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.