thepayment of tithes, [44]. Selden’s opinions on these injunctions, [43]. Firstsupposed civil law in England for payment of tithes, [44]. Opinions of LordSelborne, Bishop Stubbs, and Selden on 17th injunction, [45]. Offa’s supposedlaw of tithes in A.D. 794, p. [47]. Dean Prideaux’s opinion on it, andwrong quotations, [47], [48]. Lord Selborne and Kemble on Bromton, [49].Who was Polydore Vergil? [48], [49]. First mention of tithes in Englishwritings, [51]. Position of the Christian poor, [51]. | |
| CHAPTER VII. King Ethelwulf’s Alleged Grant of Tithes, [pages 53-66]. | |
| Dean Prideaux on this grant and on Selden’s “History of Tithes,” [53].Selden’s erroneous view on this grant, [53]. Opinions of Saxon Chroniclers onit, [54]. Folcland and Bocland defined, [56], [57]. Kemble’s six canons to testgenuineness of charters, [59]. Ethelwulf’s charters thus tested, [59], [60]. TheMalmesbury Cartulary, [60]. Ethelwulf’s second charter of grants, [62]. Kemble’sopinion on Ethelwulf’s first and second grants, [64], [65]. Charter C, anabridgment of William of Malmesbury’s charter, [65]. Selden’s conclusion onEthelwulf’s charter, [65], [66]. | |
| CHAPTER VIII. Tithe Laws Made by Anglo-Saxon Kings, [pages 67-80]. | |
| Lord Selborne’s denial that tithes are referred to in the laws of Alfred, [68].Fuller’s errors about the tithe laws of King of Kent, [68]. Edward and GuthrumII. passed a tithe law, [69]. Athelstan’s law on tithes, [70]. This is thefirst general law in England for payment of predial and mixed tithes, [71].Opinion of Lord Selborne and Dr. Lingard on Athelstan’s law, [71]. Kemble,Stubbs, and Prideaux express a contrary opinion, and Mr. Thorpe by implication,[71], [72]. What constituted a Witenagemót? [73]. Kentishmen’s letter toKing Athelstan, [75]. Lingard and Freeman on this letter, [75]. Definition oftithe, [76]. Tithe laws of King Edmund, [77]. Church-scot, [78]. King Edgar’slaws, [79]. Threefold division of churches, [80]. First English law expressly appropriatingtithes, [80]. | |
| CHAPTER IX. Origin of our Modern Parish Churches and Boundaries, [pages 81-93]. | |
| The old minster, [81]. Chapels of ease, [81]. Landlords’ churches, [81].Church boundaries conterminous with landowners’ estates, [82]. ManorialChurches in Domesday with one-third of tithes, [82]. Errors created by confoundingoriginal meaning of “parochia,” with subsequent meaning, [83]. Seldenon Edgar’s law, [84]. Bishop Kennett on Manorial Churches, [85]. The parishbank, [83]. Lay patrons had taken two-thirds of tithes for poor and repairingChurches, [86]. Edgar’s canons and gloss to same, [86], [87]. Origin of hiscanons, [88]. Population of England in Anglo-Saxon times, [91]. Populationwhen tithes were first given, [92]. Populations in A.D. 787, A.D. 927, and A.D.960, respectively, [92], [93]. Number of Bishops in England in A.D. 705, p. [93].Number at Conquest, [93]. | |
| CHAPTER X. The Laws of Ethelred II., [pages 94-124]. | |
| His nine laws, by Thorpe, [94], [95]. Church Grith law, A.D. 1014, p. [95].Art. 6 enacts the tripartite division of tithes, [95]. Bishop Stubbs’s views in hishistory on the tripartite division, [96], [97]. His views in private letters, [97].Origin of Sir Robert Cotton’s library, [98]. His death, [100]. Catalogue oflibrary, [100]. First printed catalogue, [100]. Library vested in trustees, [100].Second catalogue, [100]. History of the “Worcester” volume, Nero, A. 1,p. [101]. Lord Selborne’s object is to upset the Act of A.D. 1014, pp. [101],[102]. Selden and Spelman never saw the Church Grith law, [103], [104]. Lambarde,Wheelock, and John Johnson, never saw it, [104]. Thorpe’s opinion ofWilkins’s “Concilia,” [106]. Price’s evidence is worthless, [107], [108]. Freeman’shistory, like Stubbs’s, is in favour of the genuineness of Church Grithlaw, but contradicts himself in his private letters on same subject, [108], [109],[110], [111]. Old Latin Translators of the Anglo-Saxon laws omit fifteen Anglo-Saxonlaws, [112]. Dr. Lingard accepts this law as genuine, [116]. Contentsof Worcester volume, Nero, A. 1 stated, [117]. Brewer, supported, but Dibdendenies, the tripartite division, [119], [120]. Mr. Thorpe in favour of thegenuineness of this law, [121]. Canute’s laws in three branches, [121]. Hemodelled his laws on Edgar’s and Ethelred’s, [121]. Thirty-six of the forty-fourarticles in the Church Grith law are incorporated in Canute’s, [121]. HowLord Selborne disposes of the other eight, [121]. When Poor Law Act waspassed, why did not Parliament claim a portion of the tithe for the poor?This is answered, [123]. | |
| CHAPTER XI. The First Poor Law Act, [pages 125-132]. | |
| First Poor Law Act, [125]. Total annual revenue of all the monastic estates,[125]. Cromwell’s advice to the King, among whom to divide the monasticproperties, [121]. Owners of monastic lands to maintain hospitality, [126].Blackstone on the support of the poor prior to 27 Henry VIII., [127].Blackstone quotes the “Mirror” in support of the common law claim of thepoor to a part of the tithes, [127]. Lord Selborne’s argument answered, thatthe part allotted to the poor out of tithes would now be insufficient for theirmaintenance, [127]. Sir Simon Degge says: “The poor have a share in thetithes.” Lord Selborne’s criticism on this statement, [129]. Who AnthonyHarmer was, [129]. Sir Simon Degge’s legal position and antecedents, [130].Lord Selborne quotes from a garbled edition of the “Parson’s Counsellor,”[130], [131]. The Acts which gave poor a portion of the tithes, [131]. Elizabeth’sAct, [131]. How rectors closed upon all the tithes, [132]. | |
| CHAPTER XII. Canons for Payment of Tithes, [pages 133-145]. | |
| Pope Alexander III.’s influence over English bishops to induce the peopleto pay the tithes, [133]. Provincial Synod held in 1175 at Westminster, [133].A similar synod in North of England in 1195 for the payment of tithes, [133].The most important English canon for the payment of tithes, 1295 (23 Ed. I.),[134]. Personal tithes by this canon, [134]. Mortuary fees the origin of burialfees, [135]. 2 and 3 Edw. VI., c. 13, modified personal tithes, [135]. Timbertithable by canon in 1344, p. [135]. Canon of 1344 led to bitter strife, [136].First victory of the young House of Commons as regards tithes, [136]. Statuteof Mortmain, [136]. How evaded by the monks, [137]. Act of 1531 againstland being willed to religious houses for more than 21 years, [137]. Action ofHouse of Commons against canons for the payment of tithes without theassent of Commons, [137]. Some views in the “Brief” combated. Church ofEngland holds her endowments by a Parliamentary title, [140]. Amountreceived by parochial incumbents from the Common Fund, [141]. Four-fifthsof the Common Fund has come from national properly granted to the Church,[142]. From A.D. 1215, appropriating parochial tithes to monasteries abolished,[144]. Three objects of original donors of Church endowments, [144]. Dr.Howley, of Canterbury and Dr. Sumner, of Winchester at loggerheads in the“Lords,” [144]. | |
| CHAPTER XIII. Appropriation of Tithes to Monasteries, [pages 146-158]. | |
| Impetus to the building of monasteries, [146]. Lay-owners arbitrarily appropriatedtheir tithes and churches to whom they wished, [147]. The monksinitiated the practice of appropriating parochial tithes, [146]. Bishops, chapters,and nuns followed their example, [147]. Form of conveyance used, [147]. Theincumbent not originally a freeholder proved from one of the Acts of ThirdLateran Council, A.D. 1180, p. [148]. This Council gave a death-blow toarbitrary lay appropriations, [148]. Its decrees opposed by English lay-owners,[148]. A national assembly at Westminster, A.D. 1125, condemned lay appropriations,[149]. They gradually ceased in the reigns of Richard I. and John,[149]. Fourth Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, gave parsons the parochial rightsto tithes for the future, [150]. Monasteries and chapters had to show their titleto tithes by grants or by prescriptions, [151]. Monastic tithes were of twokinds, [151]. 15 Richard II., c. 6 (1391), provides for the poor and the vicar,[153]. Lord Selborne on this Act, [153]. His remarks open to grave objections,[154]. This Act failed, [154]. So the Act 4 Henry IV., c. 12 (1403), was passed,[154]. Vicar perpetual endowed by the bishop and not the monastery, [154].His three functions, [155]. He was to provide for the poor out of his endowments,[155]. A list of the small tithes given to vicars, [155]. Various changesin shifting the persons who were to repair churches, [156].Archbishop Stratford’s 4th canon made in a provincial council, A.D. 1342,for the maintenance of the poor, [157]. The poor had a claim on the tithes fromthis canon and the Act of 1391, p. [157]. The Act of 1403 gives the vicar apermanent position, [158], [159]. | |
| CHAPTER XIV. Infeudations—Exemptions from Payment of Tithes, [pages 159-162]. | |
| Infeudations defined, [159]. Third Lateran Council first forbid them, [159].Lay impropriations commenced after the dissolution of monasteries, [159]. Thevalue of this property then and now, [159]. The present position of owners ofmonastic estates, [159], [160]. The four privileged orders paid no tithes, [161].Purchasing bills of exemption put a stop to by 2 Henry IV., c. 4 (1400), p.[161]. The Statute of Premunire, 16 Rich. II., c. 5 (1393), pp. [161], [162].Such lands still exempt by 31 Henry VIII., c. 13, p. [162]. | |
| CHAPTER XV. Monasteries, [pages 163-176]. | |
| A sketch of the origin and progress of monasteries in England, [163]. Danesdestroyed the monasteries, [164]. This gave an impetus to building manorialchurches, [165]. King Edgar rebuilt them, [165]. His leading church ideas,[165], [166]. The English monks passed through three reformations, [166]. TheNorman bishops divided the properties of the cathedral church, [168]. Tableshowing the monasteries built from William I. to Henry VI., [169]. Alienmonasteries, [170]. Main indications of a religious revolutionary wave passingover England, [170]. The preaching of Franciscans, Dominicans, and JohnWickliffe that tithes were only alms, [170-172]. Wickliffe’s opinions pronouncedheretical, [171]. Cathedral Act of 1840 [3 & 4 Vict., c. 113] passed tosweep away Church abuses, [172]. Beneficial effect of the Act, [173]. Theobject of owners in appropriating tithes to monasteries, [175]. Charter of theEarl of Chester to the Monastery of Chester, [176]. | |
| CHAPTER XVI. Dissolution of Monasteries, [pages 177-185]. | |
| Eight cases to guide Henry VIII. in dissolving monasteries, [177]. Hisown action in dissolving them, [179]. Most objectionable appointments tocollege livings, [178]. Henry VIII. made “Supreme head of the Church ofEngland,” [179]. Political expediency swept away the monasteries, [180].Monasteries with less than £200 a year dissolved by 27 Henry VIII., c. 28,p. [180]. Property obtained £32,000 per annum, and personal effects£100,000, p. [180]. The conditions upon which Parliament granted HenryVIII., and by him to others, such vast estates, [180]. He created six newbishoprics; he intended to create twenty-one, [181]. The manors and palacessurrendered by Cranmer to the King, [182]. The Act 1 Eliz., c. 19, p. [183].Houses dissolved by 31 Henry VIII., c. 13, p. [183]. Three abbots executed,[184]. Over 653 monasteries dissolved, [184]. In 1546, 90 colleges, 110 hospitals,and 2,347 chantries suppressed by 1 Edward VI., c. 14, p. [185]. Thepreamble ran, “For erecting grammar schools, augmenting universities, and abetter provision for the poor and needy.” This object completely failed, [185].An Act in Henry VIII.’s reign for payment of tithes, [185]. Lands exemptfrom paying, [185]. | |
| CHAPTER XVII. Tithes in the City and Liberties of London, [pages 186-200]. | |
| How the London citizens, in early times, supported their clergy andchurches, [186]. Bishop Rogers’ Constitution, [186]. Archbishop Arundel’sadditional elevenpenny tax, [187]. Constant quarrels by the citizens with theclergy about this extra charge, [187]. In 1403 the Pope sided against the citizensand for the 11d., yet they considered it a cheat and fraud, [187]. By 27Henry VIII., c. 21, the citizens were to pay their tithes at 2s. 9d. in the pound,[188]. Another change in the payment by 37 Henry VIII., c. 12, p. [188]. TheFire Act of 1670 (22 & 23 Charles II., c. 15) regulating payments in lieu oftithes to 86 parishes, [188], [189]. These annual payments increased by 44 Geo.III., c. 89 (1804), [190]. Name of each church given, with the amount paid in1670, 1804 and 1890 to each, 190-192. Churches consolidated in the cityand liberties, [192]. Amounts paid to other churches not included in the FireAct, [194-200]. | |
| CHAPTER XVIII. The Commutation Act of 1836, [pages 201-215]. | |
| Tithe a tax on industry, [201]. Paley’s and Adam Smith’s views on tithes,[201]. Lord Althorp failed to solve the tithe problem, [202]. Sir R. Peel’sscheme, [202]. Lord Russell’s Commutation Bill, [202], [203]. The principle ofthe Commutation Act, [203]. Lord Russell said, “Tithes were the property ofthe nation,” [203]. Formula for finding the tithe-rent charge for any year,[204]. The wording of the 80th section, by which the landlord is to pay thetithe, [204], [205]. But generally the tenant contracted himself out of this section,[205]. The injustice of tithe-rent charges on one kind of property, [206]. A re-valuationwould be unjust and impracticable, [207], [208]. The repeal of theCorn Laws an injustice to the tithe-owners, [208]. Difference in amount betweentithe and tithe-rent charge, [207]. | |
| Redemption of Tithe-rent Charges. The difficulty in dealing with this question,[209]. Everything turns on the word “value,” [209]. Are we to startfrom “par value” or “current value?” [209]. £100 commuted value shouldnot be sold for less than £2,000, and reasons given, [210]. Gross value of thetithe-rent charge of England and Wales, [210]. | |
| Extraordinary Tithe-rent Charge. The Middlesex market-gardeners influencedLord Russell to introduce the above in his Bill, [211]. The tax isagainst the principle of the Commutation Act, [211]. Duty on hops repealedin 1862, p. [213]. Market Gardens Act of 1873 and its origin, [213]. The Actof 1886, no new extraordinary charge to be made, [213]. And to redeem suchcharges that were made under previous Acts, [213]. An annual rent-chargefree from rates on the redemption money in lieu of the extraordinary charge,[213], [214]. | |
| CHAPTER XIX. Tithes of Church in Wales, [pages 216-224]. | |
| The gross commuted value of the Tithes in the four Welsh dioceses in1836, p. [216]. The same in 1890, p. [217]. The clerical appropriations inBangor, Llandaff, St. Asaph and St. David’s, [217-221]. The Vicars-choralof St. Asaph, [219]. The amount of tithe-rent charge in possession of theEcclesiastical Commissioners in each of the thirteen counties in 1890, p.[223]. Amount still outstanding on leases, p. [223]. The annual payments ofthe Common Fund to the Welsh bishops, chapters, Archdeacon Lampeter, andparochial incumbents, p. [223]. The net income derived from Wales, [224]. Thetotal gross revenues of the four Welsh dioceses from all sources, [224].Population of Church people and of Dissenters in the four dioceses, [224]. | |
| CHAPTER XX. Tithe Act, 1891, [pages 225-242]. | |
| 1. Liability of owner to pay tithe-rent charge, [226]. 2. Recovery of tithe-rentcharge through county court, [227]. 3. Rules, [229]. 4. Lands occupiedrent free, [230]. 5. Restrictions as to costs, [231]. 6. Rating of owner of tithe-rentcharge, [231]. 7. Power of appeal, [232]. 8. Remission of tithe-rentcharge when exceeding two-thirds annual value of land, [233]. 9. Definitions,[235]. 10. Commencement and application of Act, [236]. 11. Repeal, [237].12. Extent of Act and short title, [237]. 13. Schedule of fees, [238]. | |
| Remarks upon the Act. | |
| One of the main objects in passing this Act, [238]. County court, a newmachine, removing friction between tithe-owner and tithe-payer, [239]. Thetithe-payer cannot be imprisoned for non-payment, [240]. Provision madeto prevent collision between landowner and tithe-payer, [240]. Section 4upsets the main principle of the Act. [241]. The tithe-owner must pay allrates, etc., [241]. The Relief clause quite a misnomer, [242]. | |
| Appendices, [pages 243-258]. | |
| Tithe-rent charges in 1836 of— | |
| A. | Archbishops and Bishops, [243]. |
| B. | Chapters, [244]. |
| C. | Separate estates of Deans, Precentors, Chancellors, Treasurers, andPrebendaries, Vicars Choral and Archdeacons, [245], [246]. |
| Summary of A, B, and C, [246]. | |
| D. | Universities, public schools, hospitals, charities, etc., [247], [248]. |
| Summary of D, [248]. | |
| Beneficial operations of the Ecclesiastical Commission, [249], [250]. | |
| Unsatisfactory results of extension of Local Claims in the Act, 1860,[250], [251]. | |
| E. | Septennial averages of wheat, barley, and oats for 55 years, ending1890, p. [252]. |
| F. | Summary by Counties of Tithe-rent charge in England and Wales, [253]. |
| G. | Analysis of F, showing the number of old parishes, and the numberappropriated to monasteries, etc., [254], [255]. |
| Explanation of this Analysis, [255], [256]. | |
| H. | Lands and money payments made in lieu of tithes by the InclosureActs, [257]. |
| I. | Gross annual amount of Church Revenues, and number of Beneficesand Parsonage Houses, [258]. |
| Index, [pages 259-268]. | |
INTRODUCTION.
When engaged in writing the History of the Rise, Progress, and Present Position of the Ecclesiastical Commission for England, I had to deal with the endowments of the Church. My desire was to collect facts as to their origin in the Christian Church generally, and in the Church of England particularly. In searching after truth and facts, I experienced no little difficulty in arriving at correct conclusions, from the various contradictory statements on the subject. One party saw in the payment of tithes a continuity of old Scriptural laws in the Christian Church, payment which Christians were bound to make, whether they liked it or not; passages from the Old and New Testaments were distorted, and forced meanings given to them; apostolical constitutions were forged in support of their payment. What Isidore did as regards his forged decretals we find other writers did as regards tithes, and sham miracles are paraded in their works in support of tithes in the Christian Church. Another party, of whose views John Selden is the impartial exponent, took a more correct view of the subject, and denied that the patriarchal custom, or Mosaic law, bound Christians to the payment of tithes quâ tithes. He asserted, with truth, that the Divine Founder of the Christian religion and His apostles left behind them no written instructions for the payment of tithes, but the latter did state how the ministers were to be maintained, viz., on the purely voluntary principle. I am certain it is against the whole tenour of the New Testament writings, that any funds for the support of those who minister at the altar, or in building or repairing sanctuaries for divine worship, should be collected vi et armis. It is revolting to all Christian principles enunciated in the New Testament, that men should be imprisoned, or their goods seized, or, even as it has happened in Ireland within this century, be shot dead, because they refuse to pay tithes. But there have been, and there are still, men in England who unblushingly justify all the above means by which an odious and unscriptural tax should be collected for the support of the ministers of the Church of England. Some foolish writers assert that the payment of tithes is not a tax. It is unquestionably a tax. On the other hand, there have been, and there are still, in England noble-minded, sympathetic, and large-hearted Christians, who have conscientiously opposed such taxation as unscriptural.
For centuries after the Christian Era, the Christians paid no tithes quâ tithes. In some of the episcopal writings of the second and third centuries suggestions are thrown out, but nothing more, recommending the payment of tithes according to the Mosaic law; certainly not with the view of handing over to the ministers all the proceeds of such payments, but to supplement the Church funds for the support of the poor, the fabric of the churches, and the ministers. According to the Mosaic law, the priests received but the one-hundredth part of the tithes, for the Levites had also to be provided for.
It was not until the fifth century that canons were passed for the payment of tithes. They were unknown in the British Church when Augustine landed on our shores, at the end of the sixth century. His mission was a mixture of good and evil. It was good, because it introduced among the Anglo-Saxons an active evangelical spirit. It was evil, because it formed the first link of an alliance between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. From that time forward the bishops of Rome interfered in the discipline and doctrines of the English Church. They sent their legates to England to attend provincial synods and to pass canons for the payment of tithes, without consulting the laity. The Church of Rome never allows the laity to have a share or a voice in any ecclesiastical matters. That was always, and is still, the most prominent feature in her organization. In the eighth century, tithe free-will offerings were first given in England by a few individuals. In the ninth century Charlemagne passed the first lay law for the payment of tithes in his dominions. This was a great victory gained by the Church. His father, in A.D. 755, gave Ravenna to Pope Stephen III., and thus initiated the temporal territorial power of the popes. Milman in his history gives a sad account of the working of the tithe law in the Emperor’s territories, so different to the teaching and spirit of the Gospel! The laity, however, refused to pay the tax.
In England, the custom of giving tithes as free-will offerings gradually began, as I stated above, in the eighth century, or eleven hundred years ago. The clergy were then quite satisfied with such voluntary offerings. A few only at first gave them; then the number gradually increased, by means of the pressure exercised in the confessional box, in the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, until it finally became customary for all to pay their tithe offerings. The usual question put by the priest from the confessional box was, Did they duly pay their tithes to God? In A.D. 850 a German bishop in his visitations had specially this article of inquiry, “Si decimas recte darent?” The custom in England gradually changed into a common right, and it was by virtue of this common right that people were legally bound to pay tithes. There was no positive law made for their payment. But here is their injustice. When this custom commenced, the population of England and Wales could not have exceeded 160,000, with less than a quarter of a million of acres under cultivation, and yet this custom, originating under the above circumstances, generated a common law right, which legally bound all subsequent generations to the payment of predial, mixt, and personal tithes. I call this barefaced injustice. It is utterly wrong to state, as some Church defenders do, that all the parochial tithe endowments were voluntarily bestowed on the Church by the landowners. In a subsequent part I have explained the 2 and 3 Edw. VI., c. 13, s. 5, about barren and waste grounds brought into cultivation, and also the lands and corn rents awarded in lieu of tithes by the various Inclosure Acts passed in the last and present centuries.
Certain writers argue in the most unreasonable manner against the division of tithes in England, and assert that the parson was legally entitled to, and had enjoyed, all his tithes without diminution. Lord Selborne, in his recent works, is the latest supporter of this erroneous view. In another part I have fully explained how untenable these views are.
The Norman monks initiated the appropriation of tithes to monastic bodies. The lands belonging to the four privileged orders were specially exempted from paying tithes, whilst others purchased bulls of exemption from the popes.
The Third and Fourth Lateran Councils, held in 1180 and 1215 respectively, issued decrees against Infeudations and for the payment of tithes. The latter council gave the English parson a common right to parochial tithes. General Councils in which the laity were unrepresented, had no right to pass decrees for the disposal of the private property of the laity to whatever religious purpose they wished, or for the payment of tithes. Their functions were confined to the discipline and doctrines of the Church.
When monasteries and chantries were swept away by Henry VIII. and his son, the lands, tithes, and all other kinds of property passed to the Crown, and the Crown granted the greater part of the tithes to bishops and chapters in exchange for landed estates which were granted to laymen, many of whose posterity or assignees hold them at the present day. In Edward VI.’s reign about six millions of acres were under cultivation, but from that time to the present over twenty millions of acres of waste lands have been brought under cultivation, and for which tithes are paid.
From A.D. 1547 to 1890, about 5,000 new parishes and districts have been formed, of which 1,530 were formed from A.D. 1547 to 1818, and about 3,470 from 1818 to the end of 1890.
Towards the end of the first quarter of the present century there arose a cry for Church Reform. Dr. Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury, was the first to take steps, in 1829, to reform the then existing abuses in the Established Church, as to episcopal revenues, commendams, non-residence of incumbents, sinecures, pluralities, etc., which were like so many cancers eating away the body politic. This led to Earl Grey’s Royal Commission of Inquiry, dated 23rd of June, 1832; to Sir Robert Peel’s Commission, dated 4th February, 1835; to the five remarkable reports of this Commission; to the Episcopal Act and Tithe Commutation Act of 1836; to the Ecclesiastical Commission for England, 1836; to the Pluralities Act of 1838; to the Cathedral Act of 1840; in fine, to the passing, from 1836 to 1890, or fifty-five years, of about one hundred and thirty statutes directly and indirectly affecting the Church of England, besides some thousands of Orders in Council, having the force of Acts of Parliament when published in the London Gazette. Yet many Churchmen boastingly assert that the Church of England has received no help from the State (!) The Ecclesiastical Commission is actually a State Department. And what amount of money would have remunerated the members of the various successive governments from 1832, who boldly stepped forward to drag the State Church out of that sink of abuses in which the first Reformed Parliament found her? If our leading statesmen in and after 1832 had not promptly and energetically taken steps to reform the flagrant abuses of the Church, it could not possibly long survive as an Established Church.
The Commutation Act of 1836 settled a long-burning question. The gross value of the tithes was about six millions. These were commuted to four millions. The landlords not only gained two millions, but also increased rentals from the improvements which their tenants made when the tithe was commuted into a corn rent payable in money and permanent in quantity, but fluctuating yearly in value, so that any improved value given to land would not increase the amount of the rent charge. Again, the landlords gained about half a million a year by the various changes which were made in the extraordinary tithe rent charges. By the Commutation Act, the landlords and not the tenants are the real tithe-rent payers. But the landlords having contracted themselves out of the 80th clause of that Act, and having arranged with the tenants to pay the tithe rent-charge, a good deal of ill-feeling has sprung up in certain parts of the country, especially in Wales, on the part of the farmers against the tithe-owners. The Tithe Act of 1891 makes the owner of the lands and not the occupier liable for the tithe-rent charge.
Henry VIII., as “Supreme Head of the Church of England,” made no change in her doctrines, and the clergy received their tithes as hitherto for saying masses for the repose of the souls of departed parishioners, granting absolution, teaching transubstantiation and doctrines as regards purgatory. The tithes and landed endowments were originally granted for teaching these doctrines. But in the reigns of his son and Elizabeth changes were made in both ritual and doctrines, and those incumbents who refused to adopt the doctrines, framed in accordance with those used in the Primitive Christian Church, were deprived of their incumbencies and consequently of their tithes and other Church endowments. But there was no physical transfer made then of such endowments, and the Church was the same Church of England, but reformed. Their successors, who embraced the doctrines against masses, purgatory, absolution, confession, transubstantiation, etc., were appointed on the condition of strictly complying with the Act of Uniformity and of the doctrines enunciated in the Thirty-nine Articles. It was in virtue of such compliance that they were put in possession by Acts of Parliament of the tithes and other endowments of the Church, which their predecessors had enjoyed. It was purely a change of usufructuary possessors without the least disturbance of the property. The new tenant solemnly engaged to comply with the new laws of the Church; the old tenant refused to do so, and had therefore to leave. That was all. The incoming trustee held his endowments by a Parliamentary Title. The present usufructuary possessors of Church endowments hold them also on the above conditions, and by the same Parliamentary Title. And as Parliament gave the Title, it can also change the Title. But how do matters stand now? Dr. Vaughan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, in a small pamphlet recently published, says of the Church of England, “Its bishops, ministers and people are busily engaged in ignoring or denouncing those very articles which were drawn up to be their eternal protest against the old religion. The sacramental power of orders, the need of jurisdiction, the Real Presence, the daily sacrifice, auricular confession, prayers and offices for the dead, belief in purgatory, the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, religious vows, and the institution of monks and nuns—the very doctrines stamped in the Thirty-nine Articles as fond fables and blasphemous deceits—all these are now openly taught from a thousand pulpits within the Establishment, and as heartily embraced by as many crowded congregations. Even the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been recently enthroned upon a majestic altar under the great dome of St. Paul’s.” From these facts Bishop Vaughan claims that England is already “half Catholic.”