450 History of the English Landed Interest. 



indifferent herbage because of the heavy tithes payable on 

 corn land ; and it was pointed out that where, as in Scotland, 

 the corn tithe was not drawn in kind, immense tracts of 

 similar land had been converted into fertile arable fields. Of 

 course such circumstances as these largely affected the interests 

 of huj^ers of bread. 



The tithe-owner could, if he chose, cause considerable annoy- 

 ance and loss to the producer. By the Act of Edward VI. the 

 farmer was not allowed, to carry away his corn or hay or other 

 produce before the predial tithes had. been previously set forth 

 in the presence of the impropriator. The tithe-owner, either 

 from indolence or spite, or in order to induce the farmer to 

 purchase his annual share at a high price, would often delay 

 to attend until a greater portion of the crop was rotten. This 

 could and sometimes would lead to retaliation on the farmer's 

 part. There is a story related in the Agricultural Report of 

 the County of Hants, of a farmer, who had been offended 

 by his clergyman, giving him notice that he was going to 

 draw a field of turnips on a certain day. The clergyman 

 accordingly sent his team and servant at the time appointed, 

 upon which the farmer drew ten turnips and desired the other 

 to take one, saying he should not draw any more that day, 

 but v^ould let him know ^ when he did. Such instajuces as 

 these created a mischievous friction between pastor and flock, 

 and could not fail to loosen that spiritual bond which it is so 

 important to maintain between the two. To avoid this, many 

 high-minded clergymen sacrificed their worldly prospects and 

 contented themselves with a small moiety of their proper dues. 



' To understand both these instances the reader must know that the 

 impropriator might not set forth the titlies on pain of being punished for 

 trespass. The farmer was obliged to do this, and to give previous notice 

 of his intention to the parson. Even tlien the farmer could not set forth 

 the tithes without the attendance of the parson, tliough the reading of 

 the law on this point was open to considerable doubt. Either party was 

 entitled to redress if he could i)rove in the Courts that his property 

 had been damaged by the culpable neglect of the other, but few cared to 

 risk the expense of so uncertain a venture as a lawsuit dejjendant upon 

 the opinion of agricultural experts, which would be based on the varying 

 customs of localities. Comp. 2 & 3 Ed. VI. c. 13. 



