« AnteriorContinuar »
We are much concerned to find that so slight an encouragement has been given to the execution of soʻuseful and necessary a work as the re-publication of BISHOP WALTON's Treatise. This book, which goes to the bottom of the question, and which preserves many documents now lost, burnt, or otherwise destroyed, one would naturally have thought, must have been highly interesting, not only to those who have a right to receive, but also to those who are liable to pay tithes to the London Clergy. Embracing thus the interests, and tending to ascertain certain pecuniary obligations, of a prodigious number of opulent men; it is surprising that the subscription-list did not fill, as it weré, in an instant. The proposals for re-printing Bishop WALTON's Treatise, are subjoined to the “ Case.” The work is to be printed in one volume, 4to. the price to subscribers is to be twentyșive shillings, payable on the delivery of the book; which is to be sent to press as soon as 250 copies are subscribed for; that is, just as many copies as will indemnify the editor for going to press. It is a reflection on the wealthy inhabitants of the City that the publication is not torthwith proceeded on ; especially as the work will be continued to the present time by the reverend and learned editor, who promises also an apparatus of Notes. We cannot but think the editing of BISHOP WALTON'S TREATISE an object for the City itself to take up. It is in fact an, institute comprising all the great points by which the payment of tithes in the City is ascertained, and all the authorities upon which it is grounded.
The “ Case” furnishes a very good abstract of the Bishop's Treatise; and, as appears from the pamphlet which will next engage our attention, may be deemed the précis upon which the BISHOP OF ST. Asaph formed his admirable speech, which decided the question in the House of Lords.
To abridge an abridgment were no easy task; and after all, it would amount only to the making of an Index. We shall not therefore give any extracts from Mr.Moore's well-timed and well-executed little work, beyond that which introduces these observations.
His brethren of the LONDON CLERGY are highly obliged to him; and quoting so frequently as he does, the Journals of the Common-council, we cannot withhold our unqualified praise from the City OF LONDON, which so libe'rally granted access to its records. The conduct of the
City in this affair has done it great honour; in which the Clergy has a reciprocal share. It evidently appears that the claim of the latter was founded in the purest equity, and it is no less manifest that the City acquiesced in its justice with the utmost readiness. Long may this good understanding subsist between them! Long may THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND meet with that support, which the moderation of its principles, and the piety and learning of its Clergy call for;-that fair support, which the wisdom of the Legislature has intended and decreed it!
Substance of the Bishop of St. Asaph's Speech in the
House of Peers, on Monday July 23d, 1804 ; upon the Motion for the third Reading of the Bill, entitled “ An Act for the Relief of certain Incumbents of Livings, in the City of London. Hatchard, Robson, Rivingtons, and Becket. 8vo. pp. 40.
UR readers may recollect, that the Duke of Norfolk,
upon the motion that the Bill before us be now read a third time, moved an amendment (so called), viz. that the word now be changed into “this day three months.” Upon this, another amendment was suggested, “ to adjourn the debate from Thursday the 19th of July to the Monday following; on which latter day the Bishop of St. Asaph expressed a wish to know whether the noble Duke persisted in his motion ? His grace retained his former opinion, and renewed his amendment. The Right Rev. Prelate then rose, and entered into a most elaborate detail of the mode in which the maintenance of the London Clergy had been provided for in old time; of the different questions which had occasionally been agitated on the subject; and the way in which they had been determined by those in whom legal authority was then vested. His Lordship first, however, set the House right in one or two particulars which had been misrepresented; « this Bill,” said he, “is intituled, “ An Act for the Relief of certain Incumbents of Livings in the City of London.'
.. My lords, before I go into the bill, I must desire your lordships to remark, that these CERTAIN incumbents, to whose relief this bill applies, are a great majority of the Beneficed Clergy of,
the City of London. A great majority, my lords. I repeat, and insist upon this circumstance, because great misrepresentation is gone abroad. It was lately asserted in a very respectable assembly, and what was asserted in that assembly has found its way into the public prints, that the Incumbents to be relieved by this bill, are a minority only of the London Clergy. It has been said, that the parishes, to which what is called the Fire-Act applies, and to which of consequence this act, which is an amendment of the Fire-Act, applies, are in number only 48; while the parishes within the city, not affected by the Fire-Act, nor by this Bill, are 51. My lords, this is a most outrageous falsehood. The parishes, which fall under the Fire-Act and under this Bill, are not fewer than 86; though the livings, it is true, are no more than 51. For after the fire of London it was thought proper to re-build only 51 of the 86 Churches destroyed by that Calamity, and by uniting, to reduce 69 of the Benefices to 34. And thus the 86 parishes made only 51 livings. Still they are 86 parishes. But the parishes, which escaped the fire, and are not affected by the FireAct, are 19 and no more. The Incumbents, therefore, for whose relief this Bill is introduced, are a very great majority of the London Clergy.
My lords, your lordships have heard much I believe of the opulence of those 19 livings, in which the Rights of the Clergy were not curtailed by the Fire-Act. Your lordships have heard, that the revenues of those 19 livings are immense, enormous, far beyond the proportion of the wants of any private Clergyman, too much for Churchmen to be permitted to enjoy! My lords, this is another falsehood. One of those Livings is said to pro. duce 7001. per annuin, another 8001. I speak of reputed values, which are generally beyond the truth. But the average of the 19 is no more than 2001. per Annum.”
We regard tithes and other ecclesiastical payments, as due, jure divino, in the strongest sense of those words. We know they were divinely appointed in the Law of Moses; and we know that in the Gospel it is ordained, that as they, which, under the Mosaic dispensation, ministered about holy things, lived of the things of the Temple; and as they which waited at the altar were partakers of the altar, - even so, (saith St. Paul, 1. Cor. ix. 13, 14.) THE LORD HATH ORDAINED, that they which preach the Gospel, should Live of the Gospel.” Oblations were offered as of Christian Duty, in the very infancy of the Church. St. Paul insists upon the right to a maintenance, even whilst he refuses to exact it, 1. Thess. ii. 8. Tithes and obventions were at first free gifts; and wherefore? Because being universally reckoned payable on the score of Religion,
Paul, is were partemple terec
they were uninforced by any statute. In after ages, the donations made to the Church, were secured by law. Tithes here in England are recognized as demandable in the Laws of King Athelstun ; and have been insured to the Clergy, by statute, ordinance, or custom, in all succeeding time. The tenth part of the increase arising from the profits of lands, and the industry of the parishioners, is un ecclesiastical inheritance ; as much the right of the Clergy, as the other nine parts are the property of the Laity. We are aware that a demand of tithes jure divino, would stand the Clergy but in small stead in the Courts. We know, that there they must be insisted on, per legem terra, mereJy; but then this lex terræ rests on a previous jus divinum, and although Selden reasons drily, as an antiquary and a lawyer, on the payment of tithes, as a mere act of parlia-' ment concern; we; as ORTHODOX CHURCHMEN, beg leave to take into the account the divine authority which directs the judgment of Parliament itself. To withhold the payment of tithes, (and under the word tithes we include all manner of ecclesiastical dues) were a crime in Westminsterhall; but we deem it also a sin against God.
Tithes, our law-books tell us, are of three kinds: predial, such as arise from land, grain, hay, wood, fruit, and herbs; personal, such as arise from the skill and labour of man, being the tenth part of his clear gains in trade; and mixed, such as arise not immediately from the ground, but from cattle, &c. nourished by the produce of the earth. Besides tithes, strictly so called, the Clergy have a right to offerings, obventions, and oblations of sundry kinds. The maintenance of the London Clergy, though arising (as Mr. Moore observes, p. 5.) 'from what is generally called tithes originated rather in what may be more correctly termed OBLATIONS.
“ The maintenance (says the Bishop of St. Asaph) of the Clergy, your lordships know, derives from two principal sources; Tithes and Oblations. The streets of London, my lords, or of any great town, produce no Tithes, certainly no prædial Tithes, nor any mixt. London can produce no species of Tithes, but the Personal. Of Personal Tithes we hear much indeed in the old Canonists, and something we hear of them in the Statute Book. Yet I am persuaded the claim never was generally enforced; and no where less, than in the City of London. The Oblations therefore have been, in all times, the principal maintenance of the London Clergy. It is true we have Acts of Parliament, which purport to be for regulating the payment of Tithes in London. But that is only that the word is very inaccurately
used, as a general name for the legal dues of the Clergy of whatever description; or that Tithes, if any there were, are meant to be included under the general provisions of those Acts. The cer
tain matter of fact is, that those Oblations made almost, if not. -altogether, the whole property of the London Clergy." :." The oblation, your lordships know, was a small payment due of right to the minister upon Sundays and other great festiyals of the Church; regulated in its quantum by custom and usage ; but every where bearing some proportion to the rent of the parishioner, who was to pay it. The earliest authentic information, that I find about the oblations in London, is in an ordinance of Roger Niger, who was Bishop of London in an early part of the 13th century * Niger requires, that the good Citizens of London pay to the minister one farthing for every ten shillings of rent, diebus Dominicis, et solennibus, et festis duplicibus præsertim Apostolorum quorum vigiliæ jejunantur.t And these payments Bishop Niger orders as due, in his time, of antient usage and immemorial custom.'' In the beginning of the 13th century therefore, the oblations upon these days and in this proportion to to the rents, were due by a usage then antient, and by a custom then become immemorial.” ..
With respect to what is here said of personal tithes, we think it not amiss to transcribe the 7th section of the Rd & 3d of Edw.VI. ch. 13, which gives a fuller desèription of them than the Bishop seems to allow to be extant in the statute-book; and we the rather do so, because Mr. Moore lays no small stress on the right vested in the Lone don Clergy to personal tithes (pp. 20, 21. 49.) This clause is conceived in much more decisive language than occurs in any of the authorities cited by Mr. Moore. “ And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that every person exercising merchandize, bargaining and selling, clothing, handicraft, or other art or faculty ; being such kind of persons, and in such places, as beretofore within these forty I years have accustomably used to pay such PERSONAL T'ITHE$, or of right ought to pay, (other than
* See a pamphlet entitled, “ Case respecting the Maintenance of the London Clergy, briefly stated and supported by reference to Authentic Documents. By John Moore, LL. B. Rector of St. Michael's, Bassishaw, and Minor Canon of St. Paul's, Loudon." It is much to be lamented, that this learned gentleman was not encouraged to execute his proposal of re-editing Bishop Walton's Treatise of the Tithes of London.
fi. e. On Sundays, Holy-days, and the double Festivals, especially of the Apostles whose Vigils are fasted.
| This Statute has a reference to a former Act of Henry VIII. Vol. VII. Churchm. Mag. Aug, 1804. T common