Skrine v. In Saltmarshe v. Hewett and Skrine v. Hewett (b), attempts had Saltmarshe v. been made to evade this statute, the incumbent Hewett, who Hewett and desired to borrow money, purporting to grant annuities on his life. Hewett. In the first case the annuity was secured by a bond for 3,6007. and an indenture charging the annuity upon the rectory of Rotherhithe and the glebe lands, and further secured by a warrant of attorney from Hewett to confess judgment for 3,6007. It was declared that the judgment on the warrant of attorney was to be entered up as a collateral security only for payment of the annuity, and that no execution should issue on such judgment unless and until the payment of the same or some part thereof should be twenty-one days in arrear after any of the specified days of payment; but that, in case of such arrear, it should be lawful for Saltmarshe to sue out execution on the judgment, and also to sequester the rectory and the glebe lands, or any other benefice or benefices which Hewett might take in lieu thereof, and for that purpose to instruct counsel, &c., to act for both the parties in such proceedings as should be necessary to obtain an immediate sequestration of the said rectory or other ecclesiastical preferment, to the intent that, by virtue of all or any of the ways aforesaid, Saltmarshe might recover the arrears of the said annuity and his costs. In Skrine v. Hewett, there was a similar warrant of attorney and an annuity deed, whereby the annuity was to be charged and chargeable upon, and issuing and payable out of, the rectories of Ewhurst and Rotherhithe, and whereby it was also declared that the judgment was to be considered as a security for the annuity; that in case default should be made in the payment thereof for twenty-one days, it should be lawful for Skrine to issue thereupon one or more writs of fi. fa. de bonis ecclesiasticis, and such other writ or writs as he should think fit to ground the same, in order that Skrine might sequester the glebe lands, &c., belonging to the rectories, and thereby be in possession in trust for better securing to him all arrears then due on the said annuity, and all future payments thereof. The Court of Queen's Bench, thought it "hardly to admit of a doubt but that the rectory of Rotherhithe is charged with the payment of the annuity in the event of its being in arrear, or in other words, that the said benefice is charged with a 'profit, out of the same to be yielded and taken;"" and after considering the cases, was "of opinion that enough appears to show that the warrant of attorney was given to charge the benefice,' and is, therefore, void by the statute," and that, upon the whole, the security could not be supported in either case. In Alchin v. Hopkins, it was holden that a composition with Alchin v. a clergyman in consideration that his future income might be Hopkins. received by a trustee, and applied in liquidation of his debts, after providing for a curate, is void under the above act (c). (b) 1 A. & E. p. 812; 3 Nev. & M. p. 656. (c) 4 Moo. & S. p. 615; 1 Bing. N. C. p. 99. See also Johnson v. Walthew v. Long v. Storie. Hawkins v. In a later case, Walthew v. Crafts, to a declaration in covenant by a sequestrator for rent due under a lease, whereby a rector demised to the defendant the rectory and parsonage, with the tithes, except the parsonage house, for a term of fourteen years, if the rector should so long live, at the yearly rent of 9807., the defendant pleaded, that, before the execution of the lease, the rector was indebted to V. and M. and others, and in consideration thereof, and of a further sum to be lent by V., and of the defendant consenting to be V.'s agent, the rector agreed with the defendant and V. to charge the rectory with that sum and the others, by making the lease in the declaration mentioned, and appointing the defendant receiver of the tithes, rents, &c., in order that he might apply the rent reserved by the lease in payment of the moneys so to be charged on the benefice; that the money was advanced by V., and that the rector in pursuance of the agreement, and in order to charge the benefice, executed the lease, and also an indenture appointing the defendant receiver; that the lease was part of the same transaction, and was a charging of the benefice contrary to the statute. On demurrer to this plea:-It was holden that, under the second indenture, there was an equitable assignment or valid appropriation of so much of the rent as was necessary to pay V. and M. their debts; and that such assignment was a charge upon the benefice, and therefore the lease, which was part of the same transaction, was void under the act (d). And in Long v. Storie, where a rector, who was also the patron of a living, gave warrants of attorney to various creditors, who had mortgages on the advowson, subject to an agreement that the judgment to be entered up by the first mortgagee should have priority over the rest, whenever execution should be issued-It was holden, that the agreement pointed so particularly to making the judgments charges on the living, that the court could not give effect to it by granting an injunction and a receiver (e). And in spite of the language in 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 13, now modified by later acts, providing that all judgments of the Superior Courts at Westminster entered up and registered against any person should operate as a charge upon all lands, rectories, advowsons, tithes, and other hereditaments of or to which the person should be seised, entitled or possessed for any estate or interest, it was holden by the lords justices, reversing a decision of Lord Cranworth, when vice-chancellor, that a judgment so entered up and registered against a clergyman does not create a charge upon his benefice entitling the judgment creditor to the appointment of a receiver (ƒ). Brasier, 3 Nev. & M. p. 653; 1 P. C. p. 753; Bishop v. Hatch, ibid. p. 763; 4 Jur. p. 318. (d) 6 Ex. p. 1. (e) Long v. Storie, 3 De G. & Sm. p. 308. (f) Hawkins v. Gathercole, 1 Sim., N. S. p. 63; 14 Jur. p. 1103; Where pew-rents can legally be imposed, the incumbent Charge on cannot charge them any more than he could any other revenues pew-rents. of his benefice (g). Charges, however, may in certain cases be made by the What charges incumbents on benefices with cure. may be made We have seen that such charges may be made for the pur- for residence pose of building or repairing the house of residence, or for houses, buying plots of land convenient to be annexed to the glebe (). In these cases the charges can only be made with the consent of certain persons specified in the statutes authorizing them, and where one of the persons to consent, e. g. the bishop of the diocese, himself takes the charge, the transaction will be considered contrary to the principles of equity, and the charge will be holden void in his hands (i). By 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 71, ss. 77, 78, and 2 & 3 Vict. c. 62, in obtaining ss. 16, 17, incumbents were empowered to charge the expenses, proper tithe commutation, to which they as tithe owners were put in obtaining a proper tithe commutation, on the lands of the benefice for a certain number of years (k). Benefices may now be charged with pensions to previous in- on resignacumbents under the provisions of the Incumbents Resignation tion, Acts (7). district Incumbents are also by 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 21, and 28 for benefit of Vict. c. 42, empowered to charge their benefices for the benefit chapels and of chapels and district churches within the limits of their churches, parishes (m). in same By 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, s. 74, it is enacted, that arrangements may be made by an Order in Council framed upon a scheme of the ecclesiastical commissioners, " for the apportionment of the income of two benefices belonging to the same patron between of churches the incumbents or ministers of such benefices, or the churches or or chapels chapels connected therewith; provided that no such arrange- patronage. ment shall be made with respect to benefices in lay patronage without the consents of the respective patrons, nor in any case so as to prejudice the interests of any existing incumbent, nor without the consent of the bishop of the diocese, nor, in the case of benefices lying in more than one diocese, without the consent of the bishop of each diocese; nor where a bishop is himself one of the patrons, without the consent of the archbishop also" (n). 6 De G. M. & G. 1; 1 Jur., N. S. p. 481. See the curious and very special case of McBean v. Deane, 30 Ch. D. p. 520. (g) Ex parte Arrowsmith, Re Leveson, 8 Ch. D. p. 96. (h) Vide supra, pp. 1126, 1312. (i) Greenlaw v. King, 3 Beav. p. 49 (1840). (k) Vide supra, p. 1177. 34 & 35 Vict. c. 44, and 50 & 51 V. c. 23. Vide supra, pp. 389 394. (m) Vide infra, Part IX., Chap. IV.; and, as to alteration in such charges where the income of the benefice is diminished by the operation of the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886, vide supra, p. 1188. (n) See 48 & 49 Vict. c. 31, extending this provision specially to the rectory of Tatenshill. Charges on glebe for drainage and improvements. Ecclesiastical funds not to Charges may be made of glebe as of other lands for drainage and improvements under the General Land Drainage and Improvement Company Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. xci.) (o); and where a rent-charge created by the Inclosure Commissioners under that Act was in arrear, the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice ordered a sale of the glebe lands to satisfy the charge (p). Charges may also be made by the Inclosure Commissioners under the Improvement of Land Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 114). But now, by 47 & 48 Vict. c. 67, s. 1, "The Commissioners be charged for shall not sanction any improvement of any land held in right of improvements any church, chapel, or other ecclesiastical benefice unless and without con- until the patron of such benefice, and the bishop of the diocese sent of patron in which such lands are situate, shall signify to the Commis and bishop. Under Agricultural Holdings Act. sioners by writing under their hands their consent respectively to such application, nor shall any charge upon any such land of money expended, or purporting to be expended, for the improvement thereof, whether under any general or local act, or any contract or agreement, be valid or effectual, and whether with or without the sanction of the Commissioners, unless and until the patron of the benefice and the bishop of the diocese shall have respectively signified their consent in writing thereto. Provided that nothing herein contained shall invalidate, or prejudicially affect, any charge which may have been validly and effectually made before the passing of this act." Charges under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61) have been already mentioned (1). Benefices without cure may be charged. Butcher v. SECT. 2.-Benefices without Cure. The act 13 Eliz. c. 20, applies only to benefices with cure of souls; and it has been in fact holden that a canonry of Windsor having no cure of souls attached may be assigned, and that, on a bill filed by a mortgagee, a receiver would be appointed (r). In Doe d. Butcher v. Musgrave, being an action by another mortgagee of the same canonry, the Court of Common Pleas on the 23rd June, 1840, decided that an action of ejectment would not lie for the canonry in question, it being a mere office, of which the sheriff could not give possession; and that ejectment did not lie for the residentiary house in which the canon resided, as it appeared to be vested in the corporation, and not in the canon (s). (0) See Ex parte Rector of Kirksmeaton, 20 Ch. D. p. 203. (p) Scottish Widows' Fund v. Craig, 20 Ch. D. p. 208. Northern Assurance Co. v. Harrison, See W. N. 1889, p. 74. (1) Vide supra, p. 1330. (r) Grenfell v. Dean and Canons of Windsor, 2 Beav. p. 550. (8) 1 M. & G. p. 625. CHAPTER VIII. PUBLIC IMPOSTS. SECT. 1.-First Fruits and Tenths. 2.-Land Tax. THIS Chapter is intended to comprise the several charges or taxes imposed by the State on the revenues arising from the property of the church. The first class of charges are now, since the reign of Queen Anne, returned to the church, though distributed to different ecclesiastical corporations. SECT. 1.-First Fruits and Tenths. Annates, primitia, or first fruits, were the value of every First fruits. spiritual living by the year, which the pope, claiming the disposition of all ecclesiastical livings within Christendom, reserved out of every living (a). What pope first imposed first fruits may be doubtful (). History. Hume, in his history of Edward I., says "the levying of first fruits was also a new device begun in this reign, by which his holiness thrust his fingers very frequently into the purses of the faithful; and the king seems to have unwarily given way to it." Blackstone, discoursing of first fruits and tenths (c), says, "these were originally a part of the papal usurpations over the clergy of these kingdoms; first introduced by Pandulph, the pope's legate, during the reigns of King John and Henry III. in the see of Norwich; and afterwards attempted to be made universal by the popes Clement V. and John XXII. about the beginning of the fourteenth century. The first fruits, primitiæ, or annates, were the first year's whole profits of the spiritual preferment, according to a rate or valor made under the direction of pope Innocent IV. by Walter, bishop of Norwich, in 38 Hen. 3, and afterwards advanced in value by commission from pope Nicholas the third, A.D. 1292, 20 Edw. 1, which valuation of pope Nicholas is still preserved (d). The tenths, or decimæ, |