CHAPTER XI.THE POOR.

In the year 902, Denewulf bishop of Winchester leased fifteen hides of land to Beornwulf and his heirs, reserving a rent of forty-five shillings yearly. “And every year let him assist in the bót of the church[998]which that land belongeth to, in the same proportion as the other folk do, each by the measure of his land; and let him justly pay his cyricsceat, and perform his military service and bridgeand fortress work, as they do throughout all the folk[999].”

Between the years 879 and 909, the same bishop gave forty hides to Ælfred, for his life. Upon these he reserved a rent of three pounds, cyricsceats, cyricsceat-work, and the services of Ælfred’s men when required at the bishop’s hunting and reaping[1000]. In like manner Oswald reserved, in all the grants he made out of the church property at Worcester, the church rights, that is to say, cyricsceat, toll, tax and pannage, and also the services of the tenants at his hunting[1001]. Lastly between the years 871 and 877, bishop Ealhfrið granting eight hides for three lives to duke Cúðred, reserved bridge-work, military service, eight cyricsceats, the mass-priest’s rights and soulsceats[1002].

Thiscyricsceatthen appears to have been originally a recognitory service due to the lord from the tenant on church-lands. But it is very clear that in process of time a new character was assumed for it, and it was claimed of all men alike, as a due to the clergy. Here, again, the Levitical legislation was taken to be applicable to the Christian ministry. The Jews had been commanded to give first-fruits[1003], as well as tithes; and if tithes belonged to the clergy by virtue of God’s commandment, so did first-fruits also. These appearalso to have been calledcyricsceat, and after a time became an established charge upon the land of the freeman as well as the unfree. The earliest legislation which we can discover, bearing unquestionably upon this point, is that of Eádmund toward the middle of the tenth century[1004]; he strictly commands payment of tithe,cyricsceat, and almsfee, and declares that he who will not do it shall be excommunicated. By the time of Eádgár however the matter seems to have been quite settled, and cyricsceat is directed to be paid from the hearth of every freeman to the old minster,—most likely to prevent a course similar to the arbitrary consecration of tithes. And this remained a fixed charge upon the land till the time of the Conquest, when it ceased to be generally paid, as we may judge from the expressions of Fleta and other jurists[1005]; ithad passed in some cases into the hands of secular lords, with lands alienated by the clergy, or taken from them. But in the time of Cnut it was still paid asprimitiae seminum, and it is not probable that his successors altered his arrangements in this respect.

The liberality of the Anglosaxons was by no means confined to the grants of land which they conferred upon the several churches, although it is impossible to deny that these were most extravagant[1006]. At the same time it is to be borne in mind that the clergy were always certain to command a more than adequate supply of free and unfree labour; and that, if their landed possessions thus increased their wealth to an extraordinary degree, they also were the greatest contributors tothe general well-being through the superior excellence of their cultivation. But the piety or the fears of the laity did not stop short at gifts of land and serfs: jewels, cups, rings, crosses and caskets, money, tapestry, and vestments, annual foundations of bread, wine, beer, honey, and flesh, sometimes to enormous amounts, were devised by the will of wealthy and penitent sinners: houses and curtilages, tolls and markets, forests, harbours, fisheries, mines, commons of pasture and mast, flocks and herds of swine, horses and oxen, testified to the liberality of ealdormen and kings. Nor was the opportunity of investing their surplus profitably always wanting: more than one mortgage is recorded, on terms sufficiently favourable to the mortgagors; and loans on excellent security, show that if the nobles knew where to find capitalists in their need, the capitalist also knew very well how to turn his facilities to good account. The necessity of providing out of these large funds for the proper maintenance of the churches and the due celebration of religious rites, can hardly be looked upon as a great hardship; and although the demands of charity and the duties of hospitality, may have seemed a heavy charge to the avaricious or the selfish, we cannot but conclude, that no class of the community occupied so dignified or so easy a position as the Anglosaxon clergy. The State, fully aware of the value of their services, was not niggardly in rewarding them. There was a ready acquiescence on the part of the laity in the claims of the clergy to respect and trust; and,while these continued to maintain a decent conformity to the duties of their calling, we find a perfectly harmonious co-operation of all classes in the church. Nor, amongst all the writings which the clergy—the only writers—have left us, do we find any of those complaints and grievances, which are apt to be made prominent enough when the members of that powerful body believe their pretensions to be treated with less than due consideration. The devoted partizan of Rome might choose to declare the English church subject to such bondage as no other suffered; but, except from quarrels of their own, the clergy never were exposed here to those inconveniences which are unavoidable, upon any attempt on their part to separate themselves from their fellow-members in the Christian communion.

973. “Till toward the end of the first four hundred [years] no payment of them [i. e.tithes] can be proved to have been in use. Someopinionis of their being due, andconstitutionsalso, but such as are of no credit. For the first, ’tis best declared by showing the course of the church-maintenance in that time. So liberal in the beginning of Christianity was the devotion of the believers, that their bounty to the evangelical priesthood far exceeded what the tenth could have been. For if you look to the first of the Apostles’ times, then the unity of heart among them about Jerusalem, was such that all was in common and none wanted, ‘and as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them and brought the price of the things that were sold, and laid it down at the Apostles’ feet, and it was distributed unto every man, according as he had need[a].’And the whole church, both lay and clergy, then lived in common as the monks did afterward about the end of the first four hundred years as St. Chrysostome notes[b]οὕτως, says he, οἱ ἐν τοῖς μοναστηρίοις ζῶσι νῦν ὥσπερ τότε οἱ πιστοὶ, that is, ‘So they live now in monasteries as then the believers lived.’ But this kind of having all things in common scarce at all continued. For we see not long after in the church of Antiochia (where Christianity was first of all by that name professed) every one of the disciples had a special ability or estate of his own[c]. So in Galatia and in Corinth where St. Paul ordained that weekly offerings for the Saints should be given by every man as he had thrived in his estate[d]. By example of these, the course of monthly offerings succeeded in the next ages. These monthly offerings given by devout and able Christians, the bishops or officers appointed in the church received[e]; and carefully and charitably disposed them on Christian worship, the maintenance of the clergy, feeding, clothing, and burying their poor brethren, widows, orphans, persons tyrannically condemned to the mines, to prison, or punished by deportation into isles. They were calledStipes(which is a word borrowed from the use of the heathens in their collections made for their temples and deities), neither were they exacted by canon or otherwise, but arbitrarily given; as by testimony of most learned Tertullian[f], that lived aboutCCyears after Christ, is apparent: ‘Neque pretio(are his words)ulla res Dei constat. Etiam si quod arcae genus est, non de oneraria summa quasi redemptae religionis congregatur, modicam unusquisque Stipem, menstruâ die, vel cum velit, et si modo velit, et si modo possit, apponit. Nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert. Haec quasi deposita pietatis sunt.’ And then he shewes the employment of them in those charitable uses. Some authority is[g], that about this time lands began also to be given to the church. If they were so, out of the profits of them, and this kind of offerings, was made a treasure; and out of that, which was increased so monthly, was a monthly pay given to the priests and ministers of the Gospel (as a salarie for their service), and that either by the hand or care of the bishop, or of some elders appointed as Oeconomi or Wardens. These monthly pays they called Mensurnae divisiones, as you may see in St. Cyprian[h], who wrote, being bishop of Carthage, about the yearCCL, and, speaking familiarly of this use, calls the brethren that cast in their monthly offerings,fratres sportulantes, understanding the offerings under the word Sportulae, which at first in Rome denoted a kind of running banquets distributed at great men’s houses to such as visited for salutation, which being ofttimes also given in money, the word came at length to signify both those salaries, wages or fees which either judges[i]or ministers of courts of justice received as due to their places, as also to denote the oblations given to make a treasure for the salaries and maintenance of the ministers of the church in this primitive age, and to this purpose was it also used in later times[j]. But because that passage of St. Cyprian, where he uses this phrase, well shows also the course of the maintenance of the church in his time, take it here transcribed: but first know the drift of his Epistle to be a reprehension of Geminius Faustinus a priest his being troubled with the care of a wardship, whereas such as take that dignity upon them, should, he says, be free from all secular troubles like the Levites, who were provided for in tithes. ‘Ut qui(as he writes[k])operationibus divinis insistebant, in nulla re avocarentur, nec cogitare aut agere saecularia cogerentur.’ And then he adds: ‘Quae nunc ratio et forma in Clero tenetur, ut qui in ecclesia Domini ad ordinationem clericalem promoventur, nullo modo ab administratione divina avocentur, sed in honore sportulantium fratrum, tanquam Decimas ex fructibus accipientes, ab Altari et Sacrificiis non recedant, et die ac nocte coelestibus rebus et spiritualibus serviant;’ which plainly agrees with that course of monthly pay, made out of the oblations brought into the Treasury; which kind of means he compares to that of the Levites, as being proportionable. But hence also ’tis manifest, that no payment of tithes was in St. Cyprian’s time in use, although some, too rashly, from this very place would infer so much, those wordstanquam Decimas accipientes(which continues the comparing of ministers of the Gospel with the Levites) plainly exclude them. And elsewhere also the same Father, finding fault with a coldness of devotion that then possest many, in regard of what was in use in the Apostles’ times, and seeing that the Oblations given were less than usually before, expresses[l]their neglect to the church with, ‘ac nunc de patrimonio nec Decimas damus:’ whence, as you may gather, that no usual payment was of them, so withall observe in his expression, that the liberality formerly used had been such, that, in respect thereof, Tenths were but a small part: understand it as if he had said, ‘but now we give not so much as any part worth speaking of.’ Neither for aught appears in old monuments of credit, till near the end of this first four hundred years, was any payment to the Church of any tenth part, as a Tenth, at all in use.” Selden on Tithes, cap. iv. p. 35seq..

a. Acts iv. 34.

b. Hom. 11. in Acta.

c. Acts xi. 29.

d. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Ockam, in Oper. xc dierum, cap. 107.

e. Synod. Gangr. can. lxvi.

f. Apologetic. cap. 39, 42.

g. Urban, i. in Epist. c. 12, q. 1, c. 16, i. Sed et vide Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 9. Edict. Maximin. et lib. 10. cap. 5. Edict. Constant. et in lib. 2. de vita Constantini, cap. 39.

h. Cyprian, Epist. 27, 34: et vide Epist. 36, editione Pammeliana.

i. Papinian. de Decurion. L 6. § 1. et C.tit.de Sportulis. Et vid. Glossar. Græc. iuris in Σπορτουλα.

j. Concil. Chalced.A.D.451. in libell. Samuelis et al. contra Iban. et videsis tom. 3. Concil. fol. 231. cap. 31. Edit. Binii penultima.

k. Epist. 266. ed. Pammel.

l. De Unitate Ecclesiae, § 23.

974. One of the clearest examples that occur to me at present is from a capitulary of the Merwingian Chlotachari in 560. “Agraria, pascuaria, vel decimas porcorum, aecclesiae, pro fidei nostrae devotione, concedimus, ita ut actor aut decimator in rebus aecclesiae nullus accedat: aecclesiae vel clericis nullam requirant agentes publici functionem qui avi vel genitoris aut germani nostri immunitatem meruerunt.” Pertz, iii. 3. This is clearly a remission of tithe due to the king from lands held by the clergy, and bears some resemblance to Æðelwulf’s celebrated release.

975. The earliest is the Council of Lateran, held by Calixtus II. in 1123. The Council of Lateran,A.D.1179, commanded that those who at the peril of their souls retained property in tithes, should not, under any pretence, transfer it to lay hands. But no general Council assumes the payment of tithes to be due of common right to the parochial Rector, before the Council of Lateran held by Innocent III. in 1215.

976. Epist. Episc. Prov. Turon. ad plebem Missa; Labbe. v. 868. Eichhorn, §186. vol. i. 779seq.

977. Conc. Matiscon. 585. can. 5. “Omnes igitur reliquas fidei causas, quas temporis longitudine cognovimus deterioratas fuisse, oportet nos ad statum pristinum revocare, ne nobis simus adversarii, dum ea quae cognoscimus ad nostri ordinis qualitatem pertinere, aut non corrigimus, aut, quod nefas est, silentio praeterimus. Leges itaque divinae, consulentes sacerdotibus ac ministris aecclesiarum, pro haereditatis portione omni populo praeceperunt decimas fructuum suorum locis sacris praestare, ut nullo labore impediti, horis legitimis spiritualibus possent vacare ministeriis. Quas leges Christianorum congeries longis temporibus custodivit intemeratas; nunc autem paulatim praevaricatores legum poene Christiani omnes ostenduntur, dum ea quae divinitus sancita sunt, adimplere negligunt. Unde statuimus et decernimus, ut mos antiquus a fidelibus reparetur, et decimas aecclesiasticis famulantibus caeremoniis populus omnis inferat, quas sacerdotes aut in pauperum usum, aut in captivorum redemptionem praerogantes, suis orationibus pacem populo et salutem impetrent. Si quis autem contumax nostris statutis saluberrimis fuerit, a membris aecclesiae omni tempore separetur.” It must be confessed that Selden has thrown very great doubts upon the authenticity of this canon of the Council of Macon, and that it is of very questionable authority. See his History of Tithes, cap. 5. p. 65. It is hardly consistent with what Agobard of Lyons, who shortly after was bishop of the see itself in which Macon lies, declares: “Iam vero de donandis rebus et ordinandis aecclesiis nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est, nihil a sanctis patribus publice praedicatum. Nulla enim compulit necessitas, fervente ubique religiosa devotione, et amore illustrandi aecclesias ultro aestuante,” etc. Agob. Lugdun. de Dispensatione, etc. p. 276. (Ed. Masson. Parisiis.) But as Eichhorn, who has deeply investigated this subject, appears to differ here from Selden, I have cited this Council on his responsibility, and with the more readiness, that it rather opposes than confirms my own opinion.

978. “De decimis, ut unusquisque decimam donet, atque per iussionem pontificis dispensentur.” Capit. 779, cap. 7. Pertz, iii.

979. See Appendix to this volume.

980. “If any one withhold tithes, let him pay lahslít among the Danes, wíte among the English.” Eád. Gúð. §6. Thorpe, i. 170.

981. Brompton says that Offa granted it, as far as Mercia was concerned, p. 772. Certainly, in general, Brompton’s authority is not very great; but I think that in this case he has probability on his side, if we restrict the grant to Offa’s demesne lands, or to a release of a tenth of the dues payable to the king on Folcland. A general enactment, comprising the whole kingdom, would scarcely have been omitted in any subsequent collection of laws. The law of Offa is indeed lost, but some of its provisions probably survive in the legislation of later kings. See Ælfr. Proem. Thorpe, i. 58. The absence of all mention of tithe by Ælfred is not conclusive: he takes just as little notice of cyricsceat, leohtsceat, sáwlsceat, and other payments which were unquestionably claimed by the church. Eádweard’s treaty with Gúðorm, though it does not define the parties from whom tithe was demandable, treats subtraction of it as an offence punishable at law.

982. Capitula et Fragm. Theod. Thorpe, ii. 65.

983. Excerpt. Ecgberhti, No. 24. Thorpe, ii. 100.

984. Excerpt. Ecgberhti, Nos. 101, 102. Thorpe, ii. 111, 112.

985. Excerpt. Ecgberhti, Nos. 4, 5. Thorpe, ii. 98.

986. The custom of the Romish church, as is well known, divided every oblation, or gain that accrued to the church from the contributions of the faithful, into four parts,—one for the bishop, one for the poor, one for the clergy, and one for the repairs of the fabric. Othlon, who wrote the Life of St. Boniface in the twelfth century, thus appeals to the universal custom of the church: “Quando quidem iuxta sanctorum canonum decreta decimas in quatuor portiones dividentes, unam, sibi [i. e. the bishops], alteram clericis, tertiam pauperibus, quartam restaurandis aecclesiis tradiderunt? Numquid avaritiae suae tantummodo consulentes, in distributione decimarum obliti sunt pauperum, restaurationisque aecclesiarum, sicut modo, pro dolor! cernimus agi? Canones enim sancti, ex quorum auctoritate exiguntur decimae, non solum decimas dari, sed etiam inter varios aecclesiae usus distribui; ut in urbibus quibuslibet et vicis Xenodochia habeantur, ubi pauperes et peregrini alantur. Sed tam sanctum et tam necessarium praeceptum in pluribus locis non solum minime curatur, sed etiam poene ignoratur. Nam solummodo illud legitur, quod epicopis decimae sint tribuendae; quid vero exinde agendum sit, vel si quidquam aliud curandum sit circa monasteria, tam a clericis—miserabile dictu—quam a laicis destructa, citraque iudicia religionis Christianae subversa, oblivioni seu ignorantiae commendatur.” Pertz, ii. 358. In the commencement of the seventh century, Gregory, in his rules for the government of the newly-planted English church, directed Augustine to make not four but three portions, inasmuch as he being a monk could have no separate share of his own. He says: “Mos autem sedis apostolicae est ordinatis episcopis praecepta tradere, ut in omni stipendio, quod accedit, quatuor debeant fieri portiones: una videlicet episcopo et familiae propter hospitalitatem atque susceptionem, alia clero, tertia pauperibus, quarta aecclesiis reparandis. Sed quia tua fraternitas monasterii regulis erudita, seorsum fieri non debet a clericis suis in aecclesia Anglorum quae, auctore Deo, nuper adhuc ad fidem adducta est, hanc debet conversationem instituere, quae initio nascentis aecclesiae fuit patribus nostris; in quibus nullus eorum ex his, quae possidebant, aliquid suum esse dicebat, sed erant eis omnia communia.” Beda, H. E. i. 27. The original canon is in Gratian. Caus. 12. q. ii. c. 30. Ed. Pithæi. fol. Paris, 1687, i. 240. Hence the directions of the Anglosaxon prelates, and the regulation of Æðelred, as to a threefold division.

987. Angelsäch. Recht. p. 251. He appeals only to Brompton, whose authority is by no means conclusive.

988. This is Selden’s view, and Hume’s, and has been generally followed.

989.In anno855.

990. Chronic. lib. iii.

991. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 270, 271, 275, 276, 1048, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1057.

992. The actual words are these:—“Ut decimam partem terrarum per regnum nostrum, non solum sanctis aecclesiis darem verumetiam et ministris nostris in eodem constitutis, in perpetuam libertatem habere concessimus, ita ut talis donatio fixa incommutabilisque permaneat ab omni regali servitio et omnium saecularium absoluta servitute.” These are the expressions of Nos. 270, 271, 1050, 1054; which are respectively dated at Wilton on the 22nd of April, 854, and convey grants of separate lands to the thane Wigferð, to Malmesbury church, to Glastonbury, and to the thane Hunsige, as appears by the statements in the body of the charters, as well as by the endorsements, which are to this effect:—No. 270. “Ista est libertas quam Æðelwulf rex suo ministro Wiferðe in perpetuam haereditatem habere concessit, unum cassatum in loco qui dicitur Heregearding hiwisc:”Endorsed, “Ðis seondan æs landes bêc ðe Æðelwulf cyning Wiferðe his þegne salde.”

993. “Totius regni mihi a Deo collati decimans rura.” Nos. 1051, 1052.

994. “Quando decimam partem terrarum per omne regnum meum sanctis aecclesiis dare decrevi,” etc. No. 1053. The Saxon version, whether it were the original or only a translation, gives us the true sense of this assertion: it runs thus:—“ðá ðá he teoðode gynd eall his cynerice, ðone teoðan dǽl ealra his landa, mid his witena geþeahte, into hálgum stowum,”—‘when throughout all his realm, he tithed the tenth of allhis landsinto holy places, by the counsel of his witan.’ There was nothing to prevent Æðelwulf from giving a tenth or a half of all hisownlands to whom he pleased.

995. Cod. Dipl. No. 1057.

996. Schannat. Tradit. Fuldens. No. 452. So also in the Worcester Domesday, Hemm. 500, 501. “De eodem manerio tenet Hugo de Grentesmaisnil dimidiam hidam ad Lapeuuerte, et Baldewinus de eo; et fuit et est de soca episcopi. De hac terra per singulos annos redduntur viii denarii ad ecclesiam de Wirecestre, procircetteet recognitione terre.”

997. Cod. Dipl. No. 433.

998. Hardly the repairs of the church, which were thus to be attended to yearly; although in religious as in secular tenures, there can be no doubt that the tenant was liable to be called upon to assist in the repairs of the lord’s buildings. The distinction between “ðæt óðer folc,” that is the other tenants, and “eal folc,” that is everybody throughout the realm, is clear.

999. “And eác ǽlce geare fultumien tó ðǽre cyrican bote ðe ðet land tó hyrð be ðém dæle ðe ðet óðer folc dó ǽlc be his landes meðe and ða cyricsceáttes mid rihte ágyfe and fyrde and brycge and festergeweorc hewe swá mon ofer eall folc dó.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1079.

1000. Cod. Dipl. No. 1086.

1001. See vol. i. p. 518. App. E.

1002. Cod. Dipl. No. 1062.

1003. Deut. xviii. 4.

1004. Leg. Eádm. i. § 2. Thorpe, i. 244. The earlier notices are Leg. Ini, § 4, 61. Æðelst. i. Thorpe, i. 104, 140, 196. But these are not at all conclusive, and would be equally applicable to the case of the liability to this impost being confined to the tenants of the church. Ini’s law only regulates the time at which the impost is to be paid, and the particular estate from which it is due. Æðelstán confines himself to commanding that his officers shall see the cyricsceat paid at the proper times and to the proper places.

1005. “Churchesed certam mensuram bladi tritici signat, quam quilibet olim sanctae Ecclesiae die sancti Martini, tempore tam Britonum quam Anglorum, contribuerunt. Plures tamen magnates post Normannorum adventum in Angliam, illam contributionem secundum veterem legem Moysi, nomine Primitiarum dabant; prout in brevi regis Knuti ad summum Pontificem transmisso continetur, in quibus illam contributionem appellant Churchsed, quasisemen ecclesiae.” Fleta, i. 47, § 28. “Chichesed, al. chircheomer, al. chircheambre:—un certein de blé batu ke checun home devoit au tens de Bretuns e de engleis a le eglise le iur seint Martin mes pus le venue de Normans si le priserent a lur vs plusur seinourages, e le donerunt solum la veile lei Moysi, et nomine primiciarum sicum lem troue en le lettres cnikt ke il envea a rome, e est dit chirchesed quasi semen ecclesiae.” MS. Soc. Ant. lx. fol. 228, b. This writ of Cnut to the Pope is not known to me, but we have a letter addressed by him to his Witan from Rome, to which Fleta probably alludes. “Nunc igitur præcipio et obtestor omnes meos episcopos et regni praepositos, per fidem quam Deo et mihi debetis, quatenus faciatis, ut antequam ego Angliam veniam, omnia debita, quae Deo secundum legem antiquam debemus, sint soluta, scilicet eleemosynae pro aratris, et decimae animalium ipsius anni procreatorum, et denarii quos Romae ad sanctum Petrum debemus, sive ex urbibus sive ex villis, et mediante Augusto decimae frugum, et in festivitate sancti Martiniprimitiae seminumad ecclesiam sub cuius parochia quisque est, quae AngliceCircesceatnominantur.” Flor. Wigorn. ad. an. 1031.

1006. The estate of Chilcombe alone, belonging to Winchester, is reckoned at one hundred hides, or at least three thousand acres, which they succeeded in getting rated to the public burthens at one hide only. Cod. Dipl. No. 642. But the whole of their estates in Hampshire appear from the same document to have comprised no less than five hundred and seventy-eight hides, which at my very low estimate of the hide amount toseventeen thousand, three hundred and forty acres,—a very pretty provision for one Chapter. The amount of lands and chattels devised by various prelates almost exceeds belief.

CHAPTER XI.THE POOR.

There is hardly a question connected with the march of civilization more difficult to answer satisfactorily than this: What is to be done with the Poor?

In our own day, when subdivision of labour has been carried to an unheard of extent, when property follows the natural law of accumulation in masses, and society numbers the proletarian as an inevitable unit among its constituents, the question presents itself in a threatening and dangerous form, with difficulty surrounding it on every side, and anarchy scowling in the background, hardly to be appeased or vanquished. But such circumstances as those we live under are rare, and almost unexampled in history: even the later and depraved days of Roman civilization offer but a very insufficient pattern of a similar condition[1007]. Above all it wouldbe difficult to find any parallel for them in countries where land is abundant, and the accumulation of property slow: there may be pauperism in New York, but scarcely in the valley of the Mississippi. The cultivator may live hardly, poorly; but he can live, and as increasing numbers gather round him and form a market for his superfluous produce, he will gradually become easy, and at length wealthy. It is however questionable whether population will really increase very fast in an agricultural community where a sufficient provision is made for every family, and where there is an unlimited fund, and power of almost indefinite extension. On the contrary, it seems natural under these circumstances that the proportion between the consumers and the means of living should long continue to be an advantageous one, and no pressure will be felt as long as no effort is made to give a false direction to the energies of any portion of the community.

But this cannot possibly be the case in a system which limits the amount of the estate or hýd. Here a period must unavoidably arise where population advances too rapidly for subsistence, unless a manufacturing effort on an extensive scale is made, and made with perfect freedom from all restraints, but those which prudence and well-regulated views of self-interest impose. If want of rapid internal communication deprive the farmer of a market, and compel him to limit his produce to the requirements of his own family, there cannot be a doubt not only that he will be compelled to remain in a stationary and not very easy position,but that a difficulty will arise as to the disposal of a redundant population. Many plans have been devised to meet this difficulty; a favourite one has been at all times, to endeavour to find means of limiting population itself, instead of destroying all restrictions upon occupation. The profoundest thinkers of Greece, considering that a pauper population is inconsistent with the idea of state, have positively recommended violent means to prevent its increase[1008]: infanticide and exposition thus figure among the means by which Plato and Aristotle consider that full and perfect citizenship is to be maintained. I have already touched upon some of the means by which our forefathers attempted this regulation: emigration was as popular a nostrum with them as with us: service in the comitatus, even servitude on the land, were looked to as an outlet, and slavery probably served to keep up something of a balance: moreover it is likely that a large proportion of the population were entirely prevented from contracting marriage: of this lastnumber the various orders of the clergy, and the monks must have made an important item. It is even probable that the somewhat severe restrictions imposed upon conjugal intercourse may have had their rise in an erroneous view that population might thus be limited or regulated[1009]. But still, all these means must have furnished a very inadequate relief: even the worn-out labourer, especially if unfree, must have become superfluous, and if he was of little use to his owner, there was little chance of his finding a purchaser. What provision was made for him?

The condition of a serf or an outlaw from poverty is an abnormal one, but only so in a Christian community. In fact it seems to me that the State neither contemplates the existence of the poor, nor cares for it: the poor man’s right to live is derived from the moral and Christian, not from the public law: so little true is the general assertion that the poor man has a right to be maintained upon the land on which he was born. The State exists for its members, the full, free and independent citizens, self-supported on the land; and except as self-supported on the land it knows no citizens at all. Any one but the holder of a free hýd must either fly to the forest or take service, or steal and become a þeóv. How the pagan Saxons contemplated this fact it is impossible to say, but at the period whenwe first meet with them in history, two disturbing causes were in operation; first the gradual loosening of the principle of the mark-settlement, and the consequent accumulation of landed estates in few hands; secondly the operation of Christianity.

This taught the equality of men in the eye of God, who had made all men brothers in the mystery of Christ’s passion. And from this also it followed that those who had been bought with that precious sacrifice were not to be cast away. The sin of suffering a child to die unbaptized was severely animadverted upon. The crime of infanticide could only be expiated by years of hard and wearisome penance; but the penance unhappily bears witness to the principle,—a principle universally pagan, and not given up, even to this day, by nations and classes which would repudiate with indignation the reproach of paganism, though thoroughly imbued with pagan habits. In the seventh century we read of the existence of poor, and we read also of the duty of assisting them. But as the State had in fact nothing to do with them, and no machinery of its own to provide for them, and as the clergy wereex officiotheir advocates and protectors, the State did what under the circumstances was the best thing to do, it recognized the duty which the clergy had imposed upon themselves of supporting the poor. It went further,—it compelled the freeman to supply the clergy with the means of doing it.

In the last years of the sixth century, Gregory the Great informed Augustine that it was the custom of the Roman church to cause a fourth part ofall that accrued to the altar from the oblations of the faithful to be given to the poor; and this was beyond a doubt the legitimate substitute for the old mode of distribution which the Apostles and their successors had adopted while the church lurked in corners and in catacombs, and its communicants stole a fearful and mysterious pleasure in its ministrations under the jealous eyes of imperial paganism. As soon however as the accidental oblations were to a great degree replaced by settled payments (whether arising out of land or not[1010]), and these were directed to be applied in definite proportions, we may venture to say that the State had a poor-law, and that the clergy were the relieving officers. The spirit of Gregory’s injunction is that a part ofallthat accrues shall be given to the poor; and this applies with equal force to tithes, churchshots, bóts or fines, eleemosynary grants, and casual oblations. In this spirit, it will be seen, the Anglosaxon clergy acted, and we may believe that no inconsiderable fund was provided for distribution. The liability of the tithe is the first point upon which I shall produce evidence. The first secular notice of this is contained in the following law of Æðelred, an. 1014:—“And concerning tithe, theking and hiswitanhave chosen and said, as right it is, that the third part of the tithe which belongs to the church, shall go to the reparation of the church, and a second part to the servants of God, and the third to God’s poor and needy men in thraldom[1011].”

But if positive public enactment be rare, it is not so with ecclesiastical law, and the recommendations of the rulers of the Anglosaxon church. The Poenitentials, Confessionals, and other works compiled by these prelates for the guidance and instruction of the clergy abound in passages wherein the obligation of providing for the poor out of the tithe is either assumed or positively asserted. In the ‘Capitula et Fragmenta’ of Theodore, dating in the seventh century, it is written, “It is not lawful to give tithes save unto the poor and pilgrims[1012],” which can hardly mean anything but a prohibition to the clergy, to make friends among the laity by giving them presents out of the tithe; but which shows what were the lawful or legitimate uses of tithe. Again he says[1013],—“If any one administersthe xenodochia of the poor, or has received the tithes of the people, and has converted any portion thereof to his own uses,” etc.

In the Excerptions of archbishop Ecgberht we find the following canon:—“The priests are to take tithes of the people, and to make a written list of the names of the givers, and according to the authority of the canons, they are to divide them, in the presence of men that fear God. The first part they are to take for the adornment of the church; but the second they are in all humility, mercifully to distribute with their own hands, for the use of the poor and strangers; the third part however the priests may reserve for themselves[1014].”

In the Confessional of the same prelate we find the following exhortation, to be addressed by the priest to the penitent:—“Be thou gentle and charitable to the poor, zealous in almsgiving, in attendance at church, and in the giving of tithe to God’s church and the poor[1015].”

In the canons enacted under Eádgár, but which are at least founded upon an ancient work of Cummianus, there is this entry:—“We enjoin that the priests so distribute the people’s alms, that they do both give pleasure to God, and accustom the people to alms[1016];” to which however there is an addition which can scarcely well be understood of anything but tithe: “and it is right that one part be delivered to the priests, a second part for the need of the church, and a third part for the poor.”

The Canons of Ælfríc have the same entry, and the same mode of distribution as those of Ecgberht: “The holy fathers have also appointed that men shall pay their tithes into God’s church. And let the priest go thither, and divide them into three: one part for the repair of the church; the second for the poor; the third for God’s servants who attend to the church[1017].”

Thus according to the view of the Anglosaxon church, ratified by the express enactment of the witan, a third of the tithe was the absolute property of the poor. But other means were found to increase this fund: not only was the duty of almsgiving strenuously enforced, but even the fasts and penances recommended or imposed by the clergy were made subservient to the same charitable purpose. The canons enacted under Eádgár provide[1018], that “when a man fasts, then let the dishes that would have been eaten be all distributed to God’s poor.” And again the Ecclesiastical Institutes declare[1019]: “It is daily needful for every man that he give his alms to poor men; but yet when we fast, then ought we to give greater alms than on other days; because the meat and the drink, which we should then use if we did not fast, we ought to distribute to the poor.”

So in certain cases where circumstances rendered the strict performance of penance difficult or impossible, a kind of tariff seems to have been devised, the application of which was left to thediscretion of the confessor. The proceeds of this commutation were for the benefit of the poor. Thus Theodore teaches[1020]:—“But let him that through infirmity cannot fast, give alms to the poor according to his means; that is, for every day a penny or two or three.... For a year let him give thirty shillings in alms; the second year, twenty; the third, fifteen.”

Again[1021]:—“He that knows not the psalms and cannot fast, must give twenty-two shillings in alms for the poor, as commutation for a year’s fasting on bread and water; and let him fast every Friday on bread and water, and three forties; that is, forty days before Easter, forty before the festival of St. John the Baptist, and forty before Christmas-day. And in these three forties let him estimate the value or possible value of whatsoever is prepared for his use, in food, in drink or whatever it may be, and let him distribute the half of that value in alms to the poor,” etc.

When we consider the almost innumerable cases in which penance must have been submitted to by conscientious believers, and the frequent hindrances which public or private business and illness must have thrown in the way of strict performance, we may conclude that no slight addition accrued from this source to the fund at the disposal of the church for the benefit of the poor. Even the follies and vices of men were made to contribute their quotain a more direct form. Ecgberht requires that a portion of the spoil gained in war shall be applied to charitable purposes[1022]; and he estimates the amount at no less than a third of the whole booty. Again, it is positively enacted by Æðelred and his witan that a portion of the fines paid by offenders to the church should be applied in a similar manner: they say[1023], that such money “belongs lawfully, by the direction of the bishops, to the buying of prayers, to the behoof of the poor, to the reparation of churches, to the instruction, clothing and feeding of those who minister to God, for books, bells and vestments, but never for idle pomp of this world.”

More questionable is a command inculcated by archbishop Ecgberht, that the over-wealthy should punish themselves for their folly by large contributions to the poor[1024]: “Let him that collecteth immoderate wealth, for his want of wisdom, give the third part to the poor.”

Upon the bishops and clergy was especially imposed the duty of attending to this branch of Christian charity, which they were commanded to exemplify in their own persons: thus the bishops are admonished to feed and clothe the poor[1025], the clerk who possessed a superfluity was to be excommunicatedif he did not distribute it to the poor[1026], nay the clergy were admonished to learn and practise handicrafts, not only in order to keep themselves out of mischief and avoid the temptations of idleness, but that they might earn funds wherewith to relieve the necessities of their brethren[1027]. Those who are acquainted with the MSS. and other remains of Anglosaxon art are well-aware how great eminence was attained by some of these clerical workmen, and how valuable their skill may have been in the eyes of the wealthy and liberal[1028].

Another source of relief remains to be noticed: I mean the eleemosynary foundations. It is of course well known that every church and monastery comprised among its necessary buildings a xenodochium, hospitium or similar establishment, a kind of hospital for the reception and refection of the poor, the houseless and the wayfarer. But I allude more particularly to the foundations which the piety of the clergy or laics established without the walls of the churches or monasteries. Æðelstán commanded the royal reeves throughout his realm to feed and clothe one poor man each: the allowance was to be, from every two farms, an amber of meal, a shank of bacon, or a ram worth fourpence, monthly, and clothing for the whole year. The reeves here intended must have been the bailiffs (villici,praepositi,túngeréfan) of theroyal vills; and, if they could not find a poor man in their vill, they were to seek him in another[1029]. In the churches which were especially favoured with the patronage of the wealthy and powerful, it was usual for the anniversary of the patron to be celebrated with religious services, a feast to the brotherhood and a distribution of food to the poor, which was occasionally a very liberal one. In the year 832 we learn incidentally what were the charitable foundations of archbishop Wulfred. He commanded twenty-six poor men to be daily fed on different manors, he gave each of them yearly twenty-six pence to purchase clothing, and further ordered that on his anniversary twelve hundred poor men should receive each a loaf of bread and a cheese, or bacon and one penny[1030].

Oswulf, who was duke of East Kent at the commencement of the ninth century, left lands to Canterbury charging the canons with doles upon his anniversary: twenty ploughlands or about twelve hundred acres at Stanstead were to supply the canons and the poor on that day with one hundred and twenty wheaten loaves, thirty of pure wheat, one fat ox, four sheep, two flitches, five geese, ten hens, ten pounds of cheese (or if it happened to be a fastday, a weigh of cheese, fish, butter and eggsad libitum), thirty measures of good Welsh ale, and a tub of honey or two of wine. From the lands of the brotherhood were to issue one hundred and twentysuflloaves, apparently a kind of cake; whilehis lands at Bourn were to supply a thousand loaves of bread and a thousandsufls[1031]. Towards the end of the tenth century Wulfwaru devised her lands to various relatives, and charged them with the support of twenty poor men[1032]. About the same period Æðelstán the æðeling gave lands to Ely on condition that they fed one hundred poor men on his anniversary, at the expense of his heirs.

From what has preceded it may fairly be argued that at all times there was a very sufficient fund for the relief of the poor, seeing that tithe, penance, fine, voluntary contribution, and compulsory assessment all combined to furnish their quota. It now remains to enquire into the method of its distribution.

The gains of the altar, whether in tithes, oblations, or other forms, were strictly payable over to the metropolitan or cathedral church of the district. The division of the fund was thus committed to the consulting body of the clergy, and their executive or head; and the several shares were thus distributed under the supervision and by the authority of the bishop and his canons in each diocese. Private alms may have remained occasionally at the disposal of the priest in a small parish, but the recognized public alms which were the property of the poor, and held in trust for them by the clergy,were necessarily managed by the principal body, the clergy of the cathedral. To the vicinity of the cathedral flocked the maimed, the halt, the blind, the destitute and friendless, to be fed and clothed and tended for the love of God. In that vicinity they enjoyed shelter, defence, private aid and public alms; and as in some few cases the cathedral church was surrounded by a flourishing city, they could hope for the chances which always accompany a close manufacturing or retailing population. In this way the largest proportion of the poor must have been collected near the chief church of the diocese, on whose lands they found an easy settlement, in whose xenodochia, hospitals and almshouses they met with a refuge, to whom they gave their services, such as they were, and from whom they received in turn the support which secular lords were unable or unwilling to give: for the cathedral church being generally a very considerable landowner, had the power of employing much more labour than the majority of secular landlords in any given district.

But it must not be imagined that the poor could obtain no relief save at the cathedral: every parish-church had its share of the public fund, as well as private alms, devoted to this purpose; and to the necessary buildings of every parish-church, however small, a xenodochium belonged. When now we consider the great number of churches that existed all over England in the tenth century, a number which most likely exceeded that now in being, and consequently bore a most disproportionateratio to the then population of the country,—when we further consider that the poor were comparatively few (so that a provision was absolutely made for the case where a pauper could not be found in a royal village), we shall have no difficulty in concluding that relief was supplied in a very ample degree to the needy.

It does not necessarily follow, although in itself very probable, that the claim to relief was a territorial one, that is that the man was to have relief where he was born, lived or had gained a settlement by labour. As some landowners, particularly in later times, especially honoured certain churches with the grant of tithes consecrated to them, it is possible that some paupers may have followed the convenient precedent, and argued that whither the fund went, thither might the recipients go also. And inasmuch as in many cases they would appear under the guise of poor pilgrims, we can readily understand the immense resort to particular shrines at particular periods, without overrating the devotion or the superstition of the multitude. But all this might have led to very serious consequences, had the facilitiesreallybeen so great. In point of fact there were no facilities at all except for such as were from age or infirmity incapable of doing any valuable service. For among the Saxons the law of settlement applied inexorably to all classes: no man had a legal existence unless he could be shown to belong to some association connected with a certain locality, or to be in the hand, protection and surety of a landed lord. Even aman of the rank nearest the princes or ealdorman could not leave his land without having fulfilled certain conditions; and the illegal migration of a dependent man from one shire or one estate to another was punished in the severest manner, in the persons of all concerned. He was called a Flýma or fugitive, and the receiving or harbouring him was a grave offence, punishable with a heavy fine, to be raised for the benefit of the king’s officers in the shire the fugitive deserted, as well as that wherein he was received[1033]. Even if the vigilance of the sheriffs and ealdorman in two shires could be lulled, it was difficult to disarm the selfishness of a landlord or an owner who thought the runaway’s services of any value, or his price worth securing. A year and a day must elapse ere the right abated from the “lord in pursuit,” for so was the lord called over all Europe in the idioms of the several tongues[1034]; and hence it cannot have been a very easy matter for any man to take advantage of the poor-law, while it remained any one’s advantage to keep him from falling into the state of pauperism: in other words, no man whose labour still possessed any value would be so cast upon the world as to have no refuge but what the church in Christian charity provided. And this was the real and trustworthy test of destitution. If a man was so helpless, friendless and useless that he could find no place in one of the mutual associations, orin a lord’s family, it is clear that he must become an outlaw as far as the State is concerned[1035]: he must fly to the woods, turn serf or steal, or else commend himself as a pauper to the benefits of clerical superintendence: but it is perfectly obvious that none but the hopelessly infirm or aged could ever be placed under such difficulty, in a country situated like England at any period of the Saxon rule, and hence pauper relief was in practice strictly confined to those for whom it was justly intended. The Saxon poor-law then appears simple enough, and well might it be so: they had not tried many unsuccessful and ridiculous experiments in œconomics, suffered themselves to be misled by very many mischievous crochets, nor on the whole did they find it necessary to make so expensive a protest against bad commercial legislation as our poor-law has proved to us. But it is not quite the simple thing it seems, and requires two elements for its efficient working, which are not to be found at every period, namely a powerful, conscientious clergy, and a system of property founded exclusively upon the possession of land, and guarded bya compulsory distribution of all citizens into certain fixed and settled associations.

I have already called attention to the fact that it was usual, if not necessary, on emancipating a serf, to provide for his subsistence. It is however not improbable that, though such emancipated serfs remained for the most part upon the land, and in the protection of their former lord, they found some assistance from the poor fund, either directly from the church, or indirectly through the private alms of the lord.

To resume all the facts of the case:—the State did not contemplate the existence or provide for the support of any poor: it demanded that every man should either be answerable for himself in a mutual bond of association with his neighbours; or that he should place himself under the protection of a lord, if he had no means of his own, and thus have some one to answer for him. If unfree, the State of course held him to be the chattel of his owner, who was only responsible to God for his treatment of him. He therefore who had no means and could find no one to take charge of him was an outlaw, that is, had no civil rights of any kind.

But Christianity taught that there was something even above the State, which the State itself was bound to recognize. It accordingly impressed upon all communicants the moral and religious duty of assisting those of their brethren whom the strict law condemned to misery; and the clergy presented their organization as a very efficient machinery for the proper distribution of alms. The voluntaryoblations became in time replaced by settled payments; but the law did not alter the disposition which the clergy had adopted; it only recognized and sanctioned it; first by making the various church payments compulsory upon all classes; and secondly by enacting that the mode of distribution long prevalent should be the legal one, in a secular as well as an ecclesiastical obligation. And thus by slow degrees, as the State itself became Christianized, the moral duty became a legal one; and the merciful intervention of religion was allowed to supply what could not be found in the strict rule of law.

It is unnecessary here to enquire how the power of the clergy to assist the poor was gradually diminished, by the arbitrary consecration or total subtraction of tithe, and other ecclesiastical payments; or how the burthen of supporting the poor, having become a religious as well as a civil duty, was shifted from one fund to another. It is enough to have shown how the difficulty was attempted to be met during the continuance of the Anglosaxon institutions. Under the present circumstances of almost every European state, it is admitted that no man is to perish for want of means, while means anywhere exist to feed him: and but two questions can be admitted, namely:—Who is really in want? and,—How is he to be fed at the least possible amount of loss to others? This is as far as the State will go. Religion, properly considered, imposes very different duties, and very different tests: but public morality alone ought to teach thatwhere the State has interfered on one side, it must pay the penalty on the other; and that where it has positively prescribed the directions in which men shall seek their subsistence, it is bound to indemnify those whom these restrictions have tended to impoverish. Every Poor Law is a protest against some wrong done: and in proportion to the wrong is the energy of the protest itself. Do not interfere with industry, and it will be very safe to leave poverty to take care of itself. It is quite possible to conceive a state of things in which crime and poverty shall be really convertible ideas, but of this the history of the world as yet has given us no example.

Back to Index Next