Talk:Court of First Fruits and Tenths

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"compounded for the firstfruits"[edit]

I came across the phrase "compounded for the firstfruits" looking at the history of the appointment of rectors in England. I see from http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924084672959/cu31924084672959_djvu.txt "...his father compounded for the first fruits of the rectory of Eversholt 28 Jan., 1602-3."

or from http://ia600400.us.archive.org/11/items/cu31924064953064/cu31924064953064_djvu.txt "Maurice Faukner,' cl., presented 15 July, 1575, 17 Eliz., to the rectory of Eversholte... He compounded 6 Nov., 1576"

So here are some questions I wish this article addressed, but to which I don't know the answers to edit it:

Did a newly appointed rector have to pay the cash up front, or did they pay it later?
Did they have to pay the lot at the end of the first year, or could they pay over a number of years?
Was "compounding for the firstfruits" actually paying the money, or was it signing a contract to pay later, or... what? It seems to have been something specific because it happened on a specific day and was separate from being presented to the living.
What happened to someone who was appointed, paid his first year's income in tax, and then quit or moved on? Did he get the money back?
Rectors around then seem quite often to have been appointed but never to have taken up their posts. In this case, did they still owe the money? Was it common to be appointed and then not be able to raise the cash and have to give up?
How was the money collected? Through the church hierarchy or directly between taxman and priest?
Around 1700, did this same tax apply to nonconformist priests, or was it just CofE?
Annates points out that the year's income used to go to the pope in the case where he was the Patron of the living. So, when a patron of a living appointed a rector, did any money go to the patron?

Emrys2 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue or profit[edit]

the lede says that that they had to pay, "a tenth of their revenue annually thereafter," but the section on Substance and procedure says they had to pay, "one-tenth of their annual profits after the first year." so is it revenue or profit. these are not the same thing. the act of 1540 specifically says, "one yerely rent or pencion amounting to the value of the tenth part of all the revenues rentes fermes tithes offerings emolumentis..." so that is clearly revenue, but first fruits is not explained so unambiguously in the act. it says, "gifte soever they did bilonge, the firste frutes revenues and profittes for one yere of every such [benefice]". since revenue includes profit the term, "revenues and profittes" means revenue. at least that's how I would read it. Cottonshirt τ 04:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]