The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-12 00:00:00

IMPORTANT TITHE QUESTION.

PARISH OF ST. ANDREW, HOLBORN.

HAT o t•r-GA ariu Y.— Yesterday this long-pendin,r case came
on to be heard before Mr. Serjeant SELLON, and Wm. Is.
Roc Ens, and A. S. LUNG, Esqrs.-
Mr. MEttEivrr HEIL, the Barrister, and Mr. Griffiths, one
of the Vestry-clerks for the Upper Liberty of St. Andrew's,.
appeared to conduct the Reverend Incumbent's case. Mr.
HARMER attended on behalf of the parish.
The question at issue was this :—The present Rector, the
Rev. Dr. Beresford, claims a right to exact certain tithes from
certain inhabitants, in certain parts of the said parish, and in
various amounts, without reference to the size or value of such
houses, the tithe, as he alleges, not being subtracted from or
fur the house, but from anti fur the householder or handicrafts.
man occupying and residing therein, and is denominated " per-
sonal tithe." It has therefore been levied, but seemingly on
no fixed principle, because some inhabitants appear to have
paid as much as 265., 205., 165., and 125., per annum, while
others arc subjected only to 65., and 55., and many more are
exempted from any charge hatever. On this ground the
parishioners resisted the demand, conceiving that if the Rector
was entitled to recover by law, the claim would have been
equal and universal.
In consequence of an application made abouteighteen months
since on the part of the Rector, it was deemed necessary to pro-
duce certain books and parish records of ancient date, to esta-
blish the ground urged by the Incumbent in support of his
claim—namely, usage from time immemorial ; and the Magic-
trntes would then be enabled to give a inure decisive opinion
on hearing the merits of the case.
In compliance with this requisition, Mr. Griffiths, with great
labour anti research, got together a ponderous heap of musty
records, so far back as the year 1643, with tile intervening pe-
riods up to the present time.
Mr. MErtEwETHEit opened the case, and said he trusted
that no objections would be raised by the defendants as to the
mode of service or other preliminary forms, but that they would
be content to go into the merits of the question itself.
Mr. flAustErt said he was quite ready to waive every such
objection, being satisfied that no unfair advantage would be
taken of his clients.

octlorliconAirsllifeeolto.)onllMEftEWETllEn then said that they would take the case
of Mr. Wasp. A demand had been made on this person for
tithe, which it appeared had been paid by him, or at all events
by the previous occupant of the house in which he now resides,
for a period of nearly fifty years. The main question at issue
Seemed to him to be, on what grounds was this tithe exacted?
The right of tithes was of too ancient establishment to ad-
mit of a doubt generally ; and particularly as regarded the
present case he could undertake to shew that it was no less
valid. Tithes are payable, it is -well known, on ground or
land producing any certain return, and were designed as a fair
and lawful recompense. to the clergyman for his labours. When
laiiinawidtt;otwhilla,aoicditioeurnebepsealrwapereceerissetni; enesi,leiltittrirtenieleva:ciitoo,
consequence
houses
uouwseenel
reocet:vlosieeft
risbteillleteee
trieolext gettteiett:ibilsetilooiilnnnt
bt ensressiclitiltuoon
houses
oiubeusdese with
tn;:shdiealsendittln,hcwawrtelitlitss
ei t
obf eic)oa
pu
us el a
ttiloi en Ittieucttir l
Iris
ina-
f
-
picrheywiotunsdlYl ibmeidtit'iethceassewiafatittoe
erectionco ni
e
abolish that tithe ? That, indeed, would be an unreasonable,
a monstrous conclusion. But the fact was, the tithe now de-
manded by Dr. Beresford was not on a tithe on the house it-
self ;it was either a composition for a tithe on land—a modus
decimandi for support of the Clergy, which was established by
Ecclesiastical Decree ; it was a composition for personal tithe,.
which was rentiered equally valid by its having been paid from
time immemorial. On either of these grounds the Incumbent
telt his claims supported ; but he (Mr. M.) would go on the
broad basis of custom chiefly, and If he could, from ancient
records, shew that this tithe had been so paid, he conceived
the question of right must necessarily be proved. The Learned
Gentleman then cited the case of Dr. Grant, D. 1)., 11th
Coke, P. ill. This was a case where a men named 'Taylor
had refused the payment of 2s. claimed by the Rev. Divine
as tithe, on the principle of established usage, due to him out
of the defendant's holdings in the parishes of St. Leonard
and St. Martin-le-Grand. The defendant contended, that
the Incumbent could not shew any legal authority for the
demand, and therefore resisted it. The Court, however,
after hearing arguments for and against, directed the points
in the Reverend Doctor's favour, on the principle that it
appeared to have been an established custom from time
immemorial. However, observed the Learned Counsel,
it is but justice to add, that Coke has a note on this
case, wherein he says that he doubted much the pro-
priety of that decision. Another argument arose in the same
case, that nothing was liable to tithe except that which grows
and renews every year, and on which tit to was payable
ac-
cording to the act of God, 6a.; but this objection was also set
aside, inasmuch as that the ground on which the house
was erected had previously paid such tithe, and it conse-
quently had a lawful beginning. The Learned Gentleman
then cited a case from Bunbury's Reports, which was heard in
1721, relating to houses in Suffolk, when the claim of usage
was then set up and recoglized by the Court as sufficient
grounds for the demand. The last case which he begged to
cell the Magistrates' attention to, as being more directly perti-
nent, s
particularly as to the local circumstances, was one front
Tithe Cases, wherein the defendant was an inhabitant
o‘r
soot.d'A
Andrew's parish, the one now in dispute; the case was
that of Barton and Ibbertson ; the defendant was proprieior of
the Blue Boar Inn, Holborn ; this person, after paying for a
series of years the tithe demanded, took an objection, the same
,adteletecilli,tiraaltlitodnidwnaostfialepdpeoind,thaleliiitadretcoisfi'otnhewilisncouvmebnetiint
fa-
vour as that now set up, that no right could be shewn for its exec-
which answer was put in ; but when the case came on to, be
exac-
tion
of the claimant. In regard to this case, the Learned Gen-
tlFinan observed, that he did not rely much on it, as the merits
of the question were not fully discussed; however, it
went to
shew that the Court recognized the principle set out. -
John Reeve, the Collector of the Rectorial Tithes, proved the
demand being' made at the house of Mr. Wasp on the 24th of
August 1824, and produced one of the receipt books, with an
entry written by witness —" Desired to pay, 24th Aug.—J. R."
On cross-examination by Mr. ft
NEU, the witness ad-
mitted that he only called at certain houses ; that there were
many persons on whom he had no direction to call. Witness
did not know that. those tithes were considered as a compensa-
tion for Easter Offerings, or that Easter Offerings were paid by
those gentlemen to whom he presented receipts. .
Mr. Gairmus, the Vestry Clerk, was th sen worn.
Mr. 11 itinck—Do all the houses in the parish pay tithes ?
—No, certainly not, thought the tithe is demandable.
HaitstEtt—Do not those very persons and many others
of the parishioners pay what is termed Easter Offerings ?
Most certainly.
Mr. LIAIMEII—Were those Easter Offerings or Oblations a
voluntary gift ?—Yes ; I think so.
Mr. IlanatEtt—You allow, then', that they have not been
paid as of common right ?—I do.
Mr. IlanatEtt—Does it not appear, then, that they were
first paid in lieu of something of common right—pentonal tithe
for instance?—l ant not prepared to say precisely, but I think
not.

Mr. HARMER then stated, that it was in fact quite unneces-
sary to obtain any further evidence on the question. He should,
with great respect, submit to the Bench, tfiat in his- mind the
very cases cited by the Learned Counsel (Mr. Merewether)
in support of the claim, would have quite a contrary tendency
as regarded the present case. By the 7th and filth of William
I,
cap. 6, the recovery of small tithes was provided for in these
words :—" According to the rights, customs, and prescriptions,
commonly used within the said parishes respectively." Now,
if the Learned Gentleman intended to rely on right and custom
in support of his case, he (Mr. Harmer) did not conceive that the
case cited proved the existence either of the one or the other as
compared with the present question ; in fact, he (Mr. H.) had
to thank the Learned Gentleman for.mentioning the case of Dr.
Grant—there the universality of the demand throughout the
parish was distinctly proved, and, on that round alone, the
decision was favourable to the Incumbent's claim; and yet, it
appeared, as was admitted by the Learned Gentleman himself,
that Coke, an ingenuious and aecumphshed Lawyer anti Judge,
had, in a note, given a kind of indirect dissent from that
decision. Mr. Ilarnier then adverted to the other cases
cited, and observed that he did not conceive them to be at
all in point. The second would be resisted precisely on the
same grounds as that of Dr. Grant's; and in the third, that of
Burton and lbbertson, there being no decision, „ix was scarcely
worth consideration. Mr. Harmer then alluded to the Easter
Gift, which had been already referred to, and begged to read
an extract from Bacon's Abridgement, Title Tittle, letter