Poor as a church mouse? Why Victorian clergy were hard-up

In one of our antique family letters, the Rev. William Jollyman writes in 1869 to congratulate his son James on the birth of a son. He adds:

With this increase of family you will find an increase of expence & responsibility. Of the first I wd gladly help to relieve you if I could, but you know it is not in my power to do so.

So, why was he so hard-up? Perhaps part of the answer can be found in Blessed with “a Good Living.” – from The Leisure Hour, published in 1884.

A country rector lately sent to the papers a statement of the charges to which clear income of £600 is liable, besides the unreckoned calls for charity and other demands on his purse:- “I am considered to be one of the more fortunate of the clergy, having been preferred to a ‘good’ living, and as such I am expected to be exceedingly liberal, to contribute to all local charities, and to give largely to the poor. But how seriously are my means reduced! My income arises from tithe rent-charge, glebe land, and fees, and amounts to just £600 a year, but taxes and a curate’s salary reduce it nearly to one-half. The taxes levied upon me (I take this year as an example) are as follows:-

The taxes are levied upon nearly the whole of my income, no deduction being allowed for my curate’s salary, although he is employed, not to assist me in my regular duties, but to attend to a part of the parish where a large population has sprung up, and where it was found necessary to erect an additional church. When I appealed to the local assessment committee they informed me that such a reduction would be illegal. – [It seems incredible that, while a tradesman or merchant is allowed to deduct the value of the “plant” necessary for his occupation, a clergyman has to pay upon outlay necessary for his duties. If the statement is correct we can understand the complaint of a venerable church dignitary who said, “I was richer as a curate than as a rector, and richer as rector than as a dean!]