in 1890.
£ _s._ £ _s._ _d._ £
1. All Hallows, Lombard
Street 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
2. S. Bartholomew, Exchange 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
3. S. Bridget, alias Brides 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
4. S. Bennet Fink 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
5. S. Michael, Crooked Lane 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
6. S. Dionis Backchurch 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
7. S. Dunstan-in-the-East 200 0 333 6 8 536 442
8. S. James’, Garlickhithe 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
9. S. Michael, Cornhill 140 0 233 6 8 now 935 H 227
10. S. Michael Bassishaw 132 11 220 18 4 250 215
11. S. Mary, Aldermanbury 150 0 250 0 0 250 168
12. S. Martin, Ludgate 160 0 266 13 4 [278]
13. S. Peter, Cornhill 110 0 200 0 0 2,150 H 196
14. S. Stephen, Coleman Street 110 0 200 0 0 750 1,800
15. S. Sepulchre 200 0 333 6 8 536 H 4,570
16. All Hallows, Bread Street,
and S. John Evangelist 140 0 233 6 8 [278]
17. All Hallows the Great, and
All Hallows the Less 200 0 333 6 8 618 92
18. S. Albans, Wood Street,
and S. Olaves, Silver
Street 170 0 283 6 8 680 258
19. S. Anne and Agnes, and S.
John, Zachary 140 0 233 6 8 400 H 273
20. S. Augustin and S. Faith 172 0 286 13 4 638 554
21. S. Andrew, Wardrobe, and
S. Anne, Blackfriars 140 0 233 6 8 320 H 1,118
22. St. Antholin and St. John
Baptist 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
23. S. Bennet, Gracechurch,
and S. Leonard,
Eastcheap 140 0 233 6 8 [278]
24. S. Bennet, Paul’s Wharf,
and S. Peter’s, Paul’s
Wharf 100 0 200 0 0 [278]
25. Christ Church, Newgate
Street, and S. Leonard,
Foster Lane 200 0 333 6 8 461 H 1,386
26. S. Edmund the King and
S. Nicholas Acons 180 0 300 0 0 1,150 H 222
27. S. George, Botolph Lane,
and S. Botolph,
Billingsgate 180 0 300 0 0 380 H 195
28. S. Lawrence, Jewry, and S.
Magdalen, Milk Street 120 0 200 0 0 683 216
29. S. Margaret, Lothbury,
£100; and S.
Christopher £120 220 0 366 13 4 [278]
30. S. Magnus and S. Margaret,
New Fish Street 170 0 283 6 8 [278]
31. S. Michael Royal and S.
Martin Vintry 140 0 233 6 8 235 208
32. S. Matthew, Friday Street,
and S. Peter, Westcheap 150 0 250 0 0 [278]
33. S. Margaret Pattens, and
S. Gabriel, Fenchurch 120 0 200 0 0 now 830 H 178
34. S. Mary-at-Hill and S.
Andrew Hubbard 200 0 333 6 8 400 H 295
35. S. Mary Woolnoth, and S.
Mary Woolchurch 160 0 266 13 4 now 800 H 319
36. S. Clement, Eastcheap,
and S. Martin Orgar 140 0 233 6 8 350 H 238
37. S. Mary Abchurch, and S.
Lawrence, Pountney 120 0 200 0 0 590 H 236
38. S. Mary, Aldermary, and
S. Thomas the Apostle 150 0 250 0 0 [278]
39. S. Mary-le-Bow; S. Pancras,
Soper Lane, and All
Hallows, Honey Lane 200 0 333 6 8 [278]
40. S. Mildred, Poultry, and
S. Mary Colechurch 170 0 283 6 8 [278]
41. S. Michael, Wood Street,
and S. Mary Staining 100 0 200 0 0 255 172
42. S. Mildred, Bread Street,
and S. Margaret, Moses 130 0 216 13 4 280 76
43. S. Michael, Queenhithe,
and Trinity 160 0 266 13 4 [278]
44. S. Mary Magdalene, Old
Fish Street, and S.
Gregory by S. Paul 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
45. S. Mary Somerset, and
S. Mary Mounthaw 110 0 200 0 0 [278]
46. S. Nicholas, Cole Abbey,
and S. Nicholas, Olave 130 0 216 13 4 [278]
47. S. Olave, Old Jewry, and
S. Martin Pomroy 120 0 200 0 0 [278]
48. S. Stephen, Walbrook,
and S. Benet, Sherehog 100 0 200 0 0 774 H 127
49. S. Swithin and S. Mary,
Bothaw 140 0 233 6 8 451 243
50. S. Vedast, Foster Lane,
and S. Michael-le-Quern 160 0 266 13 4 [278]
---------- -------------- ------- ------
Total £7,164 11 £12,240 18 4 £15,702 14,024
========== ============== ======= ======
With respect to other parishes in the City and Liberties of London which
are not included in the Fire Act, the incumbents received the tithes
specified in the Acts 27 Henry VIII., c. xxi. and 37 Henry VIII. c. xii.,
viz., 2_s._ 9_d._ in the pound upon the rentals of the houses. The whole
sum was paid into the common treasury of the parish, and was applied
to three purposes, viz. (1) the support of the clergy; (2) the relief
of the poor; and (3) the repairs of the church. Here is the tripartite
division.[279] By the London (City) Tithes Act, 27, 28 Vict. c. cclxviii.
(1864), annual fixed sums are paid in lieu of tithes, but subject to a
revision on the first avoidance of the benefice that happens after the
expiration of a period of 28 years from the passing of the Act.
These are the benefices:—
£ _Pop._
S. Andrew Undershaft Fixed sum per annum 2,500 315
S. Katherine Colman ” 1,550 277
S. Olave, Hart Street ” 2,600 255
All Hallows, London Wall ” 1,700 535
All Hallows, Barking ” 2,000 350
S. Ethelburga ” 950 199
------- -----
Total £11,300 2,106
=====
Sec. 17 of this Act made legal the prospective agreements between the
incumbent and vestry as regards the _fixed annual sums_ in lieu of
tithes, viz.:—
£ _Pop._
S. Alphege, London Wall,—
as appeared in _London Gazette_, 31 Aug., 1869 1,350 31
St. Martin Outwich, Threadneedle Street,—
as appeared in _London Gazette_, 24 Feb., 1871 2,250
St. Peter-le-Poer, Broad Street,
as appeared in _London Gazette_, 27 Sept., 1864 1,725 530
------
£5,325
======
By Sec. 18, _All Hallows Staining_, Mark Lane. Population, 175.
Agreement published in the _London Gazette_, 21 March, 1865, Tithes
commuted for fixed annual sum of £1,600. Out of the proceeds of this
tithe-rate, two new churches—All Hallows, Bromley, and S. Anthony,
Stepney—have been built, and their vicars endowed each with £500 per
annum, and the balance is accumulating for the erection of a third church
and the endowment of its vicar.
The tithes of the following parishes have been commuted by local Acts.
£
S. Andrew, Holborn. 4 George IV. c. cxviii. Fixed annual 700
net sum
S. Giles, Cripplegate. 7 George IV. c. liv. ” 1,800[280]
S. Botolph without, Bishopsgate. 6 George IV.
c. clxxvi. ” 2,500[281]
The rector of S. Giles-in-the-Fields has a charge of £300 net a year on
next avoidance of S. Botolph without, Bishopsgate.
Under the London (City) Tithes Act, 1879, portions of the sums payable
as above have been redeemed, the consideration being such sum as will,
if invested in 3 per cent. consols., produce an annual sum equal as near
as may be to the annual amount of such rent-charge. The consideration is
paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who pay the dividends on the
stock to the incumbents.
It is important to give _seriatim_ some further particulars about the
above benefices.
(1) Of the £2,500 of _S. Andrew Undershaft, w. S. Mary-at-Axe_, eight
parishes receive in the aggregate £500 a year.[282] The Bishop of London
is patron; the rector is Bishop Billing, his suffragan; his net income
is £2,057, with £375 a year for house rented; total, £2,432. Church
accommodation, 210; population, 315.
(2) The fixed tithe of _S. Catherine Colman_ is £1,550, out of which
six parishes at Bethnal Green receive in the aggregate £400, S. Thomas
Charterhouse £150, the rectors of S. Giles-in-the-Fields £100, and S.
Mary, Whitechapel, £500 per annum.[283] Bishop of London, patron; rector,
Bishop Wilkinson; income, £1,500 per annum, including £1,100 a year from
rentals. Church accommodation, 290; population, 277.
Here are two rich London benefices in the gift of the Bishop, who gave
them to his two suffragan bishops; the Bishop of London sticks fast to
his own £10,000 a year, and gives nothing to his suffragans from this
immense income.
(3) _S. Olave, Hart Street, w. All Hallows Staining._ Rector’s gross
income, £2,050,[284] of which S. Olave’s, Mile End, has £600 per annum,
and house. Church accommodation, 250; population, 430.
(4) _All Hallows, London Wall_; fixed tithe £1,700; church accommodation,
250; population, 535; patron, Lord Chancellor; present rector was
appointed in 1834; on next vacancy £1,400 will be divided into four
parts; the rector will take one part £350 + £300 = £650; Holy Trinity,
Barking Road, £350; S. Gabriel, Canning Town, £350; St. Luke, Victoria
Dock, £350.
(5) _All Hallows Barking_; fixed tithe, £2,000; church accommodation,
600; population, 350; the incumbent has 4 curates for a population of 350
(!); they are all well looked after.
(6) _S. Ethelburga_; fixed tithe, £950; income, £1,050; church
accommodation, 300; population, 199. On next avoidance, £400 a year will
be given to S. Botolph without, Aldgate.
(7) _S. Alphege, London Wall_; fixed tithe, £1,350; church accommodation,
200; population, 31; on which S. George-in-the-East has a charge of £500
per annum. The rector has £925 for 31 of population!
(8) _S. Martin Outwich_, Threadneedle Street, was pulled down and sold;
fixed tithe, £2,250. Three churches erected out of proceeds, and vicars
endowed, thus. The charges on this tithe are £600 Holy Trinity, Dalston;
£300 Christ Church, Stepney; £592 S. Peter’s, Limehouse; rector of S.
Helen, Bishopsgate with S. Martin Outwich, receives £858 per annum, with
house. Population, 541.
(9) _S. Peter-le-Poer w. S. Benet-Fink_; fixed tithe, £1,725; church
accommodation, 690; population, 530. The charges on this tithe are £125,
S. Mary Charterhouse; £200 a year each to Holy Trinity, Haverstock-hill;
Old Saint Pancras; St. Peter’s, Regent Square; S. Mary, Somers Town; and;
£100 to Holy Cross, S. Pancras. The rector has a gross income of £1,000 a
year.
(10) _S. Giles’, Cripplegate_; commuted tithe, £1,800; subject to
revision every ten years; in 1890 the value = £1,100, with house;
population, 2,473; S. Luke’s, Old Street, has a charge of £200 a year net.
(11) _S. Martin, Ludgate, w. S. Mary Magdalene_ and _S. Gregory by S.
Paul_. The tithes of S. Gregory were commuted under sect. 12 of S.
Paul’s Cathedral Minor Canons Act, 1875, by agreement published in the
_London Gazette_ of 19th March, 1878, for a _fixed annual sum of_ £4,000,
receivable by the holder of the beneficial lease granted by the minor
canons. When the lease will lapse, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will
receive the £4,000 per annum. What does the vicar get who has to look
after the 1,200 parishioners? £468, plus £100 from the E.C., arising out
of local claim. The minor canons must have received £10,000 at least for
that lease.
(12) _S. Mary Abchurch w. S. Laurence_; income, £590, with house;
population, 236.
(13) _S. Catherine Cree w. S. James, Duke’s Place_; income, £583;
population, 1,480. The latter was united to former by Order in Council,
_Gazette_, 6th May, 1873, taking £300 net a year, which it had from 1867,
from S. Peter’s, Cornhill.
(14) _S. Dunstan-in-the-East_; income, £536, from house property chiefly;
population, 442.
(15) _S. Bartholomew the Great w. Smithfield_; income, £650; population,
2,373.
(16) _S. Botolph without, Aldersgate._ By 7 Geo. IV. c. cxvi., the tithes
were commuted for a fixed sum of £1,150 per annum payable to the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster as rectors. This sum, less £300 a year payable to
the vicar, they leased, and the lessee retains £850 a year. Income of
vicar, £390; population, 3,330.
(17) _S. Botolph without, Bishopsgate_, has been given. Has a house.
(18) _S. Dunstan-in-the-West, Fleet Street._ By 1 Geo. IV. c. lix., the
tithes were commuted to an annual payment by the ratepayers of £359, of
which £5 went to the Crown. By an order in Council dated 16th April,
1886, S. Thomas in the Liberty of the Rolls was united to the above
parish, but the church of S. Thomas was taken down and the site and
materials sold. The proceeds are to go towards building another church
elsewhere, erecting a new parsonage for the rector of S. Dunstan and
augmenting his income, which is £500 per annum; population, 2,300.
These eighteen incumbents receive £18,632, or average of over £1,000
each per annum. But it must be noted that the lessees of three parishes
receive £11,350 per annum, in lieu of tithes, from the ratepayers, viz.:
S. Botolph without, Aldgate, £6,500; S. Gregory-by-S.-Paul, £4,000; and
S. Botolph without, Aldersgate, £850. This £11,350 is not included here
in any of the incumbent’s incomes.
But here arises the public scandal. Eleven of these eighteen incumbents
receive £13,341 per annum for an aggregate population including children,
of 3,886, or £3 9_s._ per head.
The populations are taken from the census of 1881; and it is probable
that a considerable reduction in population will appear from the census
returns of 1891. But the clerical incomes are not reduced.
Again, twenty-six incumbents of Fire parishes receive £15,702 for a
population of 14,000. If we compare the income of £350 for the incumbent
of only one of the parishes in Bethnal Green, with a population of close
on 14,000, with the £15,702 for a similar population in the aggregate, we
at once perceive the public scandal.
Again, eleven incumbents of the Fire parishes have £8,050 for an
aggregate population of 7,000. If we take a single parish outside of the
City and Liberties of London, we shall find it with a population much
larger than 7,000, and yet the incumbent would consider himself fortunate
to receive a net income of £300 per annum.
I have now given sufficient data to prove that there exists reasonable
grounds for the public scandal as regards the parishes in the City and
Liberties of London. It is not my province to suggest remedies, but to
indicate facts and figures.
But eleven incumbents to receive £13,341 for an aggregate population of
3,886 forms the coping-stone not to a public scandal, but to a _public
disgrace_, in this Christian country.
But the greatest public disgrace of all is to see the Bishop of London
himself receiving £10,000 net per annum, with three suffragan bishops not
paid by him, but paid out of parochial revenues.
Then, on the top of the hill, is S. Paul’s Cathedral, with _a net_ income
of £25,000 per annum, and with palatial residences, which recently cost
£20,000, close to the cathedral, for the canons. Truly it may be said of
them, _Lac et lanas ovium Christi suscipiunt, sed curam gregis Domini
deponunt_.
The City of London Tithes Act of 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. clxxvi.) provides
for the commutation of tithes and payments in lieu of tithes arising
or growing due in certain parishes in the City of London, and for the
redemption of rent-charges charged upon lands under the above Act.
By the Christ Church (City) Tithe Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. xciii.),
S. Bartholomew’s Hospital receives in lieu of tithes the annual sum of
£1,800, which is levied and collected as tithe rates by the hospital from
persons rateable to poor rates in that parish. Tithes in arrears are
recoverable by distress in the same manner as stated in the Commutation
Act of 1836. The vicar of Christ Church, Newgate Street, with S. Leonard,
Foster Lane, has £456 per annum; population, 1,380. This is a Fire parish.
Mr. Edward Jeffries Esdaile and his successors are the owners by
purchase, £20,000, of the tithes of the parish of S. Botolph without,
Aldgate. Disputes arose after the Act of 1879 as to payments to be made
to Mr. Esdaile in respect of tithes. An Act was therefore passed in 1881,
called, “The City of London Tithes, S. Botolph without, Aldgate,” (42 &
43 Vict. c. cxcvii.) to commute the tithes.
By sec. 3 of this Act, the tithe-owner is to receive £6,500 a year in
lieu of tithes, which was to be levied and collected by the churchwardens
from the persons by law rateable to poor rates, and shall be assessed
on the annual rateable value of the houses assessed for poor rates. The
£6,500 a year was to be paid by the churchwardens to the tithe-owner
after the 29th September, 1881, by two half-yearly payments. The cost of
making and collecting the tithe-rates is to be paid by the ratepayers,
and is to be exclusive of the £6,500. The owners of houses can redeem the
tithes as if they were rent-charge under the Tithes Commutation Act of
1836.
CHAPTER XVIII.
_THE COMMUTATION ACT OF 1836_[285].
Up to the time that this Act was passed, the tithe-owner claimed in kind
the tenth part of the gross produce of the land, without contributing
anything towards cultivation or improvement. In fact, the claim retarded
both, and the object of the Act was to advance and not to keep back the
cultivation and improvement of the land. The tithe was a tax upon labour
and capital. The collection of tithes became both unpopular and obnoxious.
“Tithes are a tax,” says Archdeacon Paley, “not only upon industry, but
upon that industry which feeds mankind. They operate as a bounty upon
pasture. The burden of the whole tax falls upon tillage, that is, upon
that precise mode of cultivation which it is the business of the State to
relieve and remunerate in preference to every other.”[286]
“The tithe,” says Adam Smith, “is always a great discouragement both
to the improvement of the landlords and to the cultivation of the
farmers. The one cannot venture to make the most important, which are
generally the most expensive, improvements, nor the other to raise the
most valuable, which are generally, too, the most expensive, crops, when
the Church, which lays out no part of the expense, is to share so very
largely in the profit.”[287]
Agricultural depression, during the four years previous to 1836, and
the growing discontent of agricultural tithe-payers, demanded a speedy
solution of this problem. Statesmen tried to solve it before Lord Russell
attempted the task. Lord Althorp tried it in 1833, and again in 1834, but
failed on both occasions. His three principal propositions were: (1) To
substitute a money payment in lieu of tithes in kind; (2) The rent-charge
to bear a fixed proportion to the rent payable on the land; and (3) To
redeem the tithe by twenty-five years’ purchase, or the creation of a
rent-charge of equal value. The second proposition was the weakest. Any
attempt to establish a proportion between the tithe and rent would end in
failure, for the two had no similar foundation. Tithe was founded upon
produce, but rent was not. Lord Althorp would make tithe to fluctuate
with rent, retaining a fixed proportion of rent-charge. In principle it
was a tax on capital, and therefore failed.
In 1835, Sir Robert Peel, when Prime Minister, introduced a Bill on
the same subject. The principle contained in his Bill was that there
should be a fixed money payment in the shape of a corn-rent in lieu of
tithes, varying yearly according to the price of the three corns—wheat,
barley, and oats; that it should be a voluntary arrangement between the
tithe-owner and tithe-payer. The machinery to carry out this Bill was
to appoint three Commissioners, viz., two by the Crown, and one by the
Archbishop of Canterbury. These Commissioners should appoint Assistant
Commissioners. Within a month after he had introduced this Bill, his
Government went out of office, on the 8th of April, 1835.
Lord John Russell, a member of Lord Melbourne’s Government which
succeeded Sir Robert Peel’s, took up the subject of tithes by introducing
a Bill on the 9th of February, 1836. “Tithe,” said his lordship, “was
a discouragement to industry, a penalty on skill, a heavy mulct on
those who expended the most capital and displayed the greatest skill
in the cultivation of the land.” These were true words; and it gives
one pleasure to observe that he had the courage to boldly express his
opinions. But his boldest statement was that “tithes were the property of
the nation.” This remark has again and again been quoted by the opponents
of tithes, and it has as often been contradicted by the defenders of
tithes.
Lord Russell rejected Lord Althorp’s plan which related to the
establishment of a proportion between tithe and rent. He adopted the
machinery and some other parts of Sir Robert Peel’s Bill. The principles
contained in Lord Russell’s Bill were that the landowner or tenant
might agree with the tithe-owner _to commute the tithe_, whether paid
by modus or composition or otherwise, _into a corn-rent payable in
money and permanent in quantity, but fluctuating yearly in value_, so
that in future any improved value given to land would not increase the
amount of the rent-charge. The corns were to be wheat, oats, and barley.
The base of calculation was to be the average tithe paid for the seven
years previous to Christmas, 1835. The arrangement was to be voluntary
up to the 1st October, 1838, then compulsory. The Bill was at first but
tentative, and was materially changed in its progress through the House.
The Commutation Act made a great change. The tithes were no longer to be
paid on the produce or _increase_ of the land, as stated in the Mosaic
Law, upon which law the payment of tithes in the Christian Church was
founded. Before the passing of the Act, the tithe-owner had to sue the
tithe-payer for arrears, but after the Act was passed, he had the power
to distrain on the land for arrears, and the Act further empowers the
tithe-owner to go on any other land belonging to the same landowner
which may be in the same parish to recover the arrears of rent-charge,
should the land from which the tithe was due be unable to satisfy his
claim and costs. The tithe-owner has a prior claim to the landlord’s.
The following statement will serve as an illustration of Lord Russell’s
Act. A money payment was fixed by the Tithe Commissioners on an average
of seven years’ payment of tithes. Let this be £100; the third of which,
or £33 6_s._ 8_d._, is for wheat, a similar sum for barley, and oats.
The average prices of the three corns per bushel for the seven years’
previous to 1835 was—for wheat, 7_s._ 0¼_d._; for barley, 3_s._ 11½_d._;
for oats, 2_s._ 9_d._ The tithe-payer has to pay in respect of his £100
rent-charge the price of 94·95 bushels of wheat, 168·42 bushels of
barley, and 242·42 bushels of oats. Early in January of every year a duly
authorized advertisement is inserted in the _London Gazette_ by order of
the Comptroller of Corn, stating the average prices of wheat, barley, and
oats for the seven years then next preceding. The serious objection to
this plan is that the average prices of the three cereals are calculated
on the prices sold to the millers, which included the cost of freight of
one or more middlemen, instead of calculating on the prices sold by the
farmers. This false system enhances the value of the rent-charge.
Supposing that for any year, say 1885, wheat was advertised in the
_London Gazette_ at 5_s._ 1¾_d._ per bushel; barley, 3_s._ 11¾_d._; oats,
2_s._ 8¾_d._, what has the tithe-owner to receive for £100 tithe-rent
charge?
He receives (94·95 × 61¾_d._ + 168·42 × 47¾_d._ + 242·42 × 32¼_d._) = £90
10_s._ 3½_d._
The 80th section of the Act says that “any tenant who shall pay any such
rent-charge shall be entitled to deduct the amount thereof from the
rent payable by him to his landlord, and shall be allowed the same in
account with his landlord.” There are few instances in which the tenants
deduct the tithes from their rents according to this section. The general
practice is that the farmer, in his lease or agreement, agrees to pay the
tithes himself to the tithe-owner, and the rent is computed accordingly.
The tenant therefore pays the rent-charge for the landlord. If a tenant
should take a farm without making any such agreement, then the 80th
section comes into force. But in the other case the landlord contracts
himself out of the 80th section. There is no doubt that the Legislature
in 1836 intended that the landlords should pay the rent-charges, and
thus prevent any friction which may occur in the collection between the
clergyman and his parishioners. To remove this friction, the Government
brought in a Bill in 1890.
In the Commutation Act, although the rent-charge is to be paid by the
landlord, yet the tithe-owner cannot bring an action against him for any
arrears, but is bound by the act to distrain on the land. The tenant
has therefore two landlords. Hence we find in years of agricultural
depression that tenants who receive a deduction in the half-year’s
rents from their landlord, seek also for a deduction from their second
landlord, the tithe-owner. These applications are generally made to
parochial incumbents, who prefer making the deduction asked for than run
the odium resulting from distraints on the lands of their parishioners.
Other tithe-owners, such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
impropriators, colleges, schools, etc., will make no deduction whatever,
but sternly carry out the provisions of the Act by making distraints
on the lands. Similar conduct was pursued before the passing of the
Commutation Act. The parochial clergy, in the most sympathetic manner,
accepted very low tithes in years of agricultural depression, but the
clerical appropriators and all the impropriators strictly exacted every
part of their tithes.
When the Commutation Bill was passing through Parliament, it was urged
that many landlords were often absent from the country for a considerable
time, and therefore if the rent-charges were not paid, the tithe-owners
would find it very difficult to get payment from absent landlords, who
had no agents in the country. The law was therefore framed to enable
the tithe-owners to distrain on the lands for arrears, just in the same
manner as the landlords could distrain for arrears of rent. This was the
origin of dual landlordism as it appears in the Act.
The rent-charges are liable to parliamentary, parochial, county, and
other rates, charges, and assessments, to which the tithes were liable.
The great injustice of tithe-rent charges is that they are levied
only upon agricultural produce, thus leaving free of such charges the
extensive city and town lands. The lands in the vicinity of large cities
and towns, which produced a rental £3 per acre, and tithe, 10_s._, when
converted to building purposes produce enormous ground-rents, besides a
reversion of the house property at the expiration of the leases. In such
cases the tithe-owner receives no tithe on the building value. Thus the
value of the landlord’s acre is increased one hundredfold, but the tithe
is not increased, and thus the growing value of the land leaves no part
of it for the support of religion.
Let us take, for example, the enormous house properties in London held
by three dukes, viz., Westminster, Portland, and Bedford. They pay but a
small amount of rent-charge compared with their rentals.
When the Commutation Act was passed, there was much boasting by the
supporters of the Church as to the humility of the clergy who had not
petitioned Parliament, or held any meetings to protest against the Bill
while passing through Parliament. There was good reason for such silent
acquiescence. The Church made a good bargain under the circumstances. The
expenses of collecting the tithes in kind sometimes reached 50 per cent,
of the gross value. The tithe-owner is now relieved of all this expense
and trouble, and the Act has given him a firm security.
Sir James Caird, in his book, entitled, “Landed Interest,” says, “Since
the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, in 1836 to 1876, the rent
of tithable land increased from thirty-three millions a year to fifty
millions a year. The tithe-rent charge in 1836 was four millions, and
is about the same still.” He then asserts that the Church has lost two
millions a year by the Act. In 1890, there is a considerable reduction
in the rentals throughout the country, owing to agricultural depression.
The repeal of the Corn Laws has led to the introduction of such large
quantities of wheat from foreign countries, that our farmers, with their
heavy rents, rates, taxes, and tithe-rent charges, are unable to compete
with foreign producers. It is calculated that what is produced in England
and Wales for the maintenance of the population, would only suffice
for three months out of the twelve, and that nine months’ provisions
are imported from foreign countries and from Ireland and Scotland.
It is therefore doubtful that if the Commutation Act were repealed,
whether the tithe-owners would receive more from tithes in kind than the
gross rent-charge of four millions per annum. But it would be utterly
unreasonable, and practically impossible now, to repeal this Act, as
Church defenders want, and have a re-valuation; and even some go so far
as to assert that the tithe in kind should again be collected. Now, one
statement is sufficient to overthrow these assertions. The main object of
the Commutation Act of 1836 was to prevent tithe-owners from receiving an
increased quantity of tithes from increased agricultural improvements.
So long as this system continued, landlords and tenants were always
unwilling to sink capital in agricultural improvements, because a large
part of the profits would be claimed by the tithe-owners who had not
expended a shilling to realize these profits. But all this was changed
by the Commutation Act; and, consequently, both landlords and tenants
have expended, since 1836, enormous sums of money in improvements.
Therefore, if there were now a re-valuation, it would be estimated upon
present improvements, which it was the main object of the Commutation
Act to prevent. And the re-valuation would be a gross injustice on
those who sank their money in improvements. On the other hand, I must
admit, in justice to the tithe-owners, that the repeal of the Corn Laws
had never been anticipated when the Act of 1836 was passed, and it is
an unquestionable fact that the repeal of these laws has brought about
the present diminution of rent-charges, which are based upon the prices
of three cereals, the most important being wheat, which has been and
will be the most important and extensive article of importation from
foreign countries, and its growing diminution of cultivation in England
and Wales. The tithe, or tithe-rent charge being national property,
and no compensation being made when the Corn-Laws were repealed, which
obviously would affect, in course of time, the prices of the cereals
in England, it seems to me that an act of injustice to this class of
property was perpetrated when the Corn-Laws were repealed, and when no
counterbalancing compensation was given, or provision made in the Act to
meet any future diminution of this property _below par_, which diminution
may be traced to the operations of this Act. This national property
should be carefully safeguarded, especially against landlords, who, in
the majority, are the law-makers.
REDEMPTION OF TITHE-RENT CHARGE.
The force of this observation is keenly felt when the property is put up
for sale. It will be difficult to frame a Redemption Act, for one party
will calculate the price at _par value_; another party, at the current
annual value, which is now so much below par. And it is uncertain when
the upward turn in the average annual value will occur, and when it does
occur, it will be very small and slow. This is what makes the redemption
question so difficult to deal with. In the Tithe Act of 1891, the
provision for redeeming the tithe-rent charge is omitted and postponed.
In framing a Redemption Bill, everything will turn on the meaning
attached to the word _value_. Two values will be the salient points for
discussion: (1) _Present market value_ of the tithe-rent charge; and (2)
_a fair value_. The most opposite opinions will be found to prevail on
these two vital points. Let us take £100 of the “commuted value,” and
put it in the market for sale. The present value (1891) of the £100 is
£73 3_s._ 3¾_d._ Present purchaser will reason thus: Depreciation, £24;
rates and other charges, £20 = £100 - 44 = £56. Having arrived at this
amount, the next important question the purchaser will ask himself, How
many years’ purchase shall I give? Some will say twenty, but a reasonable
man will say twenty-five, and will offer 56 × 25 = £1,400 for the £100
of the “commuted value.” Again, there is a powerful body, and among
them the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would probably not sell at
£1,400. They would start from _par value_ and only allow a deduction for
rates and other charges, _i.e._, £ 100 - 20 = £80, and would not sell
for less than twenty-five years’ purchase on this value, _i.e._, £80 x
25 = £2,000. These are the salient facts with which the framers of any
Redemption Bill will have to deal. There may be a _modus vivendi_ arrived
at by “splitting the difference,” and selling £100 say for £1,800, and
other amounts in the same proportion. The Bill will never pass except
both parties will agree to a _modus vivendi_, as above sketched out. But
in my opinion, the price should not be less than £2,000.
The following statement is taken from the Tithe Commissioners’ Report,
dated 4th July, 1887.
£
1. Clerical Appropriators 681,695
2. Parochial Incumbents 2,415,040
3. Lay Impropriators 766,334
4. Schools, Colleges, etc 196,055
----------
£4,059,124
==========
The recipients of (1) and (4) are stated in the Appendix.
In 1891, the depreciation is £967,419, and the total gross value is
£3,061,705. Assuming £2,000 to be the price by Act of Parliament of
£100 commuted value; the Government would advance to the landowners
£58,837,965 at £4 per cent., and would hand over stock at £2¾ per cent.
to this amount to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in trust for the
parochial incumbents and clerical appropriators. They would pay the
dividends, amounting to £1,705,200 per annum, to the incumbents, etc.,
just as they do the dividends on other properties vested in them.
Now, in 1891, the same tithe-owners receive about £1,734,152 net. The
depreciation in value of tithe is, we may say, at its _nadir_. Therefore
the income from stock should not be less than this nadir value, and hence
the purchasing value should not be less than £2,000. The property is
national, and therefore care should be taken to maintain its value, and
to prevent landowners, as in 1836, from getting another large slice of
this national property.
THE EXTRAORDINARY TITHE-RENT CHARGE.
On one important point, Lord Russell had deviated from its leading
principle in the second reading of the Bill. A deputation of Middlesex
market-gardeners waited upon him after the Bill was introduced, who
pointed out that they had expended a large amount of capital on
improvements of their market-gardens during the past seven years, and
that if they were to pay a rent-charge on the average of these seven
years, they would continue liable to a very heavy charge, while the
owners of arable land or common land in their neighbourhood, paying
very low tithe composition, would come into competition with them and
thus ruin them. This argument had actually influenced his lordship even
against his own will, and so he introduced an extraordinary rent-charge,
calculated on each acre, in addition to the ordinary rent-charge on hop
grounds, orchards, and market-gardens, brought into new cultivation.
In introducing this Bill, and before the Middlesex market-gardeners
influenced him, Lord Russell used these remarkable words: “Whatever might
be done with orchards and gardens now existing, he felt considerable
difficulty in rendering land that might be converted into orchards or
gardens in future, liable to increased tithes. Orchards were a precarious
and uncertain description of property, and frequently did not bear in
certain years; and in respect of garden lands, if the Legislature
allowed the question to be opened again from time to time, it would give
rise to incessant disputes.”[288]
Although he thus modified his views in the second reading, yet he was
thoroughly opposed to the principle. And his prophetic words stated
above, were fully realized in the subsequent amendment Acts which were
absolutely necessary as regards the modification of extraordinary
rent-charges. No extraordinary charge was to be made the first year for
new cultivations, and only one-half of the charge for the second year,
but the full charge was to be made in the third year. In thus deviating
from the principle of his Bill, he made the following remark: “Tithes on
extremely valuable crops, such as hops, orchards, and market-gardens,
could not be allowed to enter into an average for a general commutation.”
From the passing of the Act in 1836, up to the present time, this
extraordinary rent-charge has been a fruitful source of discontent,
because it is a tax on capital and labour, against which the principle of
the Commutation Act was framed.
It kept almost stationary the cultivation of hops and market-gardens,
instead of extending them. The hop proprietors were at the time in
favour of the petition of the market-gardeners. When lands would go
out of cultivation of hops, or of orchards, or of market-gardens, then
they would be subject only to the ordinary rent-charge. But all new
cultivations were to pay the extraordinary rent-charge, which in some
cases reached as high as 30_s._ per acre. When this amount was added to
the ordinary charge, the whole profit was absorbed, especially since the
hop growers have now to compete with foreign countries, which pay no
tithes nor duty on hops imported into this country.
It may be said that the duty on hops, having been repealed since 1862,
the reduction of about £4 5_s._ per acre must have benefited the hop
growers. The fact is, that the landlords and not the tenants mainly
derived the profits from the reduction. Before 1836, there were 56,300
acres of hops cultivated; in 1880 there were 66,703 acres.
The Market-Gardens Act of 1873 was passed on account of a burst of
popular indignation against the conduct of the Vicar of Gulval, in
Cornwall, who endeavoured to enforce the payment of an extraordinary
tithe-rent charge of 1_s._ 6_d._ per acre on 213 acres brought into
new cultivation. It was enacted that the provisions relating to the
extraordinary charge on market-gardens, newly cultivated as such, _should
only apply to parishes where such charge was distinguished at the time of
commutation_.
In 1839 (2 & 3 Vict. c. lxii. s. 27) an Act was passed in a quiet manner
which placed orchards as regards the extraordinary tithe-rent charge
on the same footing as the Act of 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. xlii.) placed
the market-gardens. The Acts of 1839 and 1873 admit that extraordinary
rent-charges are wrong in principle, and that those on hops should have
been abolished.
In 1886 an Act was passed (49 & 50 Vict. c. liv.) in the preamble of
which it is stated that the extraordinary rent-charge levied under
previous Acts, is an impediment to agriculture, and therefore the Act
should have been limited, and power given to redeem the same. It is
enacted that after the passing of this Act, no extraordinary charge shall
be made or levied under the Tithe Commutation Acts on any hop ground,
orchard, fruit plantation, or market-garden newly cultivated as such.
The Land Commissioners are authorized to fix the capital value of the
extraordinary charge payable on each farm or parcel of land at the date
of the passing of the Act. The third section indicates the manner in
which the capital value is to be ascertained. Such land is to be charged
with the payment of an annual rent-charge equal to four per centum
on the capitalized value of the extraordinary charge, in lieu of the
extraordinary charge. This rent-charge shall be payable half-yearly on
the days on which the extraordinary charge was made payable. Arrears of
rent-charge are to be recovered in one of the High Courts of Justice, or
a County Court, “or in the same way that rent charge in lieu of ordinary
tithe is recoverable, and subject to like conditions, or by entry upon
and perception of the rents and profits of the land subject to such
rent-charge.” The rent-charge is not to be subject to any parochial,
county or other rate, charge, or assessment. The rent-charge may be
redeemed by the owner or other person interested in any land, subject
to an extraordinary charge or rent-charge substituted therefor. The
redemption money is to be paid to the Governors of Queen Anne’s Bounty,
to be applied for the benefit of the incumbent, if the owner be the
incumbent of a benefice. Provision is made for the redemption of the
rent-charge in other cases of ownership. If the tenant had contracted,
before the passing of the Act, to pay the extraordinary rent-charge to
the owner, he shall do so no longer, but pay to his landlord during his
tenancy the rent-charge substituted for the extraordinary charge. The
landlord is then made liable for the payment of the rent-charge to the
owner, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary which the tenant had
made with his landlord. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are empowered
to adjust the fixed charges made before the passing of the Act, on the
income of benefices in receipt of extraordinary tithes in favour of other
benefices, or of district churches or chapelries within the parishes of
which the incumbents are in receipt of extraordinary tithes.
Lord John Russell, when introducing the Tithe Commutation Bill, said
these words: “The income of the clergy will now flow from the landlord
and not from the farmer, and the clergyman will be relieved from an
alternative that too often exists, either of making personal enemies
by pressing his demand, or of injuring himself by abandoning it.” His
lordship, in his “Recollections and Suggestions,” makes the following
statement: “All the evils of the tithe system were the subject of
fair compromise and permanent settlement by the Act of 1836. Three
Commissioners, two of whom were appointed by the Crown and one by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, were empowered, after examination, to proceed
by certain fixed rules to a final adjudication. In about seven years
this process was completed, and a work from which Pitt had shrunk was
accomplished.”
In reading this statement one may smile at the “permanent settlement.”
Ever since 1836 there has been a continuous struggle going on down to
1886 on the subject of “Extraordinary tithe-rent charge.”
CHAPTER XIX.
_TITHES OF CHURCH IN WALES._
As the Church of England in Wales is becoming one of the burning
political questions of the day, I shall give a sketch of the value and
appropriation of the tithe-rent charge of Wales, including the parishes
in Monmouth and Salop, which are in Welsh dioceses. The figures are taken
from the official Tithe Commutation Return of 1887.
-----------------------+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| | | St. | St. | | Per-
|Bangor.|Llandaff.|Asaph.|David’s.|Total. |centage.
+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| £ | £ | £ | £ | £ |
Clerical Appropriators | 9,559| 12,297 |31,047| 26,831 | 79,734| 26·9
Parochial Incumbents | 27,939| 31,306 |42,618| 47,307 |149,170| 50·4
Lay Impropriators | 5,941| 9,748 |21,732| 23,389 | 60,810| 20·5
Schools, Colleges, etc.| 2,378| 273 | 1,736| 2,164 | 6,551| 2·2
+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| 45,817| 53,624 |97,133|100,488 |296,265| 100·0
-----------------------+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
By the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when Parliament
vested in them the tithe-rent charges of all the archbishops, bishops,
chapters, etc., a large quantity of rent-charges was annexed to
benefices. The following table indicates the ownerships in 1890:—
-----------------------+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| | | St. | St. | | Per-
|Bangor.|Llandaff.|Asaph.|David’s.|Total. |centage.
+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
| £ | £ | £ | £ | £ |
Ecclesiastical | | | | | |
Commissioners | 2,162 | 8,347 |14,118| 18,674 | 43,301| 14·6
Parochial Incumbents |35,781 | 35,376 |58,499| 56,939 |186,595| 63·0
Lay Impropriators | 4,969 | 9,646 |20,565| 21,978 | 57,158| 19·3
Schools, Colleges, etc.| 1,289 | 255 | 1,736| 2,100 | 5,380| 1·8
Chapters | 1,616 | | 2,215| | 3,831| 1·3
+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
|45,817 | 53,624 |97,133|100,488 |296,265| 100·0
-----------------------+-------+---------+------+--------+-------+--------
It is important to state who were the clerical appropriators, schools,
colleges, etc., in receipt of tithes in 1836. As regards the lay
impropriators, it would entail enormous work to get their names. The
Tithe Commissioners have their names in each apportionment. But in very
many cases the property has, since 1836, changed hands, either by sale,
wills, etc.
The endowments of the Welsh bishops and Cathedral churches were taken
from the parochial tithes. This meant spiritual destitution in such Welsh
parishes. The Norman conquerors seized and held the Welsh episcopal and
Cathedral endowments; then the bishops and chapters seized the parochial
tithes, and at the time of the Reformation, the Crown annexed additional
parochial tithes in augmentation of episcopal and capitular incomes.
These tithes were not, as in England, monastic, but were actually taken
from the parish clergy by virtue of the Crown’s prerogative as head of
the Church.
DIOCESE OF BANGOR.
_Bishop of Bangor_ had from 16 parishes, £5,560; viz., £3,258 in his
own diocese; £2,302 in the diocese of St. Asaph. The Ecclesiastical
Commissioners (E. C.), when this property was vested in them, annexed
£3,701 to parochial incumbents in the diocese, and retained to £1,859.
_Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry_ held £1,456 10_s._ from 4 parishes.
The E. C. annexed to parishes £863 1_s._ 9_d._, and retained to £593
8_s._ 3_d._
_Jesus College, Oxford_, £1,089 9_s._ 10_d._ This college annexed to the
two parishes £239 17_s._ 8_d._
_The principal of this college_ £738 10_s._ from three parishes. He
annexed them to the parishes subject to the payment to him of £270 per
annum net.
University College, Oxford, has £37, which it still holds.
The Dean and Chapter had no endowments collectively, but separately,
thus:—
£ _s._ _d._
Dean 1,020 0 0 from two parishes.
Treasurer 200 0 0
Archdeacon of Merioneth 227 15 11
Prebendary of Penrynydd 434 14 0
---------------
£1,882 9 11
===============
By an Act of 1 James II. (1685), the Dean and Chapter received the tithes
of five parishes in Montgomeryshire for the service and repairs of
church. They amount to £1,616, which they still possess.
DIOCESE OF LLANDAFF.
The Bishop received £1,872 from 11 parishes. The Bishop of Gloucester and
Bristol received £430 from two parishes.
The Chapter received £4,487 from 28 parishes. And in addition to this
enormous sum, the Chapter’s separate estates amounted to £1,922 from 16
parishes. Here, then, is a total of £6,409 per annum, taken from 44
parishes by the Chapter of Llandaff.
But this is not the end of the depletion of parochial endowments. The
Dean and Chapter of Gloucester received £2,618 from 12 parishes; and the
Dean and Chapter of Bristol £966 from 5 parishes. Here, then, is a total
of £12,297 per annum, taken from 76 parishes in this diocese alone by two
bishops and three chapters.
DIOCESE OF ST. ASAPH.
This was the most lamentable diocese in Wales.
The Bishop received £8,121 per annum from 23 parishes.
Bishop of St. David’s, £800 from one.
The Dean and Chapter received £1,649 from three parishes. By 29 and 30
Charles II., they received £1,370 from 4 parishes for “Domus and Fabric.”
The Chapter’s eight separate estates amounted to £6,084 from 14 parishes,
viz., Dean, £1,987; Precentor, £1,585; Chancellor, £868; Treasurer, £350;
four Prebendaries, £1,294.
The Dean and Chapter of Oxford, £2,513 from 4 parishes.
The Dean and Chapter of Winchester, £2,205 from two parishes.
The Vicars-Choral received £846 from three parishes.
The total is £23,588 from 54 parishes; add £2,302 received by the Bishop
of Bangor from 4 parishes, which has already been stated under “Bangor
Diocese,” or £25,890 from 58 parishes in the Diocese of St. Asaph, was
received per annum by three bishops and three chapters.
There were 15 sinecure rectories in this diocese in 1836, with incomes
amounting in the aggregate to £6,227 commuted value. The rectors
of these benefices had no duties whatever to perform. They received
handsome incomes and nothing to do for them. Here was the rich harvest
for the bishop’s sons and other relatives. The benefices were all in the
bishop’s patronage. Bishop Luxmoore, who was bishop of St. Asaph from
1815 to 1830, had an income of £12,000 per annum, and his two sons and
two relatives had between them £15,000 a year from the diocese, _i.e._
£27,000 per annum received by the father, his two sons and two relatives,
at a time when the total net receipts by _all the working clergy_ of this
diocese amounted to only £18,000 per annum.[289]
DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S.
The Bishop received £4,563 from 25 parishes in
this diocese.
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol 845 ” 4 parishes.
Bishop of Chester 260 ” 1 parish.
Bishop of Lincoln 400 ” 2 parishes.
------
Total £6,068 for four bishops from
====== 32 parishes.[290]
£
Chanter and Chapter received 6,324 from 34 parishes.
Dean and Canons of Windsor 1,824 ” 5 ”
------
Total £8,148
======
Chapter’s separate estates:—
£
Precentor 384 from 2 parishes.
Chancellor 327 ” 2 ”
Prebendaries 8,892 ” 37 ”
Vicars Choral 1,063 ” 6 ”
Archdeacon of Brecon 785 ” 4 ”
Archdeacon of St. David’s 364 ” 1 ”
-------
Total £11,815
Four sinecure rectories £971
_Summary of this Diocese._
£
Four Bishops 6,068
Two Chapters 8,148
Separate Estates and Prebends, etc. 11,815
-------
£26,031
Four sinecure rectories 971
-------
Total from 123 parishes £27,002
It is a very serious matter in reference to the prebendal estates. The
Act of 1840 vested all these estates in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
The prebendaries anticipated what was coming, and therefore granted
leases on the lives of mere infants. The result was lamentable to the
parishes. No help from the tithe-rent charges could be given them until
the leases lapsed. It is now 1891, _i.e._, fifty-one years after the
passing of the Act, and yet sixteen leases of the thirty-seven are still
running. And so all the rent-charges of these parishes have for so many
years been diverted from these parishes, and so parochial destitution
has continued in this diocese. As the leases expire, the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners come into possession of the property, and then, _but not
till then_, are steps taken to annex to parishes certain portions of this
property. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have often, in a very kind
manner, granted to parishes in England and Wales annuities out of the
common Fund, in regard to local claims, in anticipation of the lapse of
the leases on tithes, lands, mines and house property.
TITHE-RENT CHARGE NOW IN POSSESSION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION IN
WALES.
The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are in possession (1889) of—
In Wales proper £29,169
In Monmouth 4,505
In Salop 207
-------
Total amount _commutation value_ in their possession in
the four Welsh dioceses £33,881
Of the £29,169, I shall give the gross amount of tithe-rent charge in
each county, and also the amount still outstanding on beneficial leases.
£ _s._ _d._
Anglesey 901 0 0 in possession of E. C.
Brecon 2,387 14 0 ” and £603 6 8 on lease, St. David’s
Diocese.
Cardigan 1,117 1 0 ” 450 0 0 ” ”
Carmarthen 3,821 4 4 ” 1,123 6 0 ” ”
Carnarvon 777 11 8 ”
Denbigh 6,714 19 3 ” 581 6 8 ” St. Asaph’s
Flint 2,776 6 8 ”
Glamorgan 4,705 16 9 ”
Merioneth 611 17 9 ”
Montgomery 726 18 1 ”
Pembroke 2,286 3 10 ” 820 16 0 ” St. David’s
Radnor 2,342 12 3 ” 2,192 18 0 ” ”
------- -----------
£29,169 5 8 in poss. £5,772 13 4 on lease in 1891.
of E.C.
In this statement we get the actual amount which was outstanding on
beneficial leases in 1891, viz., in St. David’s Diocese, £5,191 6_s._
8_d._ on the prebendal tithes only; in St. Asaph’s, £581 6_s._ 8_d._
The annual payments out of the Common Fund in 1889 to the Church in Wales
were the following:—
£
Bishops 17,100
Deans 2,800
Canons 5,600
Minor Canons 1,270
Domus and Fabric 1,800
Four archdeacons 1,060
St. David’s College, Lampeter 1,500
Interest on Capital Grants for Cathedral repairs 893
-------
32,023
To parochial incumbents 35,611
-------
Total from the Common Fund £67,634
The net annual income derived by the E. C. for 1888 from property in
Wales was £28,796. Therefore £38,838 was a free grant out of the Common
Fund to the Church in Wales in 1889, and the amount was much larger for
1890.
The value in 1889 of £29,169 commuted tithes in Wales, was £23,014, which
was all that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners can be credited with.
By a parliamentary return, issued 30th June, 1890, the E. C. state that
in 1885 they had £23,798 of depreciated value of the commuted tithes. The
amount in possession of the E. C. varies from year to year on account of
(1) depreciation of value; (2) the falling in of beneficial leases, and
(3) annexations of all or part of this property to parishes to satisfy
local claims when the leases expire.
The total gross revenues from tithes, glebes, Common Fund of E.C., Queen
Anne’s Bounty, etc., of bishops, chapters and incumbents, in the four
Welsh dioceses were in 1890 £325,226; curates, etc., £55,000 additional.
Church population, including children, 350,000. Nonconformist population
= 1,400,000.
The Welsh parochial incumbents receive, gross, £186,595 tithe-rent
charge.
The vicars choral, Domus and Fabric 3,831
Ecclesiastical Commissioners 43,301
--------
Total 233,727
Impropriators 57,158
Colleges, schools, hospitals, etc. 5,380
--------
£296,265
========
So, in 1891, the _net_ amount of the £233,727 which goes to the Church is
£130,872. This net amount varies annually.
757 incumbents in the twelve Welsh counties and Monmouth receive £186,595
_gross_ tithe-rent charges from _these thirteen counties_. Average for
each, gross £245, and in 1891, _net_ £150. This income is exclusively
from tithes.
CHAPTER XX.
_TITHE ACT, 1891._
[54 VICT. CH. VIII.]
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS.
Section.
1. Liability of owner to pay tithe rentcharge, and modification of
contracts with tenants.
2. Recovery of tithe rentcharge through County Court.
3. Rules.
4. Lands occupied rent free, etc.
5. Restrictions as to costs.
6. Rating of owner of tithe rentcharge.
7. Power of appeal.
8. Remission of tithe rentcharge when exceeding two-thirds annual
value of land.
9. Definitions.
10. Commencement and application of Act and saving.
11. Repeal.
12. Extent of Act and short titles.
SCHEDULE.
CHAPTER VIII.
An Act to make better provision for the Recovery of Tithe Rentcharge in
England and Wales.
[54 Vict. c. viii., 26th March, 1891.]
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in
this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as
follows:
_Liability of owner to pay tithe rentcharge, and modification of
contracts with tenants._
I.—(1) Tithe rentcharge as defined by this Act issuing out of any lands
shall be payable by the owner of the lands, notwithstanding any contract
between him and the occupier of such lands, and any contract made between
an occupier and owner of lands, after the passing of this Act, for the
payment of the tithe rentcharge by the occupier shall be void.
(2) Where the occupier is liable under any contract made before the
passing of this Act to pay the tithe rentcharge, then he shall cease to
be bound by that part of his contract, but he shall be liable to pay
to the owner such sum as the owner has properly paid on account of the
tithe rentcharge which such occupier is liable under his said contract
to pay, exclusive of any costs incurred or paid by the owner in respect
of such tithe rentcharge, and every receipt given for such sum shall
state expressly that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rentcharge:
Provided that where the lands, out of which any tithe rentcharge issues,
are occupied by several occupiers who have contracted to pay the tithe
rentcharge, any of such occupiers shall be liable only to pay such
proportion of the sum paid by the owner of the lands on account of that
tithe rentcharge as the rateable value of the lands occupied by him
bears to the rateable value of the whole of the lands occupied by such
occupiers.
(3) Such sum shall be recoverable from the occupier by distress in like
manner as is provided by sections eighty-one and eighty-five of the
Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of King
William the Fourth, chapter seventy-one, and the enactments amending
those sections, and not otherwise.
_Recovery of tithe rentcharge through County Court._
II.—(1) Where any sum due on account of tithe rentcharge issuing out
of any lands is in arrear for not less than three months, the person
entitled to such sum may, whatever is the amount, apply to the County
Court of the district in which the lands or any part thereof are situate,
and the County Court, after such service on the owner of the lands as may
be prescribed, and after hearing such owner if he appears and desires to
be heard, may order that the said sum, or such part thereof as appears
to the Court to be due, be, together with the costs, recovered in manner
provided by this Act, and tithe rentcharge as defined by this Act shall
not be recovered in any other manner.
(2) Where it is shown to the Court that the lands are occupied by the
owner thereof, the order shall be executed by the appointment by the
Court of an officer who, subject to the direction of the Court, shall
have the like powers of distraint for the recovery of the sum ordered
to be paid as are conferred by the Tithe Acts on the owner of a tithe
rentcharge for the recovery of arrears of tithe rentcharge, and no
greater or other powers; and if there is no sufficient distress the
person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered may proceed to obtain
possession of the lands under section eighty-two of the Tithe Act,
1836.[291]
(3) In any other case the order shall be executed by the appointment by
the Court of a receiver of the rents and profits of the lands, and of any
other lands which would be liable to be distrained upon for the tithe
rentcharge to which the order refers under the provisions of section
eighty-five of the Tithe Act, 1836, and where any of such lands are held
at one rent together with other lands in another parish, the Court shall
apportion the rent between the said lands and the lands in the other
parish in proportion to their rateable value, in which case the payment
of such apportioned rent by the occupier to the receiver shall in every
respect, as between the occupier and the owner of the lands, be deemed to
be a payment on account of the total rent payable to the owner of such
lands.
(4) Subject to the prescribed regulations, the County Court shall have
the same powers over receivers as in any other case, and may confer on
the person appointed receiver any powers which the Court can confer upon
persons appointed receivers, but the court shall not have power to order
the sale of lands.
(5) Any sum ordered by the Court under this section to be recovered shall
be payable by a trustee in bankruptcy, sheriff, or officer of a Court
who is in possession of the lands, in like manner as if it were tithe
rentcharge recoverable under the Tithe Acts.
(6) Where the occupier of the lands out of which the tithe rentcharge
issues is liable under any contract made before the passing of this Act
to pay the tithe rentcharge, and is consequently liable by virtue of
this Act to pay the amount thereof to the owner of the lands, the owner
of such lands shall serve notice of such liability on the owner of the
tithe rentcharge, and thereupon, before an order under this section is
made, there shall be such service on the occupier in addition to the
owner as may be prescribed, and a hearing of such occupier if he appears
and desires to be heard. Any owner of the lands who fails to serve such
notice as aforesaid on the owner of the tithe rentcharge, shall not
be entitled to recover from the occupier any sum which he has paid on
account of the tithe rentcharge as aforesaid, unless and until he has,
after notice to the occupier of his application for the same, obtained
from the County Court a certificate that there was good and sufficient
cause for the failure to give such notice, and that the occupier has not
been prejudiced thereby.
(7) Rules under this Act may regulate the procedure practice and costs
under this Act in County Courts, and may direct what service shall be
good service for the purposes of this Act on the owner or occupier of any
lands or the owner of any tithe rentcharge, and may provide that, if the
owner of any lands is not known, any proceeding under this Act may be
taken against the owner of the lands without naming the person who is the
owner.
(8) The fees payable on the proceedings under this section shall not
exceed those set forth in the schedule to this Act, and the fees,
charges, and expenses in or incidental to any distress under this Act
shall be the same as are for the time being payable under the Law of
Distress Amendment Act, 1888.[292]
(9) Nothing in this Act shall impose or constitute any personal liability
upon any occupier or owner of lands for the payment of any tithe
rentcharge, or any other sum recoverable or payable under this Act, and
the Court shall not, by virtue of this Act, or of the County Courts Act,
1888,[293] have any power to imprison any such occupier or owner by
reason only of the non-payment of such tithe rentcharge or other sum,
and shall in any other case have no other or greater powers of fine or
imprisonment than are conferred by the County Courts Act, 1888.
_Rules._
III.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, after consultation with the Rule
Committee of County Court Judges, make rules for carrying this Act
into effect, and for regulating, providing, and prescribing any matter
authorised by this Act to be regulated, provided, or prescribed by rules
under this Act. In framing such rules, regard shall be had to making the
procedure as simple and inexpensive as is practicable.
(2) Every rule under this Act shall be laid before each House of
Parliament within forty days next after it is made, if Parliament is then
sitting, or, if not, within forty days after the commencement of the
then next ensuing session, and if an address is presented to Her Majesty
by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on
which the said House shall have sat, praying that any such rule may be
annulled, Her Majesty may thereupon, by Order in Council, annul the same;
and the rule so annulled shall thenceforth become void and of no effect,
but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the
meantime have been taken under the same.
_Lands occupied rent free, etc._
IV.—Where a receiver appointed under this Act of the rents and profits of
any lands satisfies the County Court that the lands are let on such terms
as not to reserve a rent sufficient to enable the receiver to recover
from the owner thereof the sum ordered to be recovered, the Court, after
such service on the owner and occupier of the lands as may be prescribed,
and after hearing such owner and occupier if they appear and desire to
be heard, may direct that the order for such recovery shall be executed
as if the occupier were the owner of the lands: Provided that any such
occupier shall be entitled in addition to any other remedy, unless he
would have been liable to pay the tithe rentcharge under any contract
made before the passing of this Act, to deduct from any sums at any time
becoming due from him to the landlord under whom he holds, any amount
which shall have been recovered from him under this section in respect of
tithe rentcharge or costs, with interest thereon at the rate of four per
centum per annum: Provided further, that such occupier shall be entitled,
notwithstanding anything in this Act, to recover from such landlord by
action at law any such amount which shall have been recovered from him
under this section as aforesaid as money paid on the account of such
landlord.
_Restrictions as to costs._
V.—(1) An application to a County Court for an order under this Act
may be made on behalf of the tithe-owner by his agent, although not a
solicitor.
(2) On any application to a County Court for an order under this Act, no
costs either of a solicitor or of a witness shall be allowed in any case
where the amount claimed is paid without further proceedings, nor where
notice of intention to apply for time to pay the tithe-owner’s claim has
been given (except in cases where costs could be allowed by the Court on
a judgment summons), and when notice of opposition has been given within
the prescribed time, the costs of a solicitor shall only be allowed for
work done subsequent to the notice.
_Rating of owner of tithe rentcharge._
VI.—(1) Any rate to which tithe rentcharge is subject shall be assessed
on and may be recovered from the owner of the tithe rentcharge, in
the like manner and by the like process as on and from any occupying
ratepayer; and so much of any Act as authorises any rate on tithe
rentcharge to be assessed on or recovered from the occupier of any lands
out of which the tithe rentcharge issues is hereby repealed.
(2) If the collector of the rate satisfies the County Court that he is
unable to recover in manner aforesaid any rate assessed on the owner of
any tithe rentcharge, the Court may, after such service on the owners of
the tithe rentcharge, and of the lands out of which the tithe rentcharge
issues, as may be prescribed, and after hearing such owners, if they
appear and desire to be heard, order the owner of the lands to pay such
tithe rentcharge to the collector until the amount of the rate, and any
costs allowed by the Court, are fully paid; and the order may be executed
as if it were an order under this Act for the payment of a sum due on
account of the tithe rentcharge.
(3) The Court may, if satisfied that the circumstances justify it, make
such order as aforesaid in respect of any future rate, either generally
or during the time limited by the order.
(4) The expression “rate” in this section means a poor rate, highway
rate, general district rate, borough rate, and every other rate assessed
on an owner of tithe rentcharge by a public authority for public
purposes; and the expression “collector” means the overseer, surveyor of
highways, rate-collector, or other person authorised, for the time being,
to collect the rate.
_Power of appeal._
VII. If any party in any action or matter under this Act shall be
dissatisfied with the determination or direction of the judge of
the County Court in point of law or equity, or upon the admission
or rejection of any evidence, the party aggrieved by the judgment,
direction, decision, or order of the judge may appeal from the same to
the High Court, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be
for the time being provided by the rules of the Supreme Court regulating
the procedure on appeals from inferior courts to the High Court.
_Remission of tithe rentcharge when exceeding two-thirds annual value of
land._
VIII.—(1) Where a sum is claimed on account of tithe rentcharge issuing
out of any lands, and the County Court is satisfied that, if the sum
claimed is paid, the total amount paid on account of the tithe rentcharge
for the period of twelve months next preceding the day on which the sum
claimed became payable, will exceed two-thirds of the annual value of
the lands as ascertained and entered in the assessment for the purpose
of Schedule B. to the Income Tax Act, 1853,[294] or as certified as
hereinafter mentioned, the Court shall order the remission of so much,
whether the whole or part of the sum claimed, as is equal to the excess,
and the amount so ordered to be remitted shall not be recoverable; and
if the Court is satisfied that neither such remission, nor the liability
thereto, has been taken into account in estimating the rateable value
of the tithe rentcharge, the Court may remit such amount of any then
current rate assessed on the owner of the tithe rentcharge as appears to
the Court to be proportionate to the amount of the remission of tithe
rentcharge.
(2) Where the lands out of which any tithe rentcharge issues are assessed
for the purposes of the said Schedule B. together with other lands, the
surveyor of taxes for the parish in which the lands are so assessed,
on the application of the owner or occupier of the lands, shall divide
the annual value in such assessment between the lands out of which any
tithe rentcharge issues and the other lands, and give notice of the
annual value of the lands as determined on such division to the applicant
and to the owner of the tithe rentcharge; and if either of them is
dissatisfied with the annual value so determined, he may appeal to the
general commissioners of income tax for the division in which the lands
are assessed, and those commissioners, after due notice to and hearing
the parties or their agents if any of them wishes to be so heard, shall
finally determine the proper division of the annual value; and the annual
value of lands so determined as aforesaid shall, for the purposes of this
section, be the annual value of the lands as ascertained for the purpose
of the said Schedule B.
(3) For the purposes of this section the owner of tithe rentcharge shall
have the same right of appeal as the owner of lands, whether under the
enactments relating to the said assessment or under this section.
(4) If in any case the annual value of any lands is not ascertained and
entered in the assessment for the purpose of the said Schedule B., the
general commissioners of income tax for the division in which the lands
are situate shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of the
lands, ascertain the annual value of the lands for the purpose of the
said Schedule B., and inform the applicant of the same.
(5) The commissioners of taxes shall on demand and payment of one
shilling give a certificate of the amount of the annual value of any
lands under this section.
(6) Where it appears from any award that a special apportionment has been
made in pursuance of section fifty-eight of the Tithe Act, 1836,[295]
whereby tithe rentcharge has been charged specially upon certain closes
of land in different proportions, and to the exclusion of certain of
them, the Court shall not grant a remission under this section unless
satisfied that the applicant would have been entitled to such remission
if no such special apportionment had been made.
(7) Where two or more tithe rentcharges issue out of the same lands,
and a remission of tithe rentcharge has been made by a County Court
under this section, the amount paid by the owner of the lands on
account of tithe rentcharge shall be divided between the owners of such
tithe rentcharges in proportion to the amount thereof as fixed by the
apportionment or any altered apportionment.
(8) This section shall not apply to any lands other than those used
solely for agricultural or pastoral purposes or for the growth of timber
or underwood.
_Definitions._
IX.—(1) A reference in this Act to the “owner” of lands or tithe
rentcharge,—
(_a_) if the ownership of the lands or rentcharge is vested in
the Queen in right of Her Crown, means the Commissioners of
Woods, in substitution for the Queen; and
(_b_) if the ownership of the lands or rentcharge is vested in
the Duke of Cornwall, means the keeper of the records of the
Duchy of Cornwall, in substitution for the Duke of Cornwall; and
(_c_) in any other case, means the same officers or persons as
are mentioned in the Tithe Act, 1836.[296]
(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
The expression “tithe rentcharge” means tithe rentcharge issuing out
of lands and payable in pursuance of the Tithe Acts, and includes any
rentcharge into which a corn-rent has, either before or after the passing
of this Act, been converted under the Tithe Act, 1860,[297] and which
is subject to the like incidents as such tithe rentcharge as aforesaid;
but does not include a rentcharge payable under the Extraordinary Tithe
Redemption Act, 1886,[298] nor a rentcharge payable under the Tithe Act,
1860,[299] in respect of the tithes on any gated or stinted pasture, nor
a sum or rate payable for each head of cattle or stock turned on land
subject to common rights or held or enjoyed in common.
The expression “prescribed” means prescribed by rules under this Act.
_Commencement and application of Act and saving._
X.—(1) This Act shall extend to every sum on account of tithe rentcharge
which first becomes payable on or after the half-yearly day of payment of
such tithe rentcharge which occurs next after the passing of this Act,
whether such sum accrued before or after that day, and shall not extend
to sums due on account of tithe rentcharge which were in arrear before
the passing of this Act, nor, except so far as relates to the assessment
and recovery of rates, shall it extend to tithe rentcharge issuing out of
the lands of a railway company.
(2) A sum on account of tithe rentcharge shall not be recoverable under
this Act unless proceedings for such recovery have been commenced before
the expiration of two years from the date at which it became payable.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall alter the priority of any tithe rentcharge
in relation to any other charge or incumbrance upon any lands.
(4) Any enactment in the Tithe Acts or in the Extraordinary Tithe
Redemption Act, 1886, directing any expenses, rentcharge, or other sums
to be recovered as tithe rentcharge, shall, as respects any sum becoming
due after the passing of this Act, be construed to refer to the recovery
of tithe rentcharge under this Act, save that the owner of the lands
shall not be entitled to obtain any remission under this Act.
_Repeal._
XI. Section eighty-four of the Tithe Act, 1836, is hereby repealed.
_Extent of Act and short titles._
XII.—(1) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Tithe Act, 1891.
(3) The Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of
King William the Fourth, chapter seventy-one, intituled “An Act for the
Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales,” is in this Act referred to
and may be cited as the Tithe Act, 1836, and that Act and the enactments
amending the same passed before the passing of this Act are in this Act
referred to and may be cited as the Tithe Acts.
(4) The Act of the session of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years
of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-three, intituled “An
Act to amend and further extend the Acts for the Commutation of Tithes in
England and Wales,” is in this Act referred to and may be cited as the
Tithe Act, 1860.
(5) The Act of the session of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of the
reign of Her present Majesty, chapter thirty-four, intituled “An Act
for granting to Her Majesty duties on profits arising from property,
professions, trades and offices,” is in this Act referred to and may be
cited as the Income Tax Act, 1853.
SCHEDULE
_Fees under Section 2 of the Tithe Act, 1891._
Where the sum claimed does nor exceed five pounds:
For notice of application to the Court One shilling.
For making the order One shilling and sixpence.
Where the sum claimed exceeds five pounds:
For notice of application { One shilling for every five pounds and
to the Court { fraction above five pounds or any multiple
{ of five pounds of the sum claimed.
{ One shilling and sixpence for every five
For making the order { pounds and fraction above five pounds
{ or any multiple of five pounds of the
{ sum claimed.
But the total fee in any one case shall not exceed—
For notice of the application Ten shillings.
For making the order Fifteen shillings.
REMARK ON THE TITHE ACT, 1891.
I. i. The main principle of this Act, is that the tithe rentcharge is in
future payable by the owner of the lands and not by the occupier, unless
he is also owner. The same principle existed in the Tithe Commutation Act
of 1836. But unfortunately the 80th section of that Act, out of which
landlords contracted themselves, says that “any tenant who shall pay any
such rentcharge, shall be entitled to deduct the amount thereof from the
rent payable by him to his landlord, and shall be allowed the same in
account with his landlord.” Very few tenants deducted the tithes from
their rents according to this section. It therefore became the general
practice for the tenants in their leases or agreements, to agree to pay
certain rents to the landlord, and also the tithe rentcharge to the
tithe-owner. This Act carries out the intention of the Commutation Act in
making the landowners liable to the payment of the tithe rentcharge. The
Lords made a wise addition to subsection 1, viz. that, “Any contract made
between an occupier and owner of lands _after_ the passing of this Act,
for the payment of tithe rentcharge by the occupier, _shall be void_.”
The Bill on leaving the Commons, provided, in subsection 2, for contracts
made _before_ the passing of this Act, but made no provision against
contracts made _after_ the passing of the Act, thus leaving the door open
to contracts which may be made _after_ the passing of the Act.
The owner of the lands is now the collector of the tithe-owner. And the
great advantages which the tithe-owner derives from this Act increase the
market value of the rentcharge fully 25 per cent; and it will materially
increase the value of the rentcharge when redeemed.
I. 3. It gives power to the owner to distrain for the sum equivalent
to the tithe rentcharge paid by the owner of the lands and due by
the occupier under a contract made previous to the passing of this
Act, according to section 85 of the Act of 1836. The present Act thus
transfers the unpopular system of distraint from the tithe-owner to
the owner of the lands. No doubt section 85 was framed with a view of
preventing tenants escaping payment by removing produce and stock from
one field to another.
II. 1. To recover the tithe rentcharge through the County Court is new
machinery. It is a new buffer between the tithe-owner and tithe-payer; it
removes all immediate friction between the clergyman and his tithe-paying
tenant. The subject of “fees” and “costs,” was the most contentious
point in passing the Bill through Committee of the House of Commons. The
Lords introduced the amendment, that “costs” should be recovered as in
the case of an ordinary action in the County Court. This amendment will
be extremely irritating to the small landowners, especially in Wales. It
will also be a fruitful source of irritation to tithe-payers and of legal
persecution by tithe-owners through their agents. The Lords’ amendment,
introduced by Lord Selborne, was truly compared by Sir William Harcourt
to “tares sown among wheat.” The Tithe Act of 1836 gave 21 days to the
occupier to pay his tithe after it had fallen due, but this Act gives
three months to the owners of the lands. This is a reasonable time, for
the landlord has often to wait six months and even longer for his rents.
II. 2. By this, the tithe-owner can, in default of payment on distraint,
take possession of the lands, and derive all the advantages of the
tillage, and keep possession for years without rendering any compensation
to the occupier. This is but one of the many cases which show that
the Act was wholly framed in the interest of the tithe-owner, and
disadvantageous to the tithe-payer. The security and stringent means for
recovering tithe rentcharge are all advantages to the tithe-owner.
II. 5. The tithe-owner has a prior claim to all other creditors.
II. 9. The owner of the lands, or the occupier, cannot be imprisoned for
non-payment of the tithe rentcharge, but may be fined or imprisoned as
regards other matters in the execution of County Court warrants.
IV. The object which the framers of this section in the House of Lords
had in view was to prevent collusion, as stated in their debates,
between the owner of the lands and the occupying tenant. They based
the assertion on the groundless assumption that certain landowners and
farmers would enter into a conspiracy to defraud the tithe-owner. This
discovery was reserved for the Lords. So section 4 contradicts section
1 subsection 1. The last proviso in section 4 was added by the House
of Commons to protect the occupier by giving him a remedy against the
landowner. The landowner may have been impecunious, and therefore let
his land free of rent for some years, on condition that the tenant
should erect certain buildings on the farm or put the farm and fences
into better order; or he may let his lands for a sum down with a small
rental; or the lands may have been let on beneficial leases on payment of
a fine with a small reserve rental. But all these are common arrangements
without any reference to collusion. The Lords, however, thought
differently. But the most important point for consideration is, that this
section upsets the main principle of the Act, namely, that the landowner,
and not the occupier, should pay the tithe rentcharge. This section makes
the latter pay it under certain circumstances, but which he can recover
from his landlord in the manner stated.
VI. 1. In consequence of a decision in the Law Courts, if a tithe-owner
should make default in payment of rates, as many have done, the only
remedy for the collector was to recover from the occupier for a debt
which was none of his; and the only remedy which the occupier had for
this payment was to recover it from his landlord; and the landlord was
to recover it from the tithe-owner. Here was a remarkable roundabout
way to recover payment of rates from the proper person—the tithe-owner.
Many tithe-owners, in order to annoy and irritate rate-collectors and
tithe-payers, would not pay the rates. They knew well and took advantage
of the legal ruling, and so they would not pay until rate-collectors,
tithe-payers, and landlords, had to go through the above legal process to
get payment of the rates from them. And so this subsection was framed in
order to put a stop to such conduct on the part of tithe-owners, who are
now bound to pay the rates, and it also repeals any part of any Act which
authorizes payment from the occupier of rates on tithe rentcharge.
VIII. 1. This is generally called the “Relief Clause.” Quite a
_misnomer_. This paltry relief was given for the great benefits and
advantages which the tithe-owners derive from this Act. The relief will
affect only a few farms in each county. In estimating the annual value of
the lands, the valuable building erected will be taken in the valuation,
and so tend to diminish the amount of remission of tithe rentcharge.
APPENDIX A.
ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS.
Statement of commuted tithes in possession of Archbishops and Bishops in
1836. See (1) and (4) at p. 210.
£ _s._ _d._
1. Bishop of Bangor 5,560 11 10 in 3 counties from 17 parishes.
” Bath and
Wells 1,831 11 0 in Somerset ” 11 ”
Archbishop of
Canterbury 30,713 16 7 in 4 counties ” 67 ”
Bishop of Carlisle 7,353 16 2 ” 2 ” ” 13 ”
5. ” Chester 14,702 16 4 ” 8 ” ” 31 ”
Chichester 2,118 18 1 ” 1 ” ” 7 ”
Durham 1,181 16 9½ ” 2 ” ” 6 ”
Ely 16,764 3 4 ” 7 ” ” 48 ”
Exeter 1,027 10 0 ” 2 ” ” 4 ”
10. ” Gloucester &
Bristol 10,191 1 4½ ” 7 ” ” 35 ”
Hereford 8,022 16 4 ” 3 ” ” 38 ”
Lichfield 7,128 12 7 ” 4 ” ” 11 ”
Lincoln 7,676 7 1 ” 3 ” ” 15 ”
London 7,538 4 1 ” 3 ” ” 11 ”
15. ” Llandaff 2,936 7 7 ” 3 ” ” 12 ”
Norwich 7,926 7 4 ” 2 ” ” 20 ”
Oxford 4,844 19 9 ” 4 ” ” 10 ”
Peterborough 140 0 0 ” 1 ” ” 1 ”
Rochester 4,451 9 4 ” 3 ” ” 7 ”
20. ” Salisbury 3,683 14 5 ” 2 ” ” 4 ”
St. Asaph 8,126 0 0 ” 4 ” ” 21 ”
St. David’s 5,363 0 0 ” 7 ” ” 24 ”
Winchester 3,685 0 0 ” 2 ” ” 4 ”
Worcester 1,803 1 6 ” 1 ” ” 5 ”
25. Archbishop of York 24,944 13 7 ” 3 ” ” 36 ”
----------------- ---
£189,718 11 0 from 458 parishes.
It must be noted, that these are commuted tithes; but the tithes were
much higher in value.
APPENDIX B.
CHAPTERS.
£ _s._ _d._
Dean and
Chapter of Bangor 1,616 0 0 in 1 county in 5 parishes.
” Bristol 11,578 2 7 in 5 counties in 34 ”
” Canterbury 22,548 8 4 ” 5 ” 39 ”
” Carlisle 12,104 19 7½ ” 3 ” 30 ”
” Chester 1,028 13 5 ” 1 ” 6 ”
” Chichester 8,883 8 2 ” 3 ” 26 ”
” Durham 15,321 19 1½ ” 3 ” 25 ”
” Ely 10,762 16 2 ” 4 ” 15 ”
” Exeter 14,636 17 4 ” 4 ” 51 ”
” Gloucester 6,654 2 3 ” 4 ” 25 ”
” Hereford 10,371 1 2 ” 4 ” 45 ”
” Lichfield 6,738 9 5 ” 5 ” 18 ”
” Lincoln 5,111 3 3 ” 6 ” 19 ”
” Llandaff 4,642 0 0 ” 2 ” 29 ”
” London 10,681 4 11 ” 4 ” 17 ”
” Manchester 2,596 10 11 ” 1 ” 1 ”
” Norwich 11,329 3 8 ” 2 ” 39 ”
” Oxford 39,785 1 10 ” 18 ” 82 ”
” Ripon 1,376 8 3 ” 1 ” 2 ”
” Rochester 15,394 18 4 ” 4 ” 39 ”
” Salisbury 11,282 0 8 ” 5 ” 33 ”
” St. Asaph 3,018 10 10½ ” 3 ” 7 ”
” St. David’s 6,323 12 8 ” 5 ” 37 ”
” Wells 7,382 7 9 ” 3 ” 22 ”
” Westminster 9,794 6 4 ” 8 ” 22 ”
” Windsor 29,887 9 2 ” 16 ” 61 ”
” Winchester 14,988 10 5 ” 7 ” 25 ”
” Worcester 12,033 4 0 ” 6 ” 23 ”
29. ” York 6,357 3 9 ” 3 ” 21 ”
----------------- ---
£314,276 14 3 in 798 parishes.
APPENDIX C.
Dean.
Precentor.
Chancellor.
Treasurer.
Prebendaries.
Total.
£ £ £ £ £ £
1. Chichester 1,439 853 525 891 7,755 11,463
Durham 1,457 3,615 5,072
Ely 3,406 3,406
Exeter 2,505 215 1,054 1,219 2,100 7,193
5. Hereford 843 503 655 479 1,668 4,148
Lichfield 3,320 [300]14,853 18,173
Lincoln 6,478 9 9,310 15,797
St. Paul’s, London 583 1,711 1,592 3,850 6,936
Salisbury 5,507 2,429 3,253 3,258 16,819 30,366
10. Wells 2,041 355 340 800 4,934 8,470
York 4,412 563 1,094 6,465 12,534
Southwell Coll. Church 3,504 3,504
Heytesbury ” 1,288 1,288
Dean of S. Buryan 1,050
15. ” Middleham 232
WALES—
Bangor 1,020 200 435 1,655
Llandaff 185 435 [301]1,098 1,718
St. Asaph’s 1,988 1,585 868 350 1,294 6,085
19. St. David’s 384 326 [302] [301]8,892 9,502
--------
£148,492
I have given £314,276 as the total tithe-rent charges of 29 chapters; to
this add £158,770 for separate prebendal and vicars-choral estates, etc.,
and we get the enormous revenue of £473,046, or £716,000 in tithes for
29 chapters, and only for tithes, without regard to the chapters’ landed
and mineral estates. There is nothing similar to this to be found in any
other Christian country in the world. It is even shocking when we add
the above to their respective chapters, viz.:—
£ £ £
1. Chichester 8,883 + 11,463 = 20,346
Durham 15,322 + 5,072 = 20,394
Ely 10,762 + 3,406 = 14,168
Exeter 14,636 + 7,193 = 21,629
5. Hereford 10,371 + 4,148 = 14,519
Lichfield 6,738 + 18,173 = 24,911
Lincoln 5,111 + 15,797 = 20,908
London 10,681 + 6,936 = 17,617
Salisbury 11,282 + 30,366 = 41,648
Wells 7,382 + 8,470 = 15,852
11. York 6,357 + 12,534 = 18,891
WALES—
Bangor 1,616 + 1,655 = 3,271
Llandaff 4,642 + 1,718 = 6,360
St. Asaph 3,018 + 6,085 = 9,103
15. St. David’s 6,323 + 9,502 = 15,825
--------
£265,542
_N.B._—The Vicars-Choral of ten Cathedrals possessed £10,278 tithe-rent
charge, and 22 Archdeacons had £17,906, of which the Archdeacon of Surrey
had £4,539 per annum, a most scandalous amount from parishes in Surrey
and Hampshire; the Archdeacon of Canterbury had £3,009 per annum.
Summary of A, B, and C:—
£
Archbishops and Bishops 189,718
£
Chapters 314,276
Separate estates of Principals and Prebendaries 148,492
Vicars-Choral of ten Cathedrals 10,278
-------
473,046
Twenty-two Archdeacons 17,236
Sinecure Rectories in Wales, erroneously inserted
among “Clerical Appropriators” 1,695
--------
£681,695
A very useful lesson is derived from a study of the tithe-rent charges in
possession of the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge in 1836.
APPENDIX D.
_Oxford._
£
1. King’s 357
Corpus Christi 1,333
Exeter 807
All Soul’s 2,355
5. Magdalene 2,886
University College 2,958
Jesus[303] 3,576
Oriel 1,487
Pembroke 292
10. Brasenose 115
Balliol 1,491
Queen’s 2,451
Trinity 2,620
Merton 5,125
15. St. John’s 779
Wadham 955
17. Winchester, or New College 10,311
-------
Total £42,898
_Cambridge._
£
1. King’s 10,408
Catherine’s Hall 430
Jesus 1,543
Christ 2,637
5. Corpus Christi 150
Magdalene 1,318
University College[304] 4,110
Emmanuel 481
Pembroke 3,154
10. Gonville and Caius 1,292
11. Queen’s 10
St. John’s 5,048
Clare 2,004
Downing 5
St. Peter’s 639
Trinity 33,441
17. Trinity Hall 976
-------
£67,646
Oxford £42,898
Cambridge 67,646
--------
Total for 34 Colleges £110,544
Schools, Charities, and Hospitals = £80,520[305]
Companies and Corporations = £10,971
Christ Church, Oxford, has £39,785 of tithes from eighty-two parishes in
eighteen counties. I have not included the amount here, because it is
placed among the Chapters, yet all the property is collegiate.
Summary of Colleges, Schools, etc.:—
£
Oxford, 17 Colleges 42,898
Cambridge, 17 Colleges 67,646
Winchester School 7,258
Eton College 8,484
Wimborne 2,416
Other smaller Schools 11,362
Hospitals 32,000
Charities 8,276
Municipal Corporations 5,562
Public Companies 6,024
Governors distributing Church Revenues 4,129
--------
£196,055
The disclosures made in the Tithe Commutation Return of 1887 (Lord
Wolmer’s) as regards the extent of the prebendal and other separate
estates, are most astonishing. The four principal officers—Dean,
Precentor, Chancellor, and Treasurer—of certain cathedrals, were endowed
with separate estates in tithes and lands, in addition to their shares
of the Chapter properties. Then the prebendal estates were in the
aggregate enormous. I am now dealing only with tithe property. And it is
well to remark again that we should add one-half of the commuted value
to the commuted value in order to ascertain the original tithe value,
according to Sir John Caird’s opinion, that the commuted value of tithes
= 4 millions, was 2 millions less than the tithe value = 6 millions.
I must also remark, that the rentals of the episcopal, capitular and
prebendal tithes, were only one-third their rack-rental value, because
the owners had for centuries let all their properties on beneficial
leases for years, or on lives for one-third their rack-rental value. The
lessees retained the other two-thirds. The tithe-payers had to pay them
their tithes in full. In 1835, appeared, for the first time since the
reign of Henry VIII., an official Parliamentary Report of the revenues
of the Church. The creation of the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1836,
and the passing of the Cathedral Act of 1840, led to investigations
as to the actual rack-rental value of the episcopal, capitular, and
prebendal properties. The leasehold property with which the Act of 1840
vested the Commissioners was ascertained to be only one-third of its
rack-rental value, and it was also found that the same remark applied
to all the church properties which were let on beneficial leases. This
was a vital discovery. The Commissioners set about their Herculean work
of enfranchising all the leasehold estates in order that they should
obtain for the Church, the two-thirds which the wealthy lessees were
receiving. The leases for years are of course long ago in possession of
the Commissioners; but a great many leases for lives are still running
on, although it is now fifty-one years since the Act of 1840 was passed.
It was never anticipated by Sir Robert Peel, Lord Russell, and other
Church reformers, that the net income of the Common Fund of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be over one million per annum. Any
person who would have said so then would have been considered insane. In
1840 the idea of enfranchising all the leasehold property of the church
was not for one moment thought of, and if it were, that it could never be
realized.
Without going into the history of the Ecclesiastical Commission, it is
essentially necessary to state that this Commission has cleared away,
as far as public patronage is concerned with Acts of Parliament, the
gross, yes, the disgraceful waste of church endowments. For instance,
the present Archdeacon of Surrey, instead of receiving about £6,000
a year, of which £4,539 came from the tithe-rent charges, has a
canonry in Winchester Cathedral, gross income £1,000 per annum, and
the vicarage of Frensham, with net income £400 and house. An Order in
Council divided, respecting vested interests, the Archdeacon’s enormous
income among poor benefices and endowed new churches in the parishes
where the tithes arose. This is a good specimen of all the operations
of the Commissioners. Incumbents possessing enormous incomes, whose
benefices were in public patronage, have been dealt with by Orders in
Council, and by private Acts of Parliament, in a similar manner, on
the next avoidances, when the new incumbents were appointed, on very
reduced incomes, and the residue divided among the poorer incumbents
in the same parishes. Then as regards the episcopal, capitular, and
prebendal revenues, the Commissioners allow the bishops and chapters
their incomes as set forth in Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council,
and with the residue of the immense property, they satisfy local claims
of parishes where the tithes arose or landed estates were situate. As
for the prebendal properties, separate estates of capitular offices,
sinecure rectories and dissolved canonries, the Cathedral Act of 1840
vested them in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the good of the
Common Fund, but Parliament allowed local claims on the tithes only. In a
subsequent Act (1860), the local claims were extended, rather unwisely,
to all kinds of church property. Hence we find many country parishes,
with a population of a few hundreds, richly endowed and furnished with
comfortable, well-built parsonages. The incumbents claim this by virtue
of the extension clause of the local claims. The Commissioners have
therefore been bound to satisfy local claims of hundreds of parishes
with populations varying from 150 to 300, while the teeming populations
of the town parishes have to go without help from the above resources.
About £360,000 per annum has been given out of the Common Fund to satisfy
local claims up to 1890. The Commissioners were opposed to this extension
clause, and it was not in the Bill, but was inserted and carried by
members of Parliament after the Bill was introduced, who had churches
on their own estates, and in their neighbourhood, where large church
endowments existed. The clause included all the landed estates and house
property of the bishops, chapters, prebendaries, sinecure rectories,
etc. In London there are lamentable cases of small incomes in parishes
where there are no local claims, and large incomes of adjacent parishes,
arising from local claims.
For example, the Finsbury estate in London consists of three acres of
land, which were given, in the fourteenth century, by a layman to St.
Paul’s for the support of one prebendary. The Corporation of London
leased this estate from the dean and chapter, and built valuable houses
upon it. The Act of 1840 vested this property, on the expiration of the
lease, in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In 1867 the lease expired,
and the Commissioners came into possession of £60,000 _per annum_ from
the rentals of this property. By the Act of 1840, there would be no local
claim, for none of this revenue came from tithes. But by the Act of
1860, there was a local claim. Hence eighteen district churches within
the parish had their incumbents’ incomes raised to £500 a year each; new
costly parsonage houses were erected, and large annual sums are allowed
to the churchwardens of all these churches for the church services and
repair of churches. But not a shilling was given to the poor incumbents
in the adjacent populous parochial districts.