Talk:Civil parish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Parish Law Today[edit]

Is it theoretically possible for modern-day parishes to span district and even county boundaries? Or must a parish exist solely within a single district? (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

New article[edit]

I created this article by removing the England-related sections from Civil parish. I think it needs a fairly ruthless edit, for example reducing overlap with Parish councils in England. MRSC (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it needs merging with Parish councils in England. --Kudpung (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with merger proposal. The "Civil Parish" article had become severaly cluttered with globalisation material, whcih was swamping the material on England. Conceivably, the scope of the English article should be "England and Wales", but they are now communities in Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree no merger as outlined on the other talk page. MRSC (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


I'd like to get some accurate numbers about the parishes:

  • How many exist
  • How many have councils
  • How many have parish meetings instead
  • How many are grouped
  • How many have each alternative style
  • How many are deserted
  • How many are 'dormant' (thinking of Byfleet) [1]
  • How many are members of NALC

Is this information published regularly, or is it scattered? MRSC (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that some of this information may be in the 2001 census. Another source might be the website of the National Association of Local Councils. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Vacant seats[edit]

Since being a parish councillor is an entirely unpaid post, it is not uncommon for their to be unfilled seats. Some one tagged a statement about this for citation, but if there are 8 candidates for 10 seats, it is inevitable there will be an unopposed election and vacancies afterwards, whcih can be filled like any other vacancy. This applies to my own parish council. On a previous election when this happened, the returning officer provided details of invalid nominations (probably submitted too late), and a cooption took place. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the sentence which until your revision just now read It is common in rural parishes for the number of seats available to exceed the number of candidates.' Although I can also draw on anecdotal evidence in this area I was not aware of this being a commom / widespread phenomenon or that there are any readily available statistics and suspect that no sufficiently robust ones could be unearthed on this but you never know some may have existed to enable a source to be provided. The statement was not self-evident, and the implication it was a common occurrence needed to be challenged by requiring verification. The term 'rural parishes' was also vague and needed qualification or removal. In the event if it could not be verified it would have to be revised or removed. By effectively eliminating the dubious statement completely with your revision you presumably also think this. Although I was open to someone finding some stats I also think your revision and the use of the word ‘sometimes’ is neutral in my view and properly addresses the issue.Tmol42 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dissolution of Monastries[edit]

This is cited in the template as the origin of Civil Parishes. Yet the article identifies highway responsibility as deriving from an Act of 1555, and Poor Law responsibility from the Elizabethan period. So what responsibility did parishes ACTUALLY acquire in the 1530s? Certainly I have no reason to believe that the Dissolution directly substituted any liability on Parishes. Should not this be deleted? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Act that Henry VIII had passed to dissolve the monastaries transferred certain obligations from the monastaries to the state alongside the more notorious asset grab of property land etc. However, it was not until the passing of the Elizabethan Poor Law in 1601 that this was formalised and codified in law and a system of administation by parish appointed stewards etc came into being all be gradually. I added the latter legislation to the info box and would agree as it was more by consequence than by design that parishes took on this responsibility over by default until formalised in 1601 and so we could take the Dissolution Act out if others agree.Tmol42 (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that Wright & Hobhouse (which I have not read) can have any authroity for saying that the Dissolution of the Monastries founded civil parish responsibilities. Accordingly I would suggest that this be deleted. However, the Highways Act 1555 (or whatever it was) perhaps ought to appear. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Could someone kindly show me the concensus for the widespread replacement of the B-class Civil parish with the start-class Civil parishes in England that seems to be occuring in many articles at this moment? e.g. here and here. Also if the replacement has to occur, please make correct ES's. Both those changes (and many other articles were changed too) were not disambiguates as the ES says and also other changes not mentioned in the ES were made (such as date to year in references) --Senra (Talk) 23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really got anything to do with the classification or 'hierarchy' of the article. It's more about which article has the most appropriate content to be used as a Wikilink to provide the reader with a detailed explanation if he/she requires it.. You will have noticed that the changes were only to articles about settlement in England. The Civil parishes article is more generalised in its treament of CPs in the United Kingdom.--Kudpung (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Does not answer any of my questions.
  1. Civil parishes in England is still start-class. Surely if such a global change is to be contemplated, at least get the article reviewed first!
  2. why where the ES's wrong? These were not disambiguations to the two articles mentioned above
  3. why were other AWB led changes made to the articles (date to year for example) without noting such changes in the ES? One of the articles was FA for goodness sake
--Senra (Talk) 11:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure that Civil parishes in England is still start class. ESs cannot be changed - it's one of the few thngs that cannot be changed. on the site software. As you know about the ESs, you will know from the article histories who the editors were, so why not ask them directly?--Kudpung (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Senra means ongoing chnages I imagine. And changing cite dates to years is one of the few GF's I disagree with, but it's scarcely earth-shattering. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC).
Well, I think I have to hold up my hand to having made most of those edits. I honestly didn't think they would be the slightest bit controversial. A lot (most?) of the articles on English CPs predate the existence of the Civil parishes in England article, and so have links to the more general civil parish. If I was to create a new article today for an English CP I would obviously link to the English article. This is in the spirit of WP:MOSLINK point 1.4 "Link specifity":
"Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics."
Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of disambiguation and hence the unsatisfactory edit summaries? How about something like:
"Replaced general link with specific link per WP:MOSLINK 1.4, plus gen fixes"
As far as the quality of the two articles I notice the England article (which seems more substantial and better referenced) is now at "C". The "B" rating awarded by WP:UKGEO in November 2007 was for a very different article and probably needs reappraisal.
Anyway, I'm going to sit on my hands until there is a bit of agreement here. I would, however, argue that the change of link is the correct way to go. Lozleader (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for my (in hindsight) too agressive tone above. The article was start-class and now seems to be c-class. Fair enough; I would suggest it gets a peer review though. I would never be bold enough to change an article from start to c-class without a review, but that is just me. As far as WP:DAB goes, I would suggest that a suitable edit-summary (ES) in this case may be Replace civil parish with more specific civil parish + general fixes as a more neutral ES. DAB implies (to me at least) that the editor has made a mistake by ambiguously specifying the article being linked to. In this context, the original editor has not made a mistake as the civil parishes in England article was not readily available and perhaps is still not (see below). Anyway, that is my view --Senra (Talk) 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a little more on DABs. I had originally used parish which, via peer-review was changed to civil parish. When I checked the civil parish article, I would have checked the {{about}} link which (currently) directs to parish (disambiguation). On checking that page today, civil parishes in England is not mentioned; should it be on the DAB page then others can find it? --Senra (Talk) 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll hold my hand up to also being one of the editors who has, in alignment with WP:MOSLINK point 1.4 "Link specifity" been using [[Civil parishes in England|civil parish]] on all my new settlement articles in England--Kudpung (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: Formal reviews are not required at all for anything under GA. You might however be surprised to learn than Civil parishes in England has been reviewed twice in the last 24 hours. Once by a member of the guild of copyeditors, and once by a bureaucrat. You've just done an excellent job of getting an article to FA in your short time here, and I know it can be stressful, but let's not run away with the idea that stubs, C, and B grades need the same treatment.--Kudpung (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added the English and Scottish civil parishes to the DAB page. Not 100% sure that I have done it correctly as I couldn't find any allownace for subcats in WP:MOSDAB. I dare say someone will put me right there too :-) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient origins[edit]

I have several problems with the content of this section. They are cited from an 1884 book which I do not have, but which I suspect was more concerned with day to do parish administration than with accurate history:

  • Tithes were not a tax and (as far as I am aware) not applicable for any purpose except paying the clergy - except where a rectory (after the dissolution) came inot lay hands.
  • The relationship to manors is not correctly described, at least in my view.
  • I suspect that select vestries had to be created by a Local Act.
  • I do not like the description of "ad-hoc" boards. I suspect that this is a refernece to boards such as Town Improvement Commissioners, again arising from a Local Act.

I would like to rewrite this section, but this will mean that I need to find better sources, and I am not suire how quickly I will. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The book is available online at the Internet Archive [2] Chapter 1, and in particular the notes on pp. 5-7 are where this come from I think. Lozleader (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The ad hoc bodies would be things like Highway Boards which pertained nearly everywhere, the poor law unions and the (literally) hundreds of paving and lighting bodies in the Metropolis and other places. Some came from local acts, some from more general legislation at the request of inhabitants. Select Vestries could be created under an adoptive act of 1831, if 2/3 of ratepayers agreed. They were mostly in London and disappeared in 1856. Some existed from "usage", some from local acts.Lozleader (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
There is clearly a lot that needs to be added to this article: do not let me discourage you. I will probably not do much in the immediate future as I am currently pressed for time. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The section on the Civil and ecclesiastical split was also misleading in saying that Parochial Church Councils took over the ecclesiastical parishes as part of this process. These were not set up until 1921, as part of a reform of the structure of church government, by which time the civil responsibilities had already gone. I am amending the misleading sentence accordingly, but the two sections should either be merged or (better) the 19th century reforms should be moved from 'ancient origins' to form a revised section. There is no distinction between the two because it was a process of development of local government as well as things like the transfer of responsibility for the registration of births, marriages and deaths from 1837. Quite a lot for somebody to get straight, with access to good sources, but certainly notable and something to be done. --AJHingston (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Divided parishes[edit]

I suspect that a civil parish that was genuinely divided between two counties was in fact a rarity: even where the ecclesiastical parsih was divided, the two parts would have to operate as separate poor-law townships, eaCh with their own overseers of the poor, because the authroity to levy a rate had to be signed for the county magistrates, who would not be the same people in each of the counties. For example, Amblecote was that part of the parish of Oldswinford that lies in the county of Stafford. Its rates (and taxes) were dealt with in Staffordshire, whereas the township of Stourbridge and the rest of the parish of Oldswinford were always dealt with in Worcestershire. How the overseers were appointed in practice, I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This [3] implies that the overseers were "without dividing themselves" to execute their office in all parts of the parish, but make separate accounts for the different portions. How often this actually happened I don't know as they were likely to be distinct vills or townships, in which case separate overseers would be appointed.Lozleader (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
[4] This is the legislation they are talking about:

And be it also enacted, That if it shall happen any Parish to extend itself into more Counties than one, or part to lie within the liberties of any City, Town or place corporate, and part without, that then as well the Justices of peace of every County, as also the head Officers of such City, Town or place corporate, shall deal and intermeddle only in so much of the said Parish, as lieth within their liberties, and not any further. And everyone one of them respectively within their several Limits, Wards, and Jurisdictions, to execute the ordinances before mentioned concerning the nomination of Overseers, the consent to binding apprentices, the given warrant to levy Taxations unpaid, the taking account of Churchwardens and Overseers, and the committing to prison such as refuse to account, or deny to pay the arrearages due upon their accounts. And yet nevertheless, the said Churchwardens and Overseers, or the most part of them of the said parishes, that do extend into such several Limits and Jurisdictions, shall without dividing themselves, duely execute their office in all places within the said Parish, in all things to them belonging, and shall duely exhibit and make one account before the said head Officers of the town or place corporate, and one other before the said Justices of Peace, or any such two of them, as is aforesaid.

Lozleader (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


These statements from the box at the top right hand corner must surely be quite wrong:

Created by

  • Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries Act[1]
  • Elizabethan Poor Law 1601

Eddaido (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been profoundly unhappy with the refernece to the dissolution. The end of monastic provision is often stated as the reason why the Poor Law was needed, but as far as I am aware, the Dissolution Acts did not make alternative provision for the poor. I have therefore delted this. If I am wrong the precise Act and section should be cited. On the other hand, highways were a parochial responsibility, with direct labout supervised by a Surveyor, elected by the vestry. Both highways and the poor were the responsibilities of the parish. Where a parish consisted of several townships, each elected their own officers and were by one definition a "parish" - "any place for which a rate may lawfully be levied", though they were not ecclesiastical parishes. One might argue that there was a Victoran hiatus, in that the poor were dealt with by Unions from the 1830s and highways by highway boards from a slightly later date. In that case we need to reorganise the articel with a separate section dealing with the pre-Victorian position. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
For some reason Youngs gives 1597 as the date when a the civil/ecclesiastical split happened, in that when a CoE parish was formed after this date this did not generally make any difference to the civil parish. Although the majority (but by no means all) parishes were grouped into unions for poor law I believe they had separate poor rates. Indeed this is the defintion per the Poor Law Amendment Act 1866 s.18: "In all statutes, except where there shall be something in the context inconsistent therewith, the word 'parish' shall among other meanings applicable to it, signify a place for which a separate poor rate is or can be made, or for which a separate overseer is or can be appointed". Thus 1866 is often given as the year in which the various townships dependent on an ancient mother parish became civil parishes in their own right. Also from that date until 1965 there was no place in England or Wales that was not within a civil parish. (Another important date is 1 January 1858 which is when extra-parochial places were designated parishes for civil purposes).Lozleader (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This must be why he picked 1597: Act for the Relief of the Poor 1597. Lozleader (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the origin of the Poor Law. However highways liability comes earlier. Rates were certainly collected by parish, but I am not clear how they were set after the introduction of unions. I am not an expert on the Poor Law and therefore have not thought of editing much, rather than criticising. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Highways seem to 1555 per Highways Act 1555. Lozleader (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to make things more intersting, the Highway Parish and poor Law Parish were not necessarily the same. [5] Lozleader (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lozleader, please may we know the 'citation' for your reference in "For some reason Youngs gives 1597 . . . " Eddaido (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Lozleader (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just as I thought, have already checked and there are no copies in this country I am in. Can you be more specific, perhaps supply the particular statements you refer to? Eddaido (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It is in the introduction, page xvi, when Youngs defines an 'Ancient Parish' as "one which existed at first for ecclesiastical purposes, as an area under the jurisdiction of a clergyman with cure of souls, but which gained secular functions in later periods. The first secular function was the relief of the poor, under successive statutory authorities beginning with the Elizabethan poor law of 1597." On page xvii he notes that the poor law (under many amendments) allowed units within parishes (chapelries, hamlets etc) to take poor law responsibilities; when they did so they became civil parishes, but the timing cannot be stated with certainty. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Is he perhaps by page xvii into the 1830s? If that is not so why would he say "but the timing cannot be stated with certainty" when he very obviously has (as is held above) 1597 for his timing. Was he let down on this point by his editor? Was our particular interest of no consequence because it was not what he was writing about?Eddaido (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Mr Youngs was not writing a history but a data book. It consists of a twenty page introduction explaining terms used in the book, and then 830 pages (vol. I) of lists of parishes and other institutions of local government with their important dates. The words "the timing cannot be stated with certainty" are mine; that's why they are not in quotation marks. Youngs' actual words were "It is impossible to date when most of these units assumed those responsibilities, but at the time they did so they became civil parishes". Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Youngs is referring to the 1830s and later. The notes of the Highways Act 1555 and Poor Law 1601 need to be deleted. Your paraphrase was fine. Eddaido (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
No, the content of the book does not support a date of "1830s and later". For instance in a few cases there are explicit dates for the civil/ecclesiastical split, eg the parish of st Andrew Holborn above The Bars with St George the Martyr was a purely civil parish created in 1767. The point is that they emerged/diverged over time from the 16th century onwards, but were only formally defined as parishes in 1866 (or 1858 for extra-parochial places).
The 1597 legislation introduced the first civil officers (overseers), the 1601 legislation allowed for the practical division of parishes which were in more than one county or were partly in an incorporated borough (there being different overseers making different accounts to different JPs), while the Poor Relief Act 1662 allowed townships in large parishes to be separated for the poor law. Such divisions took place at different times in different parishes and are often not documented. For example, Bethnal Green, although theoretically part of Stepney parish until 1743, had its own beadle and parish officers by 1690.
The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 simply adopted the existing divisions as they had evolved, s.109: "the Word "Parish" shall be construed to include any Parish, City, Borough, Town, Township, Liberty, Precinct, Vill, Village, Hamlet, Tithing, Chapelry, or any other Place, or Division or District of a Place, maintaining its own Poor, whether parochial or extra-parochial"
Lozleader (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This is good. We can see a clear split town/country. I do note that in 1810 the churchwarden could fine the justice £5 if he failed to call for nominations (put a hand on the shoulder of a suitable parishioner) to fill a vacancy among the (unpaid) overseers. I guess this implies a civil 'churchwarden' for a purely civil parish.
Please would you provide a suitably simple definition (of your concept) of a civil parish in England to go at the very head of the article. Then we can continue. More suggestions below. Eddaido (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A volume published by Royal Historical Society is certainly a reliable source. I suspect thsat the 1662 Act was in fact recognising what had already happened. In certain cases locally, of which I know, the "township" was in fact a manor, which had evidently decided to administer its own poor. Where one manor was in a separate hundred or county from the rest of the parish, it was inevitable that there would be a separate constable, so that having a separate surveyor of highways and separate overseers was a simple step. However the situation may have been more complicated in some cases, with a township being part of one larger entity for one purpose and self-governing in another. It is also possible that the position was influenced by the perceptions of the magistrates in Quarter Sessions as to what was a parish or township. Real life often fails to fit comfortable patterns laid down from the centre. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of references to places being separate jurisdictions "by custom". Also if one reads about how the justices in quarter sessions actually functioned (or many cases didn't) in the seventeenth century one can well see the context. In most counties they were far from consistent in terms of attendance, policy or record keeping, and much of their administrative business was conducted in public houses over the "justices' dinner"! Lozleader (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not wish to disagree. My comments are largely based on my experience, mainly from one area of England, and may not be of universal application. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest a second paragraph immediately under the first in the article and without any separate heading beginning something like:
Before the current system the distinction between an ecclesiastical parish carrying out secular functions, as they universally did right into the 19th century, and a purely civil parish was . . . . and they were created because . . . .
There are conflicts to be covered like those between "and before 2008 their creation was not permitted within a London borough." and "For example, Bethnal Green, although theoretically part of Stepney parish until 1743, had its own beadle and parish officers by 1690" Eddaido (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


Is it possible that the current prominence of their history may not 'suit the needs' of the bulk of the many readers of this article? Might the History section be better moved to the foot of the article right out of the way of people concerned with the real world? I've seen blogs by men in shocked disbelief and telling the world about it on learning that their parish was once run by the The Church! Would it be better for its ancient parishes section to be then wiped off and the subject covered by a reference to ecclesiastical parishes in England - that article might be improved where it fails to cover what is deemed necessary. Eddaido (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the merit of what you are saying. The alterantive might be to refer to the Parish Council article in a capnote, and to move all material on parishes as now operating there.
There is also a lot of civil stuff in the Parish article, which probably ought to be here. However many of the responsibilities listed there were strictly manorial ones in origin, but taken over by the parish where manors declined into insignificance. Perhaps "Origins" would be a better description. The ecclesiastical origin needs to be stated, but all detail should be omitted, being dealt with by a cross-reference to the Parsih article.
The "ancient" section states that the parish levied a tax called "tithe". This is wrong: tithe was a payment to the rector and the vicar by way of stipend. To the best of my knowledge it was not available for general parochial purposes. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right and it's probably best to take it out (it might be termed a tax in a very general loose sense but with a single purpose). It belongs in some article or other that covers ecclesiastical parishes. I think it was there because of an early definition of a parish being the geographical area to which a priest was provided and which in turn paid a tithe for his upkeep. Lozleader (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd never though of this possible issue, but after having read the article again, I firmly concur with you all. --Kudpung (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
While I guess its fair to say in this article they were collected for the support of the priest (because for a long time they clearly were) it seems to me to be always necessary to make plain the period referred to when making these statements - see tithe history where you may find: "Charlemagne established the payment of them" (tithes) " in France, and made that famous division of them into four parts ; one to maintain the edifice of the church, the second to support the poor, the third the bishop, and the fourth the parochial clergy." I know that is France but do you see the other doubts? [anon]Eddaido (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I see where the problem arose. It appears to be from a quotation from Blackstone's Commentaries (though not clearly marked as a quote). His allusion to Charlemagne is in fact misleading so far as England is concerned. I have looked at many tiuthe awards over the years. Theae concern the commutation of tithes and almost invariabaly indicate that the recipient was the rector or that they were divided between a lay rector (or other lay impropriator) and a vicar. I cannot speak authoratively of early periods, but can say I have never heard of their going to any one else. The rector was responsible for the chancel's repair and the parishioners for the nave, formerly funded by a church rate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The Quote is clearly sourced. As we are keen to be authoritative there needs to be a reference to the period concerned however loose it may be. Do you not agree? Blackstone seems to think the ref. to Charlemagne related to his topic (England) (One Church). Furthermore those tithes paid directly to the English religious houses will have been used as they wished. Also you will know, post Reformation, advowsons were considered a financially rewarding investment - see split Great and Small tithes, impropriator / parish priest or parson. I think a 'fudge' is better than a (strictly) incorrect statement. I've quoted Blackstone (under tithe history) almost in entirety in the hope of sailing right over more detail! The only reason I have found given to not regard the tithe as a tax is that it was not collected by government (small g) however it was indeed collected under the law of the land. See also the Saladin tithe. What is The King if not Government? Eddaido (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
My comment about Blackstone was merely that the text was not clearly enough marked out as a quote to discourage interfering editors from amending it. The distinction between grant and small tithes is not merely post-Reformation: it goes back the the appropriation of rectories by monastries. As you say, what monastries did with their income (whether from tithes or land) was a matter for them. They might support the poor, but this was a moral (or spiritual) obligation, not a legal one. Yes, in theory the national government is ultimately the king, but he operated through various mechanisms; in financial matters through the Exchequer. However, this was a central authority, receiving and dispensing money, with limited local functions. I forget the detaols of the Saladin tithe, but think this was a tax collected by the Exchequer on behalf of the church to finance a crusade. As such it was an exceptional (not a routine) levy. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm anxious that a whole article not be brought into disrepute by an individual editor's sweeping statement that may seem to fit perfectly But only within her or his personal zone of interest at the time of writing. An occasional qualifying word like "often" or "sometimes" or a period like "before 500AD" would do the job. What bothers me is the seeming conviction that a subject is completely and properly covered.
More about the King's Saladin Tithe tax here.
It is my understanding that the Elizabethan Poor Law was made in response to the great distress in the kingdom arising from the poor no longer cared for by the (now dissolved) religious houses and compounded by the religious brethren themselves now bereft of lodging and board though I guess they who laboured in the fields continued for a different master.
So by custom until the dissolution of the monasteries the tithes (or taxes) that went to the religious houses supported the poor. Yes? Eddaido (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Saladin tithe was a on-off tax. There are (I think) two later records of taxation for church purposes in England. What happened that resulted in tithes being paid to monastries is that the "abbot and convent" or perhaps just the abbot and hsi successors were appointed as rector. As a condition of allowing a monastery to approprate a church, the bishop required provision to be made for the continued pastoral care of the parish, usually by a vicar ("deputy") being appointed and some portion of the endownments assigned for the support of the vicar. typically this was a small part of the glebe (including a house) and the small (or privy) tithes - which were harder to collect. The monastery kept the rest and could use it as they liked. Some monastries has a pitancer, who was responsible for the monastry giving charitable donations to the poor, but (unless specifically appropriated to the pitancer) the income from the rectory impropriate would go into monastic funds held by their treasurer. They money might to some extent be spent on the poor, but this was not a predecessor of Poor Law relief. At the dissolution, Henry VIII pensioned of the monks and took the monastic endownments for himself, creating a special office to administer what he had expropriated. However the monks knew what was coming and I have in several cases seen them granting leases just before the dissolution, almost certainly for a lump sum, which the monks may well have kept for themselves. There was a severe famine in the late 1590s, the Poor Law was (as you say) probably a response to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you understand that while your selected statements are in many cases true you use them here to give a false picture of the overall England-wide situation. You might like to quickly scan The English poor law, 1531-1782 Paul Slack, Economic History Society - 1995 and you should also consider this statement from Dissolution of the Monasteries "Monasteries had also supplied free food and alms for the poor and destitute, and it has been argued that the removal of this and other charitable resources, amounting to about 5% of net monastic income, was one of the factors in the creation of the army of "sturdy beggars" that plagued late Tudor England, causing the social instability that led to the Edwardian and Elizabethan Poor Laws." BTW did you intend to type a won-off tax! Eddaido (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Silence, so I have to make this opportunity to tell you of a curious coincidence. My father's family is from (West) Malvern. I like to think we three plus? descend from the one disputatious monk, at the time of the dissolution, tossed out on his ear into the happy arms of an honest hard-working welcoming Worcestershire wench. Eddaido (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I had missed your previous comment. This looks like a good way of dealing with the problem. You have a WP:RS for a definite statement. It looks to me as if the Poor Law arose from a temporary measure in 1597, a famine year due to a volcanic eruption, when England had to import a substantial amount of grain from the Baltic. Finding this worked well, this was made permanent a few years later. However, those comments are my WP:OR, as I have not found good sources in support of this case. Your ex-monk may actually have been a catch forn the widow, as Henry VIII pensioned them off. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Detached parts[edit]

At least one parish (Scotforth) has a detached part (created when the Lancaster University area became unparished) - are there others? Were detached parts within a county abolished, with new detached parts created by boundary changes, or have they always existed? Peter James (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There were many indeed I guess several hundreds. a large number eventually were eliminated after the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 those that remained were dealt with in around 1896 when civil parishes were created. Some issues remained where parishes straddled county boundaries.Tmol42 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I have remove tag as there is a lot of information provided in the linked articles which would not be sensible just to repeat here though there is always room for a sentance or two if that improves the article.Tmol42 (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The links only provide information about detached parts of counties, and parishes divided between counties. A search found contradictory information: according to Discovering Past Landscapes they were "eliminated by the Divided Parishes Acts of 1876 to 1882", but Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales has an example of detached parts in Allendale and West Allen in the 1980s. Others still exist, including Wallingwells (resulting from boundary changes) and Warbstow - but the only verification I have found is on maps that show current boundaries. Peter James (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I expect that other cases exist, but, the fact that both the last two places you mentiuon are directely in Category:Exclaves suggests that this is now rare. Where there are still detachments, they are likely not to be far distant from the parent. Most such oddities have been tidied up long since. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

New Parish in Greater London area, the first since 1965[edit]

Wonder whether it is time to mention that the residents of the Queens Park area of Kensington and Chelsea have not only voted for the establishment of a Parish/Community Council, but the K&C Borough Council have now approved it? Looks like it will be up and running by 1 April 2014 at the latest.

Freedom1968 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's Westminster Council, which covers the southern part of Queens Park, not K&C. I stumbled across your comment while looking up something else about civil parishes & wondered why I, as a Queens Park resident, hadn't heard about this. Probably because I live in the northern part, which includes the park itself and the tube station, and is in Brent so not covered by the proposal. Which may have some relevance to the question under Parish Law Today above.

Chrisobeer (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this correction, you are indeed correct it is Westminster Council not Kensington & Chelsea. I would be surprised if this new Parish remain the only new one in London, but time will tell. Freedom1968 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. SSTflyer 10:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Civil parishes in EnglandCivil parish – Previous discussion at RfD (later revisted here) seems to establish that Civil parishes in England is the primary topic, on the basis that England is the only place where they still serve any administrative function. Alternatively, civil parish could be used as the dab page, but I see no advantage in the status quo where it exists only as a redirect to one or the other. PC78 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Civil parish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil parish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)