The Greensted Tithe Dispute

Tithe was a tax fraught with difficulties both in fair administration and efficient collection. Its origins date back to the earliest days of the church, when the parish priest - in exchange for looking after the spiritual welfare of his parishioners - claimed for his support one tenth of the crop produced by the parish. In some places “tithe in kind” persisted into the nineteenth century. The rector or, more usually, one of his agents) having been given notice by the farmer, arrived at the harvest field to collect one tenth of the crop. This was an expensive and inconvenient arrangement as the rector’s share had to be carted away, stored and marketed - particularly troublesome with perishable products like milk. By the eighteenth century it was more usual but by no means universal) for “tithe in kind” to be commuted for a cash payment. This could be a lump sum, or modus, often at fixed level over a very long period, or at a set rate per acre for a particular crop. Both systems were insensitive to improvements in yield due to new agricultural methods. There could be problems in years when the crop was poor - the farmers felt penalised - but also in good years, when the rector felt that he had not received his just desserts. It took little or no account of yearly fluctuations in market prices, a major problem with crops such as hops where this varied markedly from year to year. Disputes were frequent and when the rector felt particularly aggrieved about the inequity of cash payments, he was entitled to demand a return to the very unpopular “tithe in kind”. Legal costs could be very high, but so were the benefits of winning - either a much improved income for the rector and his successors, or, for the landowner, the continuation of a fixed payment at an unrealistically low level.

John Redman was the owner of Greensted Hall and its estate near Ongar from 1771 till his death in 1798. His will suggests that he was a somewhat unusual individual, directing that his grave was to be 10 feet deep was this a precaution against body snatchers?) and that he was to be buried at 7 o’clock in the morning with “neither gravestone, hatchment, escutcheon, mutes, nor porters at the door”. Careful instructions including travel arrangements) were left to his executors to spend 6 weekends in the year after his death at Greensted Hall “to help drink out the wine in the Vault”. After a year, any remaining wine was to be distributed equally amongst them.

Only fragments of what appears to have been a lengthy and acrimonious tithe dispute have survived. In 1786, Redman noted “Parson Harris, having demanded an arbitrary and undue Tythe for the pts. of Woodland which he strove to establish as a Precedent”. Parish precedent was extremely important in tithe collection as it established a right in subsequent years, and was therefore likely to be opposed by parishioners. The rector, the Rev. John Harris, had clearly been reluctant to agree to arbitration as Redman added “after much Altercation, Evasion and Jesuitical Shuffling on the part of that Old Church Leech (he) agreed to be left to arbitration”. The final agreement was for 6s 9d per acre, presumably).

An undated memorandum throws further light on the problems associated with tithe, as well as Redman’s somewhat intemperate language. Headed “Rules in regard to Tythe in kind or alms for the support and maintenance of the parish priest & catchpenny couple beggar of Grinstead” he noted ironically “Apples his Holiness is above claiming Windfalls. They are claimed by the parish Hoggs, but the tenth barrel of good apples for the good man’s cheer at Xmas must be strictly preserved and carried to the Church porch”.

Another memorandum written by Redman in 1795 indicates that there had been further trouble over the Greensted woodland. He noted that it had been partly cleared but that trees (?standards) had been left, making it impossible to plough or cut hay. The land was only suitable for “soiling” horses ie. feeding them on cut fodder). “The timber Trees not only draw the ground, but No Grass can grow - it produces Great Crops of all kinds of Weeds”. There are further very unflattering references to the rector, “a haggling wrangling drunken parson”, “a parish couple beggar” and “a low scrub fellow”. It appears that this bombast was the result of the partial clearance of the woodland perhaps those fields called First Stub Piece and Second Stub Piece in the 1839 Tithe Award). The rector, “like a Thief in the Night”, had employed a surveyor to measure up the land without the consent of either Redman or his tenant “Mrs P”. The result of this was an increase in tithe from £28 per annum to 60 guineas. Redman implies that another of his tenants, Mr Lawrence, “by Lying, Swearing, Drinking - for which he was unparall’d) had colluded with the rector possibly in exchange for a bribe) and agreed to a similar increase, thereby establishing a precedent. It was common practice though usually without a bribe!) for a rector to persuade one amenable parishioner to agree to an increase which could then be imposed on the rest of the parish. The document is not easy to follow, possibly because Redman was beside himself with rage! However he firmly advised his tenant, “Mrs P”, to offer no more than £40 “as the utmost the farm can bear”. There is nothing further in the papers to indicate how this dispute was resolved.