takes his usual course when considering Swift's attitude of opposition
--he implies a motive or prejudice. In his opinion, Swift considered the
bill for the repeal of Charles's act, "an indirect mode of gratifying
the existing bishops, whom he did not regard with peculiar respect or
complacency, at the expense of the Church establishment," and that,
therefore, "the spirit of his opposition is, in this instance,
peculiarly caustic." As a matter of fact, the spirit of Swift's
opposition was always peculiarly caustic, in this case no more so than
in any other. But to imply that his motive was a self gratifying one
only, is to treat Swift unfairly. If the bishops required an example as
to how they should deal with their lands, they could easily have found
one in Swift himself. In all the renewals of the leases of the Deanery
lands, Swift never sought his own immediate advantage, his terms were
based on the consideration that the lands were his only in trust for a
successor. To take one instance only, the instance of the parish of
Kilberry in county Kildare, cited by Monck Mason (p. 27, note h). In
1695 the rent of this parish was reserved at £100 English sterling, in
1717, Swift raised this rent to £150, in 1731 to £170, and in 1741 to
£200 per annum, with a proportionable loss of fine upon each occasion.
The tract is dated October 21st, 1723, but as I have not come across a
copy of the original separate issue, I have based the text on that given
by Faulkner (vol. iv, 1735), and the title page here reproduced is from
that edition. The fifth volume of "Miscellanies," also issued in 1735,
contains this tract, and I have compared the texts of the two. The notes
given in Scott's edition are, in the main, altered from Faulkner's
edition.
[T.S.]
SOME
ARGUMENTS
AGAINST ENLARGING the
POWER OF BISHOPS
In LETTING OF
LEASES.
WITH
REMARKS on some _Queries_
lately published.
_Mibi credite, major haereditas venit unicuique vestraem in iisdem bonis ae
jure & ae legibus, quam ab iis ae quibus illa ipsa bona relicta sunt._
Cicero _pro_ A. Caecina.
Written in the Year 1723.
Printed in the Year MDCCXXXIII.
In handling this subject, I shall proceed wholly upon the supposition,
that those of our party, who profess themselves members of the church
established, and under the apostolical government of bishops, do desire
the continuance and transmission of it to posterity, at least, in as
good a condition as it is at present. Because, as this discourse is not
calculated for dissenters of any kind; so neither will it suit the talk
or sentiments of those persons, who, with the denomination of churchmen,
are oppressors of the inferior clergy, and perpetually quarrelling at
the great incomes of the bishops; which is a traditional cant delivered
down from former times, and continued with great reason, although it be
now near 200 years since almost three parts in four of the church
revenues have been taken from the clergy: Besides the spoils that have
been gradually made ever since, of glebes and other lands, by the
confusion of times, the fraud of encroaching neighbours, or the power of
oppressors, too great to be encountered.
About the time of the Reformation, many popish bishops of this kingdom,
knowing they must have been soon ejected, if they would not change their
religion, made long leases and fee-farms of great part of their lands,
reserving very inconsiderable rents, sometimes only a chiefry; by a
power they assumed, directly contrary to many ancient canons, yet
consistent enough with the common law. This trade held on for many years
after the bishops became Protestants; and some of their names are still
remembered with infamy, on account of enriching their families by such
sacrilegious alienations. By these means, episcopal revenues were so low
reduced, that three or four sees were often united to make a tolerable
competency. For some remedy to this evil, King James the First, by a
bounty that became a good Christian prince, bestowed several forfeited
lands on the northern bishoprics: But in all other parts of the kingdom,
the Church continued still in the same distress and poverty; some of the
sees hardly possessing enough to maintain a country vicar. About the
middle of King Charles the First's reign, the legislature here thought
fit to put a stop, at least, to any farther alienations; and so a law
was enacted, prohibiting all bishops, and other ecclesiastical
corporations, from setting their lands for above the term of twenty-one
years; the rent reserved to be one half of the real value of such lands
at the time they were set, without which condition the lease to be void.
Soon after the restoration of King Charles the Second, the parliament
taking into consideration the miserable estate of the Church, certain
lands, by way of augmentation, were granted to eight bishops in the act
of settlement, and confirmed in the act of explanation; of which bounty,
as I remember, three sees were, in a great measure, defeated; but by
what accidents, it is not here of any importance to relate.
This, at present, is the condition of the Church in Ireland, with regard
to Episcopal revenues: Which I have thus briefly (and, perhaps,
imperfectly) deduced for some information to those, whose thoughts do
not lead them to such considerations.
By virtue of the statute, already mentioned, under King Charles the
First, limiting ecclesiastical bodies to the term of twenty-one years,
under the reserved rent of half real value, the bishops have had some
share in the gradual rise of lands, without which they could not have
been supported, with any common decency that might become their station.
It is above eighty years since the passing of that act: The see of
Meath, one of the best in the kingdom, was then worth about £400 _per
annum_; the poorer ones in the same proportion. If this were their
present condition, I cannot conceive how they would have been able to
pay for their patents, or buy their robes: But this will certainly be
the condition of their successors, if such a bill should pass, as they
say is now intended, which I will suppose, and believe, many persons,
who may give a vote for it, are not aware of.
However, this is the act which is now attempted to be repealed, or, at
least, eluded; some are for giving bishops leave to let fee-farms;
others would allow them to let leases for lives; and the most moderate
would repeal that clause, by which the bishops are bound to let their
lands at half value.
The reasons for the rise of value in lands, are of two kinds. Of the
first kind, are long peace and settlement after the devastations of war;
plantations, improvements of bad soil, recovery of bogs and marshes,
advancement of trade and manufactures, increase of inhabitants,
encouragement of agriculture, and the like.
But there is another reason for the rise of land, more gradual, constant
and certain; which will have its effects in countries that are very far
from flourishing in any of the advantages I have just mentioned: I mean
_the perpetual decrease in the value of gold and silver_. I shall
discourse upon these two different kinds, with a view towards the bill
now attempted.
As to the first: I cannot see how this kingdom is at any height of
improvement, while four parts in five of the plantations for 30 years
past, have been real disimprovements; nine in ten of the quick-set
hedges being ruined for want of care or skill. And as to forest trees,
they being often taken out of woods, and planted in single rows on the
tops of ditches, it is impossible they should grow to be of use, beauty,
or shelter. Neither can it be said, that the soil of Ireland is improved
to its full height, while so much lies all winter under water, and the
bogs made almost desperate by the ill cutting of the turf. There hath,
indeed, been some little improvement in the manufactures of linen and
woollen, although very short of perfection: But our trade was never in
so low a condition: And as to agriculture, of which all wise nations
have been so tender, the desolation made in the country by engrossing
graziers, and the great yearly importation of corn from England, are
lamentable instances under what discouragement it lies.
But, notwithstanding all these mortifications, I suppose there is no
well-wisher to his country, without a little hope, that in time the
kingdom may be on a better foot in some of the articles above mentioned.
But it would be hard, if ecclesiastical bodies should be the only
persons excluded from any share in public advantages; which yet can
never happen, without a greater share of profit to their tenants: If God
"sends rain equally upon the just and the unjust;" why should those who
wait at His altars, and are instructors of the people, be cut off from
partaking in the general benefits of law, or of nature?
But, as this way of reasoning may seem to bear a more favourable eye
to the clergy, than perhaps will suit with the present disposition, or
fashion of the age; I shall, therefore, dwell more largely upon the
second reason for the rise of land, which is the perpetual decrease of
the value of gold and silver.
This may be observed from the course of the Roman history, above two
thousand years before those inexhaustible silver mines of Potosi were
known. The value of an obolus, and of every other coin between the time
of Romulus and that of Augustus, gradually sunk about five parts in six,
as appears by several passages out of the best authors. And yet, the
prodigious wealth of that state did not arise from the increase of
bullion in the world, by the discovery of new mines, but from a much
more accidental cause, which was, the spreading of their conquests, and
thereby importing into Rome and Italy, the riches of the east and west.
When the seat of empire was removed to Constantinople, the tide of money
flowed that way, without ever returning; and was scattered in Asia. But
when that mighty empire was overthrown by the northern people, such a
stop was put to all trade and commerce, that vast sums of money were
buried, to escape the plundering of the conquerors; and what remained
was carried off by those ravagers.
It were no difficult matter to compute the value of money in England,
during the Saxon reigns; but the monkish and other writers since the
Conquest, have put that matter in a clearer light, by the several
accounts they have given us of the value of corn and cattle, in years of
dearth and plenty. Every one knows, that King John's whole portion,
before he came to the crown, was but five thousand pounds, without a
foot of land.
I have likewise seen the steward's accounts, of an ancient noble family
in England, written in Latin, between three and four hundred years ago,
with the several prices of wine and victuals, to confirm my
observations.
I have been at the trouble of computing (as others have done) the
different values of money for about four hundred years past. Henry Duke
of Lancaster, who lived about that period, founded an hospital in
Leicester, for a certain number of old men; charging his lands with a
groat a week to each for their maintenance, which is to this day duly
paid them. In those times, a penny was equal to ten-pence half-penny,
and somewhat more than half a farthing in ours; which makes about eight
ninths' difference.
This is plain also, from the old custom upon many estates in England, to
let for leases of lives, (renewable at pleasure) where the reserved rent
is usually about twelve-pence a pound, which then was near the half real
value: And although the fines be not fixed, yet the landlord gets
altogether not above three shillings in the pound of the worth of his
land: And the tenants are so wedded to this custom, that if the owner
suffer three lives to expire, none of them will take a lease on other
conditions; or, if he brings in a foreigner who will agree to pay a
reasonable rent, the other tenants, by all manner of injuries, will make
that foreigner so uneasy, that he must be forced to quit the farm; as
the late Earl of Bath felt, by the experience of above ten thousand
pounds loss.
The gradual decrease for about two hundred years after, was not
considerable, and therefore I do not rely on the account given by some
historians, that Harry the Seventh left behind him eighteen hundred
thousand pounds; for although the West Indies were discovered before his
death, and although he had the best talents and instruments for exacting
of money, ever possessed by any prince since the time of Vespasian,
(whom he resembled in many particulars); yet I conceive, that in his
days the whole coin of England could hardly amount to such a sum. For in
the reign of Philip and Mary, Sir Thomas Cokayne of Derbyshire, [1] the
best housekeeper of his quality in the county, allowed his lady fifty
pounds a year for maintaining the family, one pound a year wages to each
servant, and two pounds to the steward; as I was told by a person of
quality who had seen the original account of his economy. Now this sum
of fifty pound, added to the advantages of a large domain, might be
equal to about five hundred pounds a year at present, or somewhat more
than four-fifths.
[Footnote 1: Sir Thomas Cokayne (1519?-1592), known as "a professed
hunter and not a scholler." He was the eldest son of Francis Cokayne, or
Cockaine, of Ashbourne, Derbyshire. One of his sons, Edward, was the
father of Thomas Cokayne, the lexicographer. Sir Thomas, in 1591,
published "A Short Treatise of Hunting, compyled for the Delight of
Noblemen and Gentlemen." [T. S.]]
The great plenty of silver in England began in Queen Elizabeth's reign,
when Drake, and others, took vast quantities of coin and bullion from
the Spaniards, either upon their own American coasts, or in their return
to Spain. However, so much hath been imported annually from that time to
this, that the value of money in England, and most parts of Europe, is
sunk above one half within the space of an hundred years,
notwithstanding the great export of silver for about eighty years past,
to the East Indies, from whence it never returns. But gold being not
liable to the same accident, and by new discoveries growing every day
more plentiful, seems in danger of becoming a drug.
This hath been the progress of the value of money in former ages, and
must of necessity continue so for the future, without some new invasion
of Goths and Vandals to destroy law, property and religion, alter the
very face of nature; and turn the world upside down.
I must repeat, that what I am to say upon this subject, is intended only
for the conviction of those among our own party, who are true lovers of
the Church, and would be glad it should continue in a tolerable degree
of prosperity to the end of the world.
The Church is supposed to last for ever, both in its discipline and
doctrine; which is a privilege common to every petty corporation, who
must likewise observe the laws of their foundation. If a gentleman's
estate which now yields him a thousand pounds a year, had been set for
ever at the highest value, even in the flourishing days of King Charles
the Second, would it now amount to above four or five hundred at most?
What if this had happened two or three hundred years ago; would the
reserved rent at this day be any more than a small chiefry? Suppose the
revenues of a bishop to have been under the same circumstances; could he
now be able to perform works of hospitality and charity? Thus, if the
revenues of a bishop be limited to a thousand pounds a year; how will
his successor be in a condition to support his station with decency,
when the same denomination of money shall not answer an half, a quarter,
or an eighth part of that sum? Which must unavoidably be the consequence
of any bill to elude the limiting act, whereby the Church was preserved
from utter ruin.
The same reason holds good in all corporations whatsoever, who cannot
follow a more pernicious practice than that of granting perpetuities,
for which many of them smart to this day; although the leaders among
them are often so stupid as not to perceive it, or sometimes so knavish
as to find their private account in cheating the community.
Several colleges in Oxford, were aware of this growing evil about an
hundred years ago; and, instead of limiting their rents to a certain sum
of money, prevailed with their tenants to pay the price of so many
barrels of corn, to be valued as the market went, at two seasons (as I
remember) in the year. For a barrel of corn is of a real intrinsic
value, which gold and silver are not: And by this invention, these
colleges have preserved a tolerable subsistence, for their fellows and
students, to this day.
The present bishops will, indeed be no sufferers by such a bill;
because, their ages considered, they cannot expect to see any great
decrease in the value of money; or, at worst, they can make it up in the
fines, which will probably be greater than usual, upon the change of
leases into fee-farms, or lives; or without the power of obliging their
tenants to a real half value. And, as I cannot well blame them for
taking such advantages, (considering the nature of human kind) when the
question is only, whether the money shall be put into their own or
another man's pocket: So they will be never excusable before God or man,
if they do not to the death oppose, declare, and protest against any
such bill, as must in its consequences complete the ruin of the Church,
and of their own order in this kingdom.
If the fortune of a private person be diminished by the weakness, or
inadvertency of his ancestors, in letting leases for ever at low rents,
the world lies open to his industry for purchasing of more; but the
Church is barred by a _dead hand_; or if it were otherwise, yet the
custom of making bequests to it, hath been out of practice for almost
two hundred years, and a great deal directly contrary hath been its
fortune.
I have been assured by a person of some consequence, to whom I am
likewise obliged for the account of some other facts already related,
that the late Bishop of Salisbury,[2] (the greatest Whig of that bench
in his days) confessed to him, that the liberty which bishops in England
have of letting leases for lives, would, in his opinion, be one day the
ruin of Episcopacy there; and thought the Church in this kingdom happy
by the limitation act.
[Footnote 2: Dr. Barnet.]
And have we not already found the effect of this different proceeding in
both kingdoms? Have not two English prelates quitted their peerage and
seats in Parliament, in a nation of freedom, for the sake of a more
ample revenue, even in this unhappy kingdom, rather than lie under the
mortification of living below their dignity at home? For which, however,
they cannot be justly censured. I know indeed, some persons, who offer,
as an argument for repealing the limiting bill, that it may in future
ages prevent the practice of providing this kingdom with bishops from
England, when the only temptation will be removed. And they allege,
that, as things have gone for some years past, gentlemen will grow
discouraged from sending their sons to the university, and from
suffering them to enter into holy orders, when they are likely to
languish under a curacy, or small vicarage, to the end of their lives:
But this is all a vain imagination; for the decrease in the value of
money will equally affect both kingdoms: And besides, when bishoprics
here grow too small to invite over men of credit and consequence, they
will be left more fully to the disposal of a chief governor, who can
never fail of some worthless illiterate chaplain, fond of a title and
precedence. Thus will that whole bench, in an age or two, be composed of
mean, ignorant, fawning gownmen, humble suppliants and dependants upon
the court for a morsel of bread, and ready to serve every turn that
shall be demanded from them, in hopes of getting some _commendam_ tacked
to their sees; which must then be the trade, as it is now too much in
England, to the great discouragement of the inferior clergy. Neither is
that practice without example among us.
It is now about eighty-five years since the passing of that limiting
act, and there is but one instance, in the memory of man, of a bishop's
lease broken upon the plea of not being statutable; which, in
everybody's opinion, could have been lost by no other person than he who
was then tenant, and happened to be very ungracious in his county. In
the present Bishop of Meath's[3] case, that plea did not avail, although
the lease were notoriously unstatutable; the rent reserved, being, as I
have been told, not a seventh part of the real value; yet the jury, upon
their oaths, very gravely found it to be according to the statute; and
one of them was heard to say, That he would _eat his shoes_ before he
would give a verdict for the bishop. A very few more have made the same
attempt with as little success. Every bishop, and other ecclesiastical
body, reckon forty pounds in an hundred to be a reasonable half value;
or if it be only a third part, it seldom, or never, breeds any
difference between landlord and tenant. But when the rent is from five
to nine or ten parts less than the worth; the bishop, if he consults the
good of his see, will be apt to expostulate; and the tenant, if he be an
honest man, will have some regard to the reasonableness and justice of
the demand, so as to yield to a moderate advancement, rather than engage
in a suit, where law and equity are directly against him. By these
means, the bishops have been so true to their trusts, as to procure some
small share in the advancement of rents; although it be notorious that
they do not receive the third penny (fines included) of the real value
of their lands throughout the kingdom.
[Footnote 3: Dr. Evans, a Welchman. [Faulkner, 1735.]]
I was never able to imagine what inconvenience could accrue to the
public, by one or two thousand pounds a year, in the hands of a
Protestant bishop, any more than of a lay person.[4] The former,
generally speaking, liveth as piously and hospitably as the other; pays
his debts as honestly, and spends as much of his revenue among his
tenants: Besides, if they be his immediate tenants, you may distinguish
them, at first sight, by their habits and horses; or if you go to their
houses, by their comfortable way of living. But the misfortune is, that
such immediate tenants, generally speaking, have others under them, and
so a third and fourth in subordination, till it comes to the welder (as
they call him) who sits at a rack-rent, and lives as miserably as an
Irish farmer upon a new lease from a lay landlord. But suppose a bishop
happens to be avaricious, (as being composed of the same stuff with
other men) the consequence to the public is no worse than if he were a
squire; for he leaves his fortune to his son, or near relation, who, if
he be rich enough, will never think of entering into the Church.
[Footnote 4: This part of the paragraph is to be applied to the period
when the whole was written, which was in 1723, when several of Queen
Anne's bishops were living. [Note in edition of 1761, as amended from
the edition of 1735. T.S.]]