Tithe and Its Rating Author(s): Montague Barlow Source: The Economic Journal, Vol. 10, No. 37 (Mar., 1900), pp. 32-46 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Royal Economic Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2956928 Accessed: 16-06-2016 11:42 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley, Royal Economic Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Economic Journal

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TITHE AND ITS RATING.'

ON the 22nd of June last a bill was introduced by Mr. Long into Parliament with the object of remedying an alleged injustice suffered by clerical owners of tithe; the bill, which received the Royal assent on 1st August, and is now law, relieves clerical owners of half the burden of rates levied on their tithe. The matter was fully and somewhat hotly discussed in the House before the measure finally became law: but the whole subject is still of great importance for two reasons: a good deal of miscon- ception exists as to the strength of the clergyman's case for relief; if the British Government is represented as grasping abroad, that isasnothing to the character for rapacity often given to the Church at home; and secondly the Act passed this summer only remains in force for two years, at the end of which time the whole question mnust again come up for consideration in Parliament. The subject involves points of considerable legal and historical difficulty, and it is only possible here to outline, as clearly as space allows, the chief landmarks on the field over which the battle has been fought. Tithe-rating has at any rate this satisfactory feature as distinct -from many Church matters which are now attracting attention. No question of party is involved: if the rain descends alike on the just and on the unjust, the hand of the rate collector is equally heavy on the clergyman who owns tithes, be he High, Low, Broad, or of any intermediate dimension. In discussing the rating of tithe we must get working notions of two words, (1) tithe, and (2) rates and rating, (I) Tithe-From the earliest times the Church preached to landowners the obligation of setting a tenth of all annual produce aside for pious purposes. The obligation was very gener- ally recognised even in Anglo-Saxon times, and came to be

' Being the substance of a Paper read before the Church Congress in the Imperial Institute, October 1899.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TITHE AND ITS RATING 33 considered a regular charge on the land, and statutory authority for enforcing the obligation was given by legislation as early as the time of Edgar.' Though the custoin varied in different parts, tithe was generally leviable in Eilgland on that which yields an annual return: such as:- a. Crops: e.g. Corn, hay, wood, flax, hops, vegetables, and fruit trees. b. Animal produce-such as tithe of calves, colts, pigs and deer, of wool and lambs; of milk, cheese, and even bees. c. Finally tithe of personal work in certain cases existed in some parts of England, such as of mills and fishing.2 On the other hand, mines and quarries, wild animals, or fish did not pay tithes, as not being capable of yielding an annual return.3 Originally a man might pay this tenth part of his produce to what Church or sacred institution he pleased,4 but it came to be recognised about the time of the Lateran Council (1180), that all tithe of produce within a parish was attached locally to the church of the parish and was payable exclusively to the parson: this practice did not, however, long continue, for during the next 3(0 years, up to the Reformation, many monasteries acquired advowsons and "appropriated " the benefices to themselves, putting in a deputy or vicar to perform the services: the monasteries retained the chief or great tithes, viz. on corn, hay, and wood, and paid the vicar by handing over to him the lesser tithes, t.e,, tithes on all other produce, which not only were' of less value, but were more difficult to collect.5 When the monasteries were dissolved in Henry VIII.'s time, these " appropriations " passed to the Crown, and thence into the hands of private persons or corporations. The legal conception of tithes is not very consistent or logical: 1 See Phillimore, Peel. Law, vol. ii., p. 1147. Selborne, Ancient Facts and Fictions concerning Churches and Tithes. G. Edwardes-Jones, History of Tithe in EIngland. Second Report of Royal Commission on Local Taxation, 1899, p. 8. 2 Burns's Eecl. Law (1842), Title, Tithes. Watson, Com.pleat Incumnbent (1712), C. 46, 1 Roll. Abr. p. 641 (1668). 3 Thus following the Levitical rule, Leviticus, xxvii. 30-32. 4 See Coke, Inst. II., p. 641: but contra Prideaux, On Tithes, p. 302; Lindwood, De loc. et Conducto. 5 Second Report on Local Taxation, 1899, p. 8. The difference between " great ' and " small " tithe depended on the nature of the produce, and not on the amount of the tithe. The original spiritual Corporations, assignees of the tithe, were called ,appropriators; the subsequent lay holders, after confiscation and grant from the Crown, were called impropritators. Appropriations required the consent both of the Crown and of the Bishop. No. 37.-VOL. X. D

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 34 THE EICONOMIC JOURNAL

from the point of view of the tithe-owner they are for most pur- poses regarded as real property, they are technically incorporeal hereditaments, and when in the hands of laymen descend like other real property to the heir-at-law on intestacy; like other real property they are subject to dower and curtesy, they caln be settled or willed or leased: and they come within the terms of the settled Land Act 1882 (Sec. 2, ? 10).1 On the other hand, from the point of view of the landowner, they are not treated as real property: as against him the parson's right to tithe gives the latter no estate in the land, it is mierely a personal right to a portion of the produce enforceable originally only by spiritual censures in the ecclesiastical Courts, and tithes were excluded from the relief given to agricultural land generallyin 1896. Not unnaturally the, actual collection of a tenth of the produce led to much unseemly friction between clergy and farmers: voluntary arrangements were therefore often entered into to secure a money payment in lieu of the actual produce: this fixed money payment was called a mzodus and might extend to the whole parish or only to some particular lands in it; by agreement between the landowner or occupier and the parson, the former sometimes paid the rates before handing over the tithe, the modus being of course reduced to the extent of the rates so paid. In 1836 the Tithe Commutation Act was passed whereby the varying share of the annual produce was to be commuted into a fixed money payment, arrived at by taking an average for the previous seven years.2 The commuted sum so ascertained, henceforward called a tithe rent-charge, was not, however, an absolutely fixed sum: the amount payable was to vary according to the current price of three crops, wheat, barley, and oats; in other words if the average tithe receivable by the vicar of St. Mary's, Anywhere, calculated on the average for the seven years preceding 1835 was ?100, that would have purchased in 1836 say 60 bushels of wheat, 150 bushels of oats, 100 bushels of barley. The vicar of St. Mary's will receive this year the money value of the same number of bushels of wheat, oats and barley: the price of these three crops has

I See Bacon's Abridgmnent (1832), vol. viii., p. 2. 2 Deductions were allowed for any rates, charges, or assessment, to which the tithe was liable: also for expenses of collection, preparing for sale and marketing. In some cases where voluntary colm-positions had been made previous to the Act, additions to the average were made; see Appendix, vol. i., to Evidence of Royal Comm. on Loc. Tax., 1898; Memorandum of Rev. C. Stevens, p. 211; Memorandum of Mr. E. W. Peterson, p. 145.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms -TITHE AND ITS RATING 35

falleni very mnuch during the last few years, so that during the current year our vicar's ?100 is worth to him only ?68 2s. 4d.1 It is important to notice exactly what the Act did: it secured to the tithe-owners a sum in money which though liable to some variation with the price of crops, was practically fixed, thus avoid- ing the friction of collecting and disposing of an actual tenth part of corn or wood from each farm: but at the same time it prevented the tithe-owner reaping the benefit he would have secured under the old system as years went on from better cultivation, and therefore increased annual production; that this increase of pro- duction has been considerable admits of little doubt: Sir John Caird, a tithe comnmissioner, estimated in 1876 that the Church was ?2,000,000 a year poorer nowadays for accepting the arrange- ment in 1836.2 It is often said that at the passing of this Act a large sum was given to the owners of tithe so as to secure them an income for the future free of rates; that, as a matter of figures, a considerable sum was added to the tithes there can be no doubt : but only in those cases where there had been an arrangement previous to the Act by which the rates had been paid by the tithe-payers, and only to the extent of sums so paid: in the words of the tithe commissioners in their report of 1st May 1838, " It is the purpose of the Act to put upon exactly the same footing the tithe-owners who have paid their own parochial rates, and the tithe-owners whose rates have been paid for them by the tithe payers. If, therefore, in two parishes, in each of which the tithes. have been treated as worth ?600, the tithe-owner in one has received ?400 and ?200 has been paid for him as rates, that ?200 must be added to make up the tithe-owner's real average ancd put him on a footing with his neighbour."3 The Act only gave with one hand to take away with the other. The only other important legislative change with regard to tithe, or rather tithe rent-charge, was that in 1891 the landowner and not the tenant was made immediately liable, and the tithe- owner was allowed, instead of the troublesome remedy of distrain- ing for arrears, to sue for them in the county court. The total amnount of the tithe rent-charge now payable annually is roughly

1 See Sec. 37,6, 7 Will. IV., C. 71. The average annual value since 1837 has been ?97 Os. 73d. See Ch. of E??g. Yeagr Book for 1899, p. 575. 2 See Appenldix to Evidence, Vol. I., Roy. Com. on Loc. Tax., p. 143; Memorandum of Mr. E. Peterson. On the other hand it must not be forgotteln that tithe was only payable on produce, i.e., on agricultural land; houses built on land affect the value of the land, but not of the tithe. 3 Memorandum of Rev. C. Stevens, loc. cit. D 2

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 36 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL four millions, of which three millions go to clerical owners, and one million to lay impropriators.1 II.-Rates are burdens leviable on the profit arising from land and houses; rates however are not levied on the full value of land or houses; the whole subject is exceedingly complicated, but roughly we may say that the basis of rateable value is arrived at in the following way. The enjoyment of land in England is usually divided between two people, the landlord and the tenant: the gross profits of the lanid may be regarded as divisible into three : 2 (I) Expenses of cultivation, wages, machinery and incidental charges. (II) A profit over and above the cost of cultivation on which the tenant lives, i.e. the tenant's profits. (III) The residue which goes to the landlord in rent, and which is usually called occupier's, but should properly be named, land- lord's profits. It is on this last that rates are calculated: 3 much land never is and never will be let at an annual rent to any one: but a supposed rent has somehow to be arrived at: and a vast array of overseers, assessment committees and distinguished judges are employed from time to time in discovering hypothetical tenants for such very unlettable properties as a Board School, Euston Station, or Bedlam Asylum. Such being the nature of tithe and of rating, what is the connec- tionbetween thetwo? Where, say the average man, is the hardship in the tithe paying rates ? If one-tenth of the produce of land is set aside for the parson or lay impropriator, and the other nine-tenths pay rates, why should not the parson's one-tenth also pay ? Father Healy defined a Scotchman as "A mon who keeps the Sawbath and anything else he can lay his hands on "; -the average man thinks of that and applies it to his clerical friends. One answer to the question of the average man is obvious: the farmer does not pay rates on the whole of his nine-tenths, and it is difficult to see why the parson should pay on the whole of his one-tenth. If the cost of cultivation of land (including payment of say ?50 tithe) be ?.500, tenants' profits ?500, and rent ?500, rates -are paid not on ?l,500 but on one-third of that, i.e. the rent, ?500,

I While the value of tithe cannot increase, the rates imposed on it have very largely increased since 1836. See Ch. of Eng. Year Book, p. 575. 2 Castle, On Rating (1895), p. 127; R. v. Adames, 4 B. and Ad. 61. 3 This principle of " annual value " was adopted by statute, 6 7 Will. IV., c. 96.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TITHE AND ITS RATING 37

whereas under the law as it stood till this year, the owner of the ?50 tithe would be rated on almost the whole, say ?48.l The state of affairs in existence until the Act of this year was passed was no doubt legal; and even those who felt the burden most keenly would not accuse the state of any conscious deter- mination to oppress the clergy: the law has developed graduallv, unconsciously, by a series of steps, each of which by itself passed almost unnoticed, but the result is none the less distinctly inequitable. Mr. Boscawen in his evidence before the Royal Commission gave many instances of the pressure of rates on the clerical tithe- owners. To take only one, at Lyminster in Sussex the gross income of the clergymnan derived almost entirely from tithe rent-charge is ?253: against this must be set rates ?39, curate's stipend ?161, other necessary expenses ?25, leaving a net income of ?29, or actually 410 less than the amount paid in rates on the tithe.2 Mr. Gladstone so long ago as 1852 could say, " The clergy have a real grievance. It is admitted, and every one who has examined the subject of local rating will tell you, that the clergy suffer cruelly by being rated upon their gross incomes." They have suffered patiently for many years: possibly, like the eels, from constantr skinning, they were supposed to have got rather fond of the operation. There are three main lines of argument adopted by those who say that the method of rating of tithe in vogue up to the present year was unjust and these arguments can best be put in the order of strength. I. There can be little doubt in the minds of those best able to judge that tithe in the hands of clerical owners, which differs in many important incidents from that in the land of lay impro- priators, was never meant, in inception to be rated at all.3 The Act which inaugurated the system of Poor Law rating, and on which the whole of our principles of rating are based, was passed in 1601 (the famous Act, 43 Eliz. c. 2).4 The object

1 See facts in R. v. Capel, 12 A. & E. 382, 840. For facts as to close rating of tithe see below. 2 See for numerous similar cases Mr. Boscawen's Memorandum Appendix, vol. i.> Report on Local Taxation, 1898, p. 349. 3 See Mr. Meadows White's evidence, House of Lords, Paper 150, for 1850 evidence of Mr. Castle, Q.C., the well-known authority on rating, Local Taxation Com- mission, vol. ii. of evidence, p. 83. 4 This was only the last of a series of Acts of a similar character, 5 Eliz. c. 3, 14 Eliz. c. 5, and 39 Eliz. c. 3. The latter draws the same distinction between inhabitant and occupier as the Act of 1601; the judges resolved in 1597 or 159& that parsons were liable under 39 Eliz. as inbabitants, and lay impropriators as

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 38 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL

of the Act was to enable overseers in each parish to raise funds to buy flax, hemp, wool and other things so as to set the sturdy " poor on work," and to provide relief for the impotent, old, and blind, and those incapable of work. The Act mentions two classes of persons on whom the overseers were to levy charges or rates to provide the necessary funds, namely:- 1. "Every inhabitanlt, parson, vicar, and other," i.e., every inhabitant in the parish. 2. Every occupier of land, houses, mines, &c.; and in the category are specially mentioned " tithes impropriate and pro- priations of tithes," tithe, that is, separate from the benefice, and contributing nothing to its support, whether held by a layman or by a religious foundation. The distinction between the two classes is important: a rate placed on inhabitants generally, " according to ability,"' to use the words of the Act, would naturally seem to mean a tax on the income of all solvent persons residing in the parish from whatever source derived.1 A butcher has a shop, a cart, makes large profits which are consumed by a large family. His real property, the shop, and his personal property, the cart, and furni- ture, and his profits would then be taken into account on one side, his expenses, e.g., house rent, on the other, and the balance will represent his ability to pay. In the case of landlord and tenant mentioned just now, the tenant would' be the inhabitant, his ability to pay measured by his tenant's profits, less his necessary outgoings. Similarly with a parson, his "{ability" would be his net income after deducting expenses. This, however, is not quite the construction which the Courts 2 have placed on the Act. They have made the distinction between the two sections of the Act coincide with the difference between real and personal property; the second section deals expressly with real property, the first section has been confined by the Judges to personlalty. But whatever the theoretically correct interpreta- tion of Section I., in which the parson is included, may be, it makes very little difference from the parson's point of view, as we shall see directly for this first section soon fell into disuse. occupiers. Under the early but irregular Sewers' Act, 23 Hlen. VIII., spiritual tithe was never rated, but impropriation of tithe always. Second Report on Local Taxation, 1899, p. 9; Parliamentary Paper 486 of 1843, Pt. 1., p. 11. I The Act of 1601 speaks of "the ability of the parish," the "Hue and Cry Act" 1585, expressly referred to the "ability of the inhabitants." These phrases amount to the same thing. Second Report, 1899, p. 11. See Memorandum of Rev. C. Stevens, Appendix to Loc. Tax. Report, 1899, vol. i., p. 165. 2 See R. v. Lumnsdaine, 1839, 10 A. & E. 160.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TITHE AND ITS RATING 39

The second class were to be rated purely in connection with landholding: the basis of rating was occupation of land, coal mines, &c.; tithes, it is true, are mentioned, but the point is only when in the hands of the lay holders of tithes, not of the ordinary clerical holder. Now the words, " Tithes impropriate or propriations of tithe," are carefully chosen, and in other cases the Courts have interpreted the words of the Act most rigidly; for instance, in one case the Court of Queen's Bench said that as Coal Mines were specifically mentioned, coal mines alone were meant, and refused to extend the Act to lead mines.' So that following a similar rule here it seems impossible to include clerical tithe-owners under the second section of the Act. Both sections of the Act were, doubtless, at first properly applied. In his clear statement put before the Royal Commission last year, Mr. Peterson2 gives sonle interesting instances from the old Maidstone rate-book. There were two columns in the book: one headed " abilities," corresponding to the first section of the Act; the other for land. For instance, in 1668, the Lady Ashley is put down for 3 acres of land, on which she is rated at Ild., while in the column headed " abilities," she is rated at 18s. Many naturally appear under the head of " abilities " who have no land. To assess the varying profits a man makes every year is obviously difficult: and whatever its exact meaning, the first part of the Act, which, as we said, included the parson amongst other inhabitants, soon fell into disuse. Overseers in Elizabeth's time had no inquisitorial machinery like that provided by the Income Tax; landed property, on the other hand, is a tangible thing, which cannot run away or be made to appear less than it is. By tacit consent the rates were very soon allowed to fall entirely on the second class, i.e., occupiers of land; 3 and in 1840 the custom of 200 years was made law by the Poor Rate Exemption Act, which prohibited rates from being placed on "any other property," save that mentioned in the second part of the Act of Elizabeth. Now what exactly happened with regard to the rating of the parson during the years from 1601 to about 1700 no one knows; but it must be remembered that overseers and assessment com- mittees, who fix the rates, are largely drawn from the farmer

1 Lead Smelting Company v. Richardson, 3 Burr. 1341 (1762), law altered by Rating Act, 1847. Secretary, Tithe Rent-charge Owners' Union. Appendix to Vol. I. of Evidence, Local Taxation, 1899, p. 131. Mr. Castle mentions a case where a mandamus was refused for rating of personalty before 1840 (Q. 14. 071)

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 40 TIHE ECONOMIC JOURNAL

class. They saw the parson had some interest in the land, for they paid him tithes of its produce themselves, so that when he- ceased with other inhabitants to be rated in the inhabitant class in which he was mentioned, what happened probably was, that up and down the country the farmers, his neighbours, inserted him gradually, skilfully, but illegally in the second or occupier's- class in which he was not mentioned. However it arose, the custom became general, and was accepted by numerous decisions of the Courts; so much so that the Act of 1840, when exempting personal property generally, meaning thereby every one mentioned under Section 1, especially said the parson was still to be liable under the Act, but under the second section, as an occupier, though, as we have seen, be was not mentioned in the Act as an occupier at all, but as arn inhabitant. That is the first point: that the clerical tithe-owners were originally never meant to be rated for their tithes at all.1 II. Assuming, however, that Her Majesty's judges have been right in allowing tithe rent-charge in the hands of clerical owners to be rated under the second section of the Act of Eliz., though parsons are only mentioned under the first, the next complaint is, that clerical tithe-owners are rated on quite different principles to all other occupiers. To revert for a moment to the case of the landlord and the tenant, ?500 we assumed went in cost of cultivation, ?500 in tenants' profits, and ?500 to the landlord as rent; it is on this last alone that rates are levied: in other words, the basis of rates is not the gross profit, but the gross profit less costs and tenants' profits; tenants have to live, even in England; and farmers will not offer a rent that does not allow them a, nmargin of subsistence. Now tithe suffers in comparison with rating of land in two ways, one practical, the other legal. ( 1)The practical grievance. is this: farmers in the country mainly constitute the assessing authorities, they rate themselves; if they own their own land, then there is no rent payable and there is no simple means of arriving at the sum which represents the landlords' profits. While even in the case of tenant farmers, when the rent actually paid to the landlord is beyond dispute and affords the proper basis of rating, farmers will often be found to rate themselves on something less than the known

1 Dalton's County Justice, 1842, says: " Every clergyman is to be rated for his glebe and tithe " on the ground that the Act mentions every occupier of tithe, which is what the Act does not.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TITHE AND ITS RATING 41

amount of their rent; one of the witnesses before the Royal Commission quoted a case which he described as "almost- amusing," of pasture land at Thaxted, put up to auction and fetching SOs. per acre rent in the open market, yet the assessing farmers refused to put the rating value at a higher figure than 25s. on the ground that if they took SOs. as the -rating value, as they were bound to by the Act, they would have to raise all the rest of the land in proportion.1 In fact, the tendency is in the case of ordinary agricultural lands for farmers mutually to keep swelling the list of deductions, and to keep reducing the rateable value.2 Of course in theory it makes no difference whether the rate- able value of property be fixed at a high or low figure, so long as all fare alike; if a rate of ?100 has to be levied in a parish on two landowners who own land of the same value, they must each pay ?50 whether their land be rated at ?5,000 or ?50,000; the point is that in the case of clerical tithe all have not fared alike, for while the rateable value of land and houses is uncertain, and at any rate in the country probably at least one-third below its true value, yet since the Commutation Act, the parson's tithe is a fixed sum, its value is known, no rough and ready deductions from it can be claimed. In practice some unions have allowed deductions. It was stated before the Royal Commission that the Dunmow Guar- dians have for twenty years allowed 20 to 25 per cent. off to represent all charges, though it was admitted that this abatement was not legal.3 But such allowances have not in practice been at all general, and in the words of Mr. De Bock Porter, the well-known Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, tithes are rated " pretty well up to the hilt." 4 (2). The legal inequality is this: Some small deductions have, always been allowed in order to ascertain the true rateable value, of the tithe rent-charge, but the tendency of the Courts for the,

i Evidence of Rev. E. F. Gepp, 1898. Comm. on Loc. Tax., Vol. I. of Evidence, p. 302. 2 This under-assessment of agricultural land as compared with tithe was fully admitted by Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons, Times, June 28, p. 6. 3 Mr. Peterson advocated 45 to 50 per cent. deduction, Mr. Boscawen 30 per cent. See Mr. Gepp's Evidence (Q. 8553). The legislature itself apparently has felt the system of reductions to be reasonable, and in the Public Health Act, 1875, restricted for the purposes of that Act the rateable value of tithe to one quarter of its net annual value (Sec. 211 (1), b). The Baths and Washhouses Act made as similar reduction. 4 Comm. on Loc. Tax., 1898 (Q. 10,980).

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 42 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL last seventy years has been to cut these deductions down to as narrow a margin as possible; and, in particular, they have refused any deductions analogous to those allowed the former for tenants' profits. This was not always so; in a case decided in 1830 (R. v. Joddrell) l the distinction between rent, costs, and tenants' profits was clearly drawn, and the Court held that just as a portion only of the gross produce of the land, i.e., the rack rent, pays rates, in the case of nine-tenths of that produce, so only a portion of the remaining tenth should be rated. If deductions both for costs and tenaits' profits are allowed in one case, analogous deductions should be allowed in the other. In accordance with this decision the clergy claimed, and in numerous cases secured for the next six years, very considerable reductions. But in 1836 was passed the Parochial Assessment Act, the object of which was to secure a uniform basis of rating throughout England and Wales; the Act adopted the standard of the net annual letting value which has already been explained, -a curious clause being inserted that nothing in the Act should be " construed to alter or affect the principles or different relative liabilities (if any) according to which different kinds of heredita- mients are now by law rateable." When the Act was passing through the Lords, Archbishop Howley at first attempted to obtain the complete exemption of tithe, but this proved impossible, and this clause, intended to secure at any rate the benefits of the recent decision in R. v. Joddrell, the case I have just mentioned, was accepted as a compromnise.2 The effect, however, of the clause came before the Courts in the Capel case four years later,3 when the Courts in effect decided that the clause had no meaning and secured the clergy nothing at all; that the general provision of the Act applied to tithe rent-charge ; that the annual letting value of tithe rent- charge was its full value, deducting only the costs of collection and the rates paid on it, and that no allowance could be made for tenants' profits. One can only say if this is so it is difficult 1 1 B. &A. 403. 2 Accordingly, under the Act a proportion equivalent to tenants' profits was allowed to be taken off the tithe at first; Report of Poor Law Commissioners, 1843, Pt. I., pp. 98-99. For the history of the clause see Hansard, 3 s. vol. 35, 1836, cols. 371-375. See also circular issued by Poor Law Commissioners, 19 September, 1837, quoted in Second Report on Loc. Tax., 1899, p. 16. 3 R. v. Capel, 1840, 12 A. & E. 382. This is to put the parson on an inequality as compared with the lay holder of tithes. See Castle, Law of Rating, 3rd ed., p. 447.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TITHE AND ITS RATING 43

to see why a man should become tenant of a tithe rent-charge at all, unless heIs going to make some profit out- of it. If I have ?100 rent-charge,, and costs of collection and rates amount to ?10-no one will be kind enough to pay me ?90 for it. I may get a tenant at ?80; and ?80 is the rateable value anld not ?90.1 Further, in addition to refusing any deductions analogous to tenants' profits, the Courts have cut the actual necessary expenses allowable, which are parallel to the deductions allowed the farmer for the necessary cost of cultivation, down to the narrowest limits. Deductions have been allowed for 1. All expenses, legal and other, necessary for collecting the rent-charge. 2. First fruits, tenths, and other ecclesiastical dues. 3. Usual tenants' rates and taxes, e.q., poor-rate, lighting- rate, public libraries' rate, &c. Deductions, on the other hand, have been refused for:- 1. Taxes which are supposed not to be tenants' taxes, such as land tax and landlords' property tax. 2. For such legally enforceable charges as pensions to retired incumbents; sums payable to Queen Anne's Bounty for past loans; or payments to daughter churches, meaning thereby churches carved out of an ancient mnother parish. It would perhaps be unnecessary to make this explanation had not one of the Royal Commissioners asked whether, in relation to the vicar of the mother parish, daughter churches were churches held by the vicar's sons-in-law. 3. So recently as 1897 the Court of Appeal refused to sanction a deduction for chancel repairs, though, as Mr. de Bock Porter pointed out to the Commission, the obligation is onie which it is impossible for the parson to avoid.2 (St. Asaph case). 4. Finally, the Courts do not allow any deduction for payments

I It is suggested that costs of collection are tenants' profits, but surely this is ridiculous. See R. v. Goodchild (Hackney cases), 1858, 1 E. B. & E. 1. In St. Asapli case, however, Lopes, L.J., suggested there might be "cases where the deductions in respect of tenants' profits might be made," adding that the necessity for deduction on this ground must be proved in each case; 1897, 12 B., p. 514. 2 Mr. de Bock Porter described the results of this decision as "gross injustice," and perhaps not unnaturally (Q. 11, 100); but logically the case for allowing such repairs to be deducted is no stronger and no weaker than for many other charges mentioned; the parson muzst pay many charges on his income out of his tithe; is it the necessity or destination of these charges that is to be considered ?

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 44 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL to curates, even though necessary;1 or for the personal services of the vicar (R. v. Sherford, 1867). These charges should all be allowed, or a fair and reasonable analogy of the charges allowed to other occupiers; but the case as it stands is strong enough, and it is neither fair nor politic to strain a claim to cracking point. It is often urged that the clergyman is bound to render his service by law; that he is liable to penalties and removal if he does not; that his rent-charge is paid to him on condition of such service; that all the items I have mentioned are necessary charges, which must be met before any rateable profit arises, and that therefore they are absolutely parallel to the cost of cultivation in the case of the farmer.2 This point is very often forgotten, that the Act lays the burden of the rates on the land; it is because they are necessary to the cultivation of the land that the ordinary tenants' charges are allowed to be deducted. Curates and daughter-churches may be necessary expenses from the vicar's point of view; they do nothing to maintain the land from which he derives his tithe rent-charge. On a broad view of the case, deductions are as equitable in one case as the other. The basis of taxation was meant to be net profits of some kind and not gross profits; but it must not be forgotten that there is a great difference both in the character and destination of the two classes of necessary costs, the farmer's and the parson's.3 III. The ground of grievance one hears urged most often is that it is unfair to rate clergy on their professional incomes. A barrister makes sometimes ?10,000 a year: he pays ?100 a year for his chambers; he only pays rates on ?100: whereas the parson who receives, say, ?200 from tithe rent-charge and ?50 from glebe is rated on the whole, and pays income tax, like the doctor or bar- rister, as well. Now this is the argument most often used; one

I This is not the same thing as the deduction for tenant profits in R. v. Joddrell; a tenant of tithe might have to provide for services of vicar and incumbent and secure a profit for himself as well. 2 See judgment of Coleridge, J., in R. v. Goodchild, supra. In other cases it has been held that it is the fact of destination and not of necessity that must be looked to; this is following the decision of the court in the Mersey Dock cases, where it was urged on behalf of the Dock Board that they had no beneficial interest in the Dock Dues, which by Act of Parliament all went for public purposes, i.e. keeping up the docks; but it was held that the destination of the profits was im- material provided profits were made, and the docks must be rated. 11 H. L. Cas 443. 3Deduction was allowed for this purpose in the earlier case where a curate was necessary, whether the bishop actually ordered his services or no. R. v. Goodchild, 1858, 1 E. B. & E., p. 54.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TITHE AND ITS RATING 4-5

sees it reappearing constantly, and at first sight it appears a strong one; but though there is admittedly a disparity in the method by which the parson and the barrister are rated, and in any general readjustment of the taxation of the country -this should be borne in mnind, yet, as matters now stand, the argument cannot be pressed far; for if tithe should be re- leased on the ground of professional income, so should glebe. Further, the claim to relief on this ground of professional income -must involve the total immunity of both tithe rent-charge and glebe from rates. It may be, as urged by several witnesses, that the whole modern system is wrong, that the present localisation of -taxation by way of rates on land is a mistake, and that the only logical method of imposing burdens is the income tax, which should all be paid into the Imperial Exchequer, thence to be paid out alike for local and imperial purposes. But this would be a most radical and revolutionary change in our whole system. So long as we have a system of local taxation as distinct from imperial, viz. rates, and these local taxes are laid on land, it is only fair that both tithe and glebe should contribute something towards the rates: that a parson's income should be derived from land is a present misfortune which he shares with many *others, and no amount of emphasis on the word professional will really answer the objection. Finally, one word with regard to the measure of relief passed this year. The Act deals only with clerical owners of tithe " attached to a benefice," aild is only to remain in operation duriilg the continuance of the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896, which has still two more years to run. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation, on whose interim report of last year the Act is based, felt the difficulty of adjusting relief according to the actual necessities of each case.1 An alternative method of relief -often suggested was to enumerate the specific deductions mnen- tioned above, for chancel repairs, curates' pensions, and personal services, and to declare they must be allowed off; and this would have been the sounder course; the Act, however, arrives at much the same result, but by a more rough and ready process. Suppos- ing that the rent-charge is ?500 and the rates Is. in the ?, instead of making statutory deductions, which, though varying

1 I understand that energetic supporters of the claims of clerical tithe owners, such as Mr. Peterson, look on the present Act as an instalment only, by which the parson has merely been put on the same level as the owner of agricultural land was placed by the Act of 1896: and that further deductions for the necessary charges, .curates' salaries, chancel repairs, &c., must now be won from the Legislature.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 46 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL in different cases, would probably amount to about 50 per cent., t.e. ?250, leaving ?250 to be rated, which would thus produce ?12 lOs., the Act says the rates shall be raised on the full ?500, amounting, that is, to ?25, but the clerical tithe-owner shall get half of this ?12 lOs. back from the Imperial Exchequer. Though the first method is more logical, the latter is possibly more simple, especially as the measure is intended to be temporary and experi- mental. There is no doubt, however, that in any final readjust- ment of taxation in the country, which must ere long be taken in hand, the clergyman's claims, admitted temporarily this year, will demand and secure more permanent satisfaction. MONTAGUE BARLOW

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:42:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms