The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-23 00:00:00

TITHES COMMUTATION BILL,

On this Bill being announced for reading the second time,
Sir E. KNATCHBULL begged leave to impress on the
Noble Lord who brought it forward that it would be very de-
sirable that the House should be afforded further time to consi-
der its provisions. The details had only been circulated on
Wednesday, and had not been laid before the public in an
analytic form till Friday.
Sir R. INGLIS and Mr. ROBINSON said a few words
in support of the propriety of giving further time to the
country to consider the consequences of adopting this Bilk
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not wish to press the Bill
through the House with any injurious haste—his object at pre-
sent only was to carry it through the stage of a second reading
pro forma. However, it had already been before them for 14
days, up to to-morrow, from the time it had been first pre-
sented to the House ; so that considerable time had occurred
in the ordinary course of delay. The present state of the Bill
presented a mere outline, embodying little more than the
principle ; and everything which might be desirable to propose
in detail could, he hoped, be arranged by Hon. Members in
the interim. He had no objection to name a further day than
was at present before the House, if the second reading was not
unnecessarily delayed. The Irish Corporation Bill would
soon occupy their attention to a considerable eaten!, and it
would be very desirable to complete this first, if possible.
Sir R. INGLIS contended that even to advance so far, the
Bill ought to be in the hands of all the members of the House
which it was not yet.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it was his wish that the
House on going into the Bill should have a perfect knowledge
of its tendency; and at the day appointed be would willingly

nn the mo-.

-13aronet

postpone all discussion for 10 or 14 days more,
tion, that the speaker do leave the Chair, the Holt/ .-
cletliared that further time was nece.
After a fert. words from Mr. FLumerssaaryg, Mr. SA:vs-oat,' ?lid
Sir R. INous, •
Mr. BEN ETT said That the subject had, in fact, been be•-•
fore the country for the last i:velve months. It had been ver,o
fully discussed and explained to the rmuntry,
interested in the measure, and yet he had heard of no opposl"
tion to the principle. He had had a communication With a
clergyman, who declared that he thought it very favourable to
which was deee
the cle(gy—(01), oh)—more
vierfavourabe than they could ef:
pect,—( Laughter.) He thought it a y material point Out'
the second reading should not be delayed.
Colonel TLI OMPS ON thought it would be for the advall"
tlgtrof both the mercantile and agricultural intrrests, if tra
commutltlon were to be divided: one half as a corn rate,
the other haii as a money rate.
Mr. PARROT decidedly favourable to the princ;,^lefer
the 13111; but should gi:e notice, that in the Committee °
would move that 10 per cent. of the 25 per cent. reduction
composition should go to the tithe Fqyer.
Mr. PEMBERTON said that it wag an important questioo
to consider whether a composition should be voluntary or corn;
polsory, or both, as the Noble Lord had it ht present provide°
in the Bill. • In this state of things he thought it would 13e
better to postpone the second reading.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thougV
it better for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, as he was fa"
voui-ahle to the principle of the Bill, to wait for a discuss°
of the &Jails in the Committee, which would be the Prop.!:
occasion for L,:•nsidering them. The object of reading 0
Bill a second time now was to have seine amendments 108°_
in it, and have it re-printed and eirculat,Ni throughout On
country. eras the
Sir T. FREMANTLE had no wish whatever' to " f
progress of the Bill, to the piiunciple of which he dma;
vourable ; but he thought there ought to be a loncer
given to Members for communicating with their const.;lle7
on the subject, and then appoint a day for the general (115.
• ,cussion.
G OUL BURN wished to know if it was merely in'
tended to read this Bill a second time pro forma, preparatorl
to going into committee ?
Sir M. \V. RIDLE Y had received that morning a let t°
on the subject of this Bill from a very-intelligent Gentletnel:
in the country. The language in which the Bill ot
described was certainly not very complimentary to the /gob!:
Lord, for the letter stated the Bill !o be in its present stal
totolly unintelligible, and hi no degree creditable to the ft-oel,
of it.—( A laugh.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was desirous that the Bill gold
be read a second time, and that the House si;quid g?
Committee on it pro forma. He was not at all sore* as
fettertP
language in which the Bill had been described in the ig
that had been read by the Hon. Member for Newcastle, 0
was no easy matter to be perfect in the drawing of every 605
of a Bill like this, and he did not pretend to be so.
Sir R. INGLIS shoulknot object now to the second read'
fog pro forma, but he begged distinctly to be understood age
not wishing to be included in the observation made by th)
Hon. and Learned Gentleman near him (Mr. Fembert°,l%
when he said that all on that side of the House were agroee

the principle of the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that any Hon. Member rnightt
with perfect convenience, discuss4the Bill in Committee, slit
he did not see why the Hon. Member for Oxford could, of
bring forward those venerable argumeats which, no doubt,
had in store in the Committee, as well as at any other theej
At the same time he must say that in agreeing to the vele
reading it was understood that the House affirmed the princiP
of the Bill.
The SPEAKER having read the Order of the lig for
the second reading of the Rill
Mr. GREENE rose to address the House. We undel;
stood him to object to any provision in the Bill that wee
allow of any individual landowner of d parish entering intf..A
composition for his own tithes alone, without being
in the general composition of the majority 01 the pari
indu
ct-
sh. It
Mr. LENNARD doubted whether the averanv of sole
years would be a fair or satisfactory one, because the a e rtit)
prices of produce during the last seven years were higher
the average of the last twenty years. This would operate ri
fairly to the landed interest. Things would ultimately ofPu
their level, but he believed the present rate of tithe was out ti
proportion to the increase in the price of produce. It well' f'
be unfair to take a rate of tithe much higher than the rate
price. There was a very injurious practice prevailed of agree;
ing to a higher rate of rent than was actually paid. It w
on the rent actually paid that the tithe ought to be charger;
The The Commissioners should take care to ascertain what wef-
.
02e actual terms of agreement between landlord and tense
There was a point in the Bill which he could not clearly urn
derstand. In one place 60 per cent. was taken, and 70 Id
another. It would be better to ascertain what was the relic
amount of composition. This Bill had been called tit,
Clergymen's Bill, from being supposed highly favourable
them. There was certainly one provision in it somewhat e);
traordinary. If the Rector permitted his tithes to rereela
unpaid for two successive years, be might come for the sece'd,
year's tithe on the produce of the land. The utmost the w
ble
lord could do was to recover one year's rent. Thus ion
Clergyman had a great advantage over the landlord.
merelysthrew out these suggestions with a view to the iroprwls
ment of the Bill before it came into Committee. The detsla
ought to be closely. watched, and abundant time should
allowed for considering the measure. ,
Mr. BENETT also should call this the Clergymen
but it did no more than justice to them. It was a just Ps 1
His Hon. Friend said he observed a variety in the valuatiou•
He should recollect that here the valuation was taken on tbd
gross, j& per cent. being allowed for the risk of collection ar;
of seasons. On the whole, 25 per cent. was a fair aTc'LTd-
of deduction. After this being made, the clergyrnee -was
be much better off than he was before. Certainly there bet
at present a variation ,?f 15 per cent. on the composition; ,0
perthe eßeirlilt.p,roitviwdeeduldtlbraefrawitse7 the composition was under F. 4
per cent., it would be brought down ; 15 per cent.
allowed as the expense of coDeCtion, and this certainly
not too much. He was satisfied sv
to that—where it wasvroaysetrowirs:
frt., thehe Bill.
in its details proceeded originally
net (Sir R. Peel); but this Bill wag an improvement eFfor
his, by the introduction of the compulsory clause. It ires_..at
the benefit of the country at large, and not solely on accuro
of the landowners, that he advocated this msqlLsure. It would
re
ight
bring a great deal of land into cultivation. if a man The
Hltocne.ll%.
now to lay out 201. on the improvement of wnsi,e hied set
would have to pay 51. to the titheowner, before he dek-ir.e
spe-
profit from it. The Bill provided a remedy against th:.9.;106
cies of discouragement, and it would have the effect of inch'
men to lay out money in the improvement of land. • 10
Mr. PEMBERTON said, the only point in the princlPo
of the Bill with respect to which there could be any differeter
of opinion was as to the measure being compulsory or to
tary. They ought to he certain that the Bill was likeeqthe
effect the object proposed—that was, the commutation of tithe
for a permanent rent-chrrge. He hoped the result cf the
measure would be to convert, within a reasonable time, fah
tithe into a permanent rent-charge by commutation. Se of
however, was the Bill from presenting any certainty„.o
attaining that object thaf it would remain as a problernutl'ir
after five, or ten times five, years as it was at resent. Dl-
there was to be compulsion at all, it ought to be the Ce.,olllPbte
sion of the Legislature. He thought he could show the -17,cta
Lord (J. Russell) that the Bill would not effect the obi
he proposed. It provided three several modes of doing t"1
The first was a voluntary agreement between the pays 0(
tithe and the receivers of them ; the second was by Inakithe
the agreement compulsory when a certain proportion of
the
tithe payers and tithe receivers consented; the third west.,ber
interposition of the Commissioners, in cases where the A
payer and the tithe receiver could not agree. The law &see,
now stood, enabled the tithe payer and tithe receiver to egr,e..
It seemed an absolute commutation. This Bill went to Phe
vent permanence of agreement. Was it probable that•
holders of partial interests would entail a burthen on the.";‘,
selves for the sake of their successors ? With respectder,
the second mode, he was afraid he did not accurately oil es
stand it. It'provided that when throe-fourths of the landoicill
be
and of the tithe receivers agreed, that agreement shouleitha
binding. When there was difference irt amount, betweci.,,Oic r,
receivers, for instance, between the Rector and the Wear,
where the Rector had three-fourths, was he 10 bind the leen
having only one-fourth ? The Bill made a dist;nction bet did
those interested in land and those interested in tithe. II
they
not understand on what principle this proceeded, when Ised
were making arrangements to have a certain proportion of 00,
pay its own proportion of tithes. He did not, however, etbe
on g
sider this very important. The Noble Lord said he hoped er
o l
time was not far distant when tithe in kind would n
exist. The Bill certainly provided that the Comm „e.
e,
might interfere when parties could not be brought to agrbo
Upon considering who tithe payers and tithe owners were, `,,t,
Noble Lord must see how fallacious this clause would turn ernf
and how little likely his hopes were to be realised. 316,1);
cases would arise, in which, from age, from infirmity, fr°,lll, -ot
sense, the tithe receiver will not be able, or, if able, Whin-tor
be
willing, to undertake the necessary trouble. le_eiglit
cases the owner of the lay tithes might be a minor, he )4'l 0
be absent abroad, or he might be a lunatic. There. Ito
provision in the Bill that the committee of the lunatic "'se,,
act, but there was no provision as regarded other ea der
Lands in this country were, in a great proportion, held
lease. The owner of the land during the term of the Let,itl
had in fact no interest, and what inducement therefore c,eo-13,
he have to take upon himself the liability of tithes? „to
posing, however, that all these clauses could be carried ;00
operation, he (Mr. Pemberton) objected to those other CO or
which pointed out the mode in which the compulsory P
mont was to be effected. The great object of the measuiretbe
self was to establish harmony between the titheowner an; di'
tithepayer, yet the provision to which he referred tende" tf
rectly to interrupt that harmony, by allowing one Perijot
power of compelling the other to do that which he pa ° ; of
cdoismpopseeldlintgo
lie d o
dbanai
ptynd(
.icuidvitav
ootsemgboxrrvrc:
adverse;
neyeoeeepi
eedpomoedr tli norvvabieit
aduect.
Pemberton)
complain
fn,splo? commutation,tat
nhhhti
hyneethvol
tcsaefab hnstyoodhet
tuhosehsl
hewed:
eornnocl
leciutwlehrchldrhdeaegonsi
on the
hap;
I,irotob be
:055
fbot'iot.ihotstilf toe::
appeared
nitopaglbnteedui
allsetreelefrdcdat
clergyman)l tettohtrhgeet
tyihTelmileai
compulsory
of a provision, which made the compulsory power lie 01..100
the
law but in the individual must be to cause an interrurtue
of that harmony which it ,
was the professed object either
- framers of the, Bill to maintain. The principle was °eidoOr
wholly voluntary nor wholly compulsory, but opened the opt
to
eendless dissensions. All parties were agreed that there
b le
a commutation of tithes.—( Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—What were the 1833
eumstances under which the tithe question stood? In the
and 1834 two Bills were respectively brought befbr.eo of
House, having for their object the effecting a co
namutatio
tithe, but which, from causes foreign to the present discuss