V.: Rapacity of the Clergy Exemplified.

Though the avocations of the clergy are professedly of a spiritual nature, no class has manifested so greedy an appetite for temporal advantages and enjoyments. They have been like the daughters of the horse-leech, their cry has constantly been give! give! A brief notice of the application of First Fruits and Tenths, and, subsequently, of parliamentary grants to the augmentation of ecclesiastical revenues, will show as much rapacity on the part of the clergy and as wasteful expenditure of public money on the church as was ever exhibited in the darkest ages of monkish superstition.

First Fruits, as is well known, are the first year’s whole profit or value of any spiritual preferment. The Tenths are the tenth part of the annual value of each living. Both first-fruits and tenths were formerly paid to the pope. The first-fruits were paid to his Holiness on promotion to any new benefice, and the tenths were an annual incometax of ten per cent. out of the revenue of the clergy. As the clergy would, when it was contrary to law, persist in the payment of these foreign exactions, Henry VIII. determined, on the dissolution of the monasteries, to keep them to the yoke to which they had voluntarily subjected themselves, and annexed the revenue arising from first-fruits and tenths to the crown; excepting, however, from the payment of first-fruits, all vicarages under ten pounds, and rectories under ten marks per annum.

According to the valuation in the King’s Book, the first-fruits and tenths were paid, as the 1st of Elizabeth has it, to “the great aid, relief, and supportation of the inestimable charges of the Crown:” and so continued till the 2d year of queen Anne, 1703, when an act passed giving to a corporation, which was to be erected for the augmentation of small livings, the whole of the first fruits and tenths. This is what is called Queen Anne’s Bounty, and amounted to about £14,000 per annum: it has been subsequently increased by an annual grant of £100,000 from parliament and the benefactions of individuals. By another act of the queen, the bishops are required, by oaths of witnesses, to ascertain the clear improved yearly value of every benefice with incomes not exceeding £50 per annum, and certify the same to the exchequer, in order to be discharged from the payment of first-fruits: and all above that value to contribute, by the payment of first-fruits and tenths, to the augmentation of the former.

The object of the queen in establishing this fund was to relieve the poor clergy; the real and only effect has been to relieve the rich clergy from a charge to which by law they were liable. In the 26th Henry VIII. a provision was made for revising, from time to time, the valuations under which the first-fruits and tenths were paid. It is probable the clergy of 1703 were apprehensive, as the nation was then engaged in an expensive war, that such a revision might be made; and in persuading the pious queen to renounce a portion of the hereditary revenue for the sake of “her poor clergy,” they artfully contrived to insert a clause (the last in the act) by which the payment of first-fruits and tenths was made perpetual at the original rate of valuation!

The cunning of the rich clergy in thus shifting from themselves the burthen of contributing to the relief of their poorer brethren, is only to be matched in degree by the folly shown in the application of the diminished revenue which this trick of theirs still left for the improvement of small livings. At the time when the Bounty-Fund was established, there were, according to the returns, 5597 livings in England and Wales with incomes not exceeding £50, and which the slow operation of the fund, aided by parliament, would not raise to £150 in two centuries. Under such circumstances any rational being would suppose the governors and the legislature, by whom the disposal of the fund was superintended, would have made some inquiry into the condition of these livings. Some of them were of very small extent and scarcely any population; and might, therefore, have been advantageously united with one another or with other parishes. In others, the number of hearers was very great, and the parishes so large, they might have been advantageously subdivided. No attention was paid to these different circumstances. The governors of the bounty proceeded bountifully: they distributed a part of their money, in sums of £200, on any poor living to which any private person would give an equal sum; the rest, and greater part, they distributed by lot, letting each poor living take an equal chance for a £200 prize, without any regard to persons or urgency of claim. After this the story of Bridoye deciding suits-at-law by dice, after making up a fair pile of paper on each side, appears no longer an extravaganza. Up to the year 1815 the governors had made in this way 7323 augmentations of £200; but with benefices, as with men, fortune is not proportioned to desert or necessity. Some of the least populous parishes had a wonderful run of luck. In the diocese of Chichester, for instance, the rectory of Hardham, which, in 1811, contained eighty-nine inhabitants, has received six augmentations by lot, or £1200. The vicarage of Loddington, with forty-eight people, has had six augmentations,—£1200. In the diocese of Salisbury, Bremilham drew a prize; it contained fourteen people. Pertwood drew another; it had but twelve people. Calstone had £1000, including a benefaction of £200; its population was nineteen. In the diocese of Winchester, St. Swithin’s, with twenty-four people, has received £800; and £200 has been expended on Ewhurst, which has seven people, and the living returned worth £99. In the diocese of York, Butterwick, with sixty-two people, has had five prizes,—£1000; while Armley, with 2941 people, and Allendale, with 3884, have only gained one each. Even in cities, where the scattered condition of the population could afford no pretext against the union of parishes, the same random plan of augmentations has been pursued. In Winchester separate augmentations have been given to seven parishes, the population of which, all united, would have amounted only to 2376, and would, consequently, have formed a very manageable and rather small town parish. In short, the whole of the returns teem with instances of extravagance, and clearly demonstrate this clerical little-go has been managed for a very different purpose than relieving the penury of part of the establishment. Indeed it is supposed that the church looks upon the poverty of some of her members as sturdy beggars look upon their sores, considering them a valuable adjunct for exciting an ill-judged compassion for the whole body, and securing impunity in idleness and over-feeding.

Had it not been for the fraudulent substraction of the higher clergy from the burthen of contributing to the relief of their poor brethren, there would have been no need of resorting to eleemosynary aid from parliament. If the first-fruits and tenths had been paid, subsequently to the gift of Queen Anne, according to the rate which the law provided, that is, according to the real value of the benefices, instead of a million and a half, at least thirty millions would have been received from those taxes; a sum not only quite sufficient to have removed the poverty of all the poor livings in the kingdom, but to have established schools in every parish, and left a surplus beside for building additional churches, or any other useful purpose.

The funds at present in the hands of the governors are very considerable: not long since these faithful trustees for the benefit of the poor clergy advanced a loan for the repair of the palace of the rich archdiocese of Canterbury; and it is said they have come to a resolution to discourage as much as possible the purchase of lands, and to make certain annual allowances to clergymen with small livings from the dividend of the stock. By this latter proceeding the heads of the church have themselves begun to pay the clergy out of the public funds; affording an example, from high authority, of the practicability of this mode of paying the clergy generally.

In the course of the augmentations no security has been taken against non-residence or plurality. The governors have gone on increasing the income of two small livings, in order to make each of them capable of supporting a resident clergyman, while, after as well as before the augmentation, one incumbent may hold them together—reside on neither—and allow only a small part of the accumulated income to a curate, who performs the duties of both.

Rapacity and finesse appear inseparable traits in the character of the clergy at all times; and the recent conduct of our spiritual guides in the metropolis is a worthy counterpart to that of the clergy in the time of Queen Anne. The situation of the clergy of the City of London is different from that of the clergy in other parts of the kingdom. In the reign of Henry VIII. continual altercations took place between the citizens and their pastors relative to tithes and ecclesiastical dues. To put an end to these unseemly disputes, the 37th Henry VIII. established a commission, at the head of which was the archbishop, with full power to give to their decrees the force of law, if they were enrolled in the Court of Chancery before March, 1545. By a decree of this commission the tithe of houses and buildings is fixed at the rate of 2s. 9d. for every 20s. yearly rent, and 2d. for each of the family for the four yearly offerings. Great disputes, however, have arisen between the inhabitants and tithe-holders respecting the validity of this decree; for it appears, on the authority of Tomline and Raithby, that it never was enrolled agreeably to the obligation of the act. The clergy, however, have continued to urge their claim to 2s. 9d. in the pound, which they modestly term their “ancient rights,” and would, doubtless, yield a very handsome remuneration. An assessment of 1s. in the pound, as stated by the City tithe-committee, would, in the smallest and poorest parishes, yield an income of £500 a-year; and an assessment of 2s. 9d. would raise the lowest living to £1400 a-year. To this exorbitant pretension the clergy have long looked with extreme desire, beholding the increasing wealth and population of the City with feelings similar to those ascribed by Milton to Satan, when contemplating, with malign eye, the happiness of our first parents in the garden of Eden.

Though the decree emanating from the 37th Henry VIII. was of doubtful validity, it has formed the principle on which the assessment has been raised for the maintenance of the city clergy. The clergy, indeed, do not generally exact the 2s. 9d. but content themselves with 2s. 1s. 9d. or 1s. or, in short, any thing they can obtain,—insisting, however, at the same time, on their extreme forbearance in thus generously foregoing their “ancient rights.” Even the 37th Henry did not intend to vest in the clergy the 2s. 9d. for their exclusive maintenance, but also for relieving the poor and repairing the edifice of the church. This they have always kept out of sight: the parishioners apparently acquiesced in their pretended rights; and it was only owing to the ill-timed rapacity of the Fire-Act Clergy which led to the explosion of their unfounded claims. Of the proceedings of the Fire-Act Clergy it may be worth while to give some account.

After the 37th Henry VIII. the clergy in the city were maintained by a certain pound-rate levied on the rental of buildings in their respective parishes. This practice continued till the great fire laid the major part of the city in ashes, burning down or damaging eighty-five parish-churches. After this catastrophe, the legislature enacted that some of the parishes destroyed should be united; that only fifty-one churches should be rebuilt; and that the ministers of those churches should, in lieu of their former allowance, receive certain fixed sums, levied by an equal pound-rate on the houses. This was the 22d and 23d Charles II. termed the Fire-Act. The clergy subject to the provisions of this act were perfectly satisfied, till the effects of the fire began to disappear, the rents of the houses to rise, and the city to get rich again. Then it was our reverend gentlemen became discontented: they saw, with grudging eyes, the increasing wealth of the capital, of which their fixed stipends would not allow them to participate; they talked unceasingly of their former pound-rate, of their “ancient rights,” and at length determined, in good earnest, to apply to parliament.

This was in 1804, and, in consequence, parliament made valuable additions to their salaries; the lowest incomes were raised to £200 a-year, and many of the larger parishes, nearly, if not quite, to £600 a-year, exclusive of surplice-fees and other valuable emoluments. Such augmentation, to all reasonable men, appeared quite sufficient: not so to the clergy. In 1817 they applied for a further augmentation. This application was refused. In 1818 they came forward a third time, with their famous petition of the 4th February, filled with grievous lamentations about the loss of their “ancient rights.” The bubble now burst. Parliament, disgusted with the rapacity of these “sturdy beggars,” determined to refer their petition to a committee. It was soon discovered their “ancient rights” had no foundation; that they never were entitled to 2s. 9d. on the rental, or any part of it; that with the 37th Henry VIII. which they had foisted into their petition, they had nothing to do, except it were to exhibit the craving and rapacious spirit which actuated them.

Various other disclosures were made. Of the thirty-five poor clergymen who had signed the petition, none of them, on an average, was receiving less than £500 a-year. Twenty-five out of the number were pluralists, and not a few of them the fattest pluralists of the profession. Some of the incumbents received annually £1200, £1500, and even £2000, while they did not pay their curates more than £60, £70, or £80 a-year. Instead of residing in the parsonage-house, among the parishioners, the parsonage-houses of many were let to the merchants and manufacturers for counting-houses and warehouses, for which they received exorbitant rents of £200 or £300 a-year. Some of them were archdeacons, royal chaplains, or honourable and very reverend deans; some canons at St. Paul’s, some were precentors, prebendaries, and held other dignified situations in cathedral and collegiate churches. Had they not been the most unreasonable and rapacious men breathing, there is little doubt but they would have considered the emoluments arising from their numerous preferments sufficient. But the wealth of India would not satisfy the cravings of spiritual men. Some of them were mean enough to lay in wait for the members going to the House while their petition was pending, and beseech them to support their claims for an increase in their stipends. It reminds us of the monks of St. Swithin’s. These gluttons had thirteen dishes a day. Hume relates that they threw themselves prostrate in the mire before Henry II. and, with doleful lamentations, complained that the Bishop of Winchester had cut off three dishes a day. “How many has he left?” said the King. “Ten,” replied the disconsolate monks. “I myself,” said Henry, “have only three, and I enjoin the Bishop to reduce you to the same number.”

The emoluments of the metropolitan clergy generally exceed those of the provincial clergy. The practice of uniting parishes, which is allowed by 37th Henry VIII. c. 21, when churches are not more than one mile apart, and under the value of £6, has been carried to a great extent in London. The City alone reckons 108 parishes, which have been formed into no more than seventy-eight benefices, having alternate patrons. Some of these livings are very valuable. For instance, the rectory of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, held by the dean of Hereford, and in the alternate gift of the King and Bishop of London, is worth £2500 a-year. The rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, held by the Rev. Mr. Beresford, and in the patronage of the Duke of Buccleugh, is probably worth £3500. In Westminster, the rectory of St. George’s, Hanover-square, held by the Dean of Carlisle, and in the gift of the Bishop of London, is worth, at least, £4000 per annum. The living of St. Giles’s, held by the Rev. J. E. Tyler, and in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, is another valuable rectory. We could enumerate others, but these must suffice.

In considering the incomes of the metropolitan clergy, it must be remembered that they have many other sources of emolument besides their benefices. St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster-Abbey have many valuable dignities, equal in value to good livings, and which are principally shared among the London ecclesiastics. Then there are the appointments in the royal chapels, public libraries and museums, and the salaries they receive as ushers, masters, &c. in the numerous and wealthy charitable foundations, and which altogether must make their incomes immense.

From this representation of the situation of the clergy of the metropolis, it is clearly their wisest course to follow the policy of primate Sutton, and keep quiet. They should constantly bear in mind the fable of the dog with a piece of flesh, and not endanger what they possess by grasping at too much. But, somehow, the clergy ordinarily evince so little general knowledge, and are so blindly intent on immediate gain, that they usually adopt the most contracted and mistaken views of their permanent interests. Their conduct in respect of compositions for tithes strikingly exemplifies these traits in the clerical character. In order to render this part of the subject intelligible, it will be necessary to premise a few explanations.

A real composition for tithes is when an agreement is made between the landlord and parson, with the consent of the ordinary and patron, that certain land shall be discharged from the payment of tithes, by reason of some land, or other recompense, given to the incumbent in lieu thereof. Such agreements were anciently very frequent, till, by the 13th Elizabeth, it was provided that no composition for tithes should be valid for a longer term than three lives, or twenty-one years. This tended greatly to restrain compositions, and they are now rarely heard of, unless by authority of parliament. To establish the validity of these agreements previously entered into, it is necessary to produce the deed itself, executed between the commencement of the reign of Richard the First and the restraining act of Elizabeth, or such evidence from whence, independent of mere usage, it may be inferred that the deed once existed. Now this is often impossible. Time, as Lord Ellenborough once said, is a greedy devourer of patents and parchments, as of other things, and, probably, in the lapse of 240 years, the deed has been lost or destroyed, or other circumstances utterly preclude the production of the necessary proof. Clergymen, however, have often been found greedy enough to avail themselves of this strange peculiarity in the law, and suddenly claim the tithes from land that had been exonerated for centuries, and for which there could be no doubt a composition had been once granted. This was done, not many years since, by some sinecure priests of the cathedral of Exeter. We well remember the case of Dr. Peplow Ward, the rector of Cottenham. This was a real composition traced so far back as the middle of the sixteenth century; the parson claimed his tithes, and kept the land too, given in lieu of them, because the unfortunate owner could not produce the deed of conveyance.

A recent instance of clerical rapacity has been evinced by the dean and chapter of Ely, and was brought before parliament in the session of 1831, by the owners of Lakenheath-fen, a district of 5000 acres. The fen-owners claim exemption from tithe by prescription; and the property has been purchased, made the subject of wills, family settlements, and contracts, as tithe-free land. But the legal maxim is, that the elapse of no time bars the claim of the church, and the petitioners are bound to prove an uninterrupted exemption from the payment of tithe for nearly 650 years. The dean and chapter of Ely, who possess the rectory and vicarage of Lakenheath, have availed themselves of this difficulty, to revive their claim of tithe over the fen. For nineteen years have the owners of the fen-land been harassed by their spiritual oppressors; they have already expended £5000 in litigation, and more law is now threatened them; the dean and chapter having granted a concurrent lease of the rectory to Mr. Evans, their solicitor and agent, who has renewed the persecution for the tithe of the fen.

A modus, or accustomed rate of payment for tithe, no more than a composition, is never allowed to stand after the clergyman wishes to terminate it, unless it can be proved to have existed prior to A.D. 1189. Day after day rank moduses, as they are called, though they have continued from time out of mind, yet bear evidence of not having existed before the return of King Richard from the Holy Land, are set at naught. Why our legal sages should have adopted this antiquated era for the bounds of legal memory, and to which, for the validity of a custom or prescription, it is necessary to trace an uninterrupted observance, no one can divine, unless it arise from the obvious interest they have in involving every rule regarding the rights of persons and property in the greatest possible obscurity and contradiction. The parsons, however, avail themselves of this dictum, and set aside every customary payment for tithe they do not like, which cannot be proved to have continued, without interruption, from the twelfth century. Hence no modus for hops, turkeys, or other thing introduced into England since that period, is valid. The keenness with which, on various occasions, the clergy have litigated these points is astonishing; and their conduct, both as regards compositions, first fruits, and tithes in London, shows the inherent rapacity of the order, and that there is no stratagem to which they will not resort, in order to avoid payments to which they are justly liable, or to fasten on the public some of their own dormant pretensions. They cannot, therefore, expect any indulgence, nor complain if a similar measure of justice be dealt to them. One mode of retaliation would be to insist on the payment of first fruits and tenths, according to the present value of benefices, whereby the condition of the inferior clergy would be improved out of the redundant incomes of the rich ecclesiastics.

But quite as equitable and a more effective blow might be dealt the priesthood, by the poor insisting on their old common law right to one-third of the tithes of benefices. If the clergy will persist in reviving worn-out claims, why should the people suffer their own just rights to remain in abeyance? That the poor are entitled to one-third of the tithes has been unanswerably proved by Ruggles and Eagle. No time has elapsed to defeat the claims of the poor any more than the claims of the Church. There stands their right, guaranteed to them by the old common law of the land, sanctioned by centuries of uninterrupted usage, and never repealed by any statute of the realm.