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

and to say that he considered the additional chafge of 15s.
'ln acre on land employed in the growth of hops a reasonable
proposition. Withoet sOine such payment he did net think
that anything- like fair competition could be Maintained among
the hop-growers.
Mr. G 0 ULB URN fully concurred with the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman the solicitor-General that there we.
almost iettrThinable difficulties in the w
."; es effecting atw sA-
tigactory arrangement of nestion, "44ezath.a
of
•ewiltial 6'lo the canitu-
those difficulties 'was he felt lit;
Rtioil EnOtild he 1-01qglaSY. "h'e lon. Member ler Ches-
ter had rAtta t'at several 'Omissions in thiS Bill, end enume-
tatati the tithes which he 'co'n'ceived e‘..'.glit to be got rid of.
The great adventag? 'of vel'antary commutation was that by
means qf it All tlWte intricate questions could be 046iy
.testieci,
alth,ww-t they could not be arranged by e‘..lY Compulsory sys-
tem which they might adepts, -The Noble Lord, however,
said that he meant ice adapt the voluntary system. WhAt, did
the Noble 1)04 t'ncan to tell the House 'that Ally experiment
meld be tried in the short space et''.',ll months from the passing
a the Bill, or that h) sill- Months any experiment could be fairly
tried on such thbject ? Now, what could poastlily be known of
a metsetlite six months after it ,luel 14,1 Med ? Or, even suppo-
bit)); that every previsin of the Noble Lord's Bill were
known, was it not likely that no 'commutations would be effec-
ted until the compulsory part of it was brought to an issue ?
With respect to the additional duty proposed to be laid on
lands employed for the cultivation of hops, all he need say was
to express his concurrence in what had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Kent. It was no more than just that those who
expended large capitals in the production of hops should be
adequately protected. If the Noble Lord had said that no
additional tithe should be Imposed on lands brought into hop
cultivation what effect would that have had ? Why, it would
have enabled the land paying the limited tithe, by converting
it to the growth of hops, to be brought into unfair competi-
tion with the land paying the larger tithe in which a large ea-
piral had been invested for the purpose of raising from it this
particular produce.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to kith that
the Noble Lord had not contemplated) when tho subject was
under his consideration, the east br d rector and a vicar
receiving tithes from e partiettlar parish. There was a com-
plete omission tI9 to this case in the Noble Lord's Bill.
No arrangement had been made as to the rights of the rector
and vicar hereafter, although the Noble Lord ought to
have known that it had frequently happened that the tithe
of cne particular produce in a parish belonged to the rector
and of another to the vicar. The tithe of hops, for in.
stance, belonged to the vicar and of corn to the rector,
and therefore it was that he should like to know whether it
was the intention of the Noble Lord that the land should pay
the Rector's charge as an additional tax ? He cited this as
one of many things which did not seem to have entered into
the Noble Lord's contemplation when he framed this Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) He did not know exactly from the Bill how it
was intended to commute the tithe in each parish. That, how-
ever, was an important question, and he should like to know
whether the same commutation would apply to all the lands in
a parish, or tmly to a part, according to the proportionate va-
lue of the tithes. These, however, and other omissions, he
wasted the Noble Lord would be able to supply before the
Bill got into Committee. With respect to the principle of
the measure, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to
the second reading. His belief was, that by far the wisest
course would be to give a fair trial to voluntary commutation.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that the Bill involved two
principles —one relating to the commutation of tithes, and the
other to appropriation. So far as the commutation of tithes
was concerned there was but one feeling, either in that House
or in the country. There could be no doubt that it was most
important to have tithes commuted into a money payment. The
question respecting the proposed appropriation was, however,
a much more important one, and on that subject there was no
unanimity to be found anywhere so perfect as in that House.—
(Cries of " Oh, oh I") There was there what he might call
a marvellous unanimity existing, because, in point of fact, the
question of appropriation involved what he considered a most
unjustifiable concession to the landed interest of the country.
(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Hear, bear.") Tithes in their
present form certainly should be changed. That was palpable,
as would be proved by the fact that the value of land which
was tithe-free was much greater than that of land which was
not,'although the land might be as good in the one case as the
other. Now he should like to know in what way the tenantry,
the occupier' of the land, the yeomen of England, were to
be benefitted by the proposed measure ?—(llear.) To be
sure they were told that the interests of these parties and the
landlord were identical—that they represented only one per-
son ; but while they gave the landlord an advantage in some
instances of 40 per cent., and in others 25 per cent., he was
wholly at a loss to conceive what the benefit was that they in-
tended to confer on the tenant by the arrangement. What
advantage, he asked, did the occupying tenant derive under
this Bill ? If the tithe was taken away, would not the land-
lord be free to let his ground for the full value? Where was
the benefit then to the occupying tenant ? They had a right
to deal with tithes as public property, and for the benefit of
the public at large.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") If,
in the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland, they had
felt it necessary to have an appropriation of some part
of the Church revenues for the instruction and moral be-
nefit of the people, why should they not do the same in Eng-
land ? He had no hesitation to declare his conviction that this
measure would be a most unpopular measure, and would be re-
ceived with anything but satisfaction by the country. With
respect to that part of the Bill which deducted from twenty-
five to forty per cent. from the Clergyman, he certainly did
not approve of taking such a sum from the clergyman. The
ground alleged was, that the clergyman under the proposed
plan would be saved the expenses of collection, and have addi-
tional security. The expense of collection bore no just pro-
portion to this reduction. Why, he would venture to state
that throughout the entire county of Essex the tithe was in no
instance taken in kind, but was paid to the clergyman in
money. The clergyman either had the tithe.collected in money
from the tithe-payer, or had the large tenant to collect it for
him. He ventured to say that he did not think that the ex-
pense of collection could much exceed five per cent., and he
certainly thought that it was most unfair to subjectthe clergyman
to such an injury as to make so large a deduction from his in-
come. He certainly did not want to manifest any extraordi-
nary affectation of sympathy for the clergy. He certainly had
no hesitation to say that for the clergy he entertained respect,
and he thought that to a certain extent their rights should be
respected. However, with the same frankness, he would
avow that he sincerely hoped that the time would come when
they would have no Church at all.—(lronical cheering from
the Opposition.) He repeated that in the measure before the
House there was a perfect sacrifice of public principles to per-
sonal interests. He was of opinion that this measure would
determine who were the friends of the people and who were
not. He intended that night to take the sense of the House
upon the objections which he felt bound to offer to this Bill.
He would ask, was it to be expected that the people would
consider as in any way beneficial to them a measure which
would go to put four millions a year into the hands of the
landlords of the country without the least regard to the ad-
vantage of the great bulk of the people, to whom a portion of
those tithes were originally devoted ? Whatever there was
venerable in the character of tithes was associated with their
antiquity. It was only in their antiquity that their true his-
tory and the nature and objects of their original institution was
to be found. Those tithes had been diverted from their ori-
ginal purposes, and a large portion of them became the prey
of the usurpations of lay impropriators.—( Hear, hear )
Mr. C. FE RG US SON must say that in the observations
which the Hon. Member had thought fit to offer on the mea-
sure before the House, a more uncandid statement of the prin-
ciple of any Bill had never been put forward. The Hon.
Member had said that this was a measure for the exclusive
advantage of the landlords. It was quite clear, however, that
the Hon. Gentleman had studied the measure with very little
attention, and certainly not with his usual ability. There was
no such thing in the Bill as valuation in the first.instance.
The valuation was to be determined by the valuation for 'the
previous seven years. One of the principles of the Bill was
that if any individual felt that he was overcharged, or that he
was called on to pay more than he considered the value of
his tithes, in such case any person so circumstanced would
have the right to apply to the, Commissioners for a new valua-
tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to contend that
this part of the measure was perfectly free from objections,
and was so framed as to be condecive to the mutual
icterests both of the titheowner and flit tithepayer.
He explained the machinery of this portion of the mea-
sure, and endeavoured to maintain that the principle on which
it was founded was one not only perfectly free from objections,
but entitled.to the fullest approval both of the House and of
the country. The Hon. Member for Southwark had inveighed
against the measure as one in which the interests of the landlords
were alone consulted, and at the same time he asked what be-

nefit did the occupying tenant, the tithe-payer, 'derive from
this measure ? But, he would ask, in reply, did not the tenant
derive more advantage than the landlord ? What did the
landlord gain? The tenant would be called on merely to pay
the amount of his rent charge ; the benefit of the reductions
would go entirely into the pockets of the tenant, and the land-
lord would not derive the advantage of a single farthing during
the term of the existing tenant's lease.—( Hear, hear.) Let
them consider the increased responsibility which the landlord
undertook. Let them consider the situation in which this
Bill would place him. The landlord would, under the one-
rat;on of this Bill, stand in the situation of a person liable
to be distrained for the payment of the tithes. The tenant
would no longer be liable to be applied to for the payment
of this charge, and the Clergyman would have the great
advantage of the security afforded him by the liability of
the landlord. There was this additional. consideration, that
the landlord was likely to lose in the payment of the
tithes, for he was bound to pay the full amount of whatever
demand the Clergyman became entitled to, and he might
not perhaps be able to collect that amount from the tenant.
With respect to the deductions of 25 or 40 per cent., he con-
sidered that, as the clergyman would have increased security,
and would receive his money without trouble or expense, it
was but reasonable that some deductions should be made. He
believed that would be admitted on all hands. Wherever the
valuation was not considered to be fair, the Commissioners
would have a right to make a new valuation, and the amount

of the reduction would vary from 25 to 40 cent., in pro-
portion to the difficulty that might be found in collecting the
arrears. He considered that the Bill would be satisfactory to
all parties, and have a fair and just regard for the preserva-
tion, upon a fair basis, of all the various interests con-
cerned. There was one point, however, which had not
been mentioned—namely, that there was to be a personal
agreement, as well as a periodical agreement, as to the
amount of commutation. The Bill enacted, that if any per-
son found fault with his valuation, and thought that he was
overcharged, he would have a right to appeal.—(Hear,
hear.) The great object of the framers of the Bill was, to
do injustice to no one. The measure, in his opinion, was
fair and honest towards all parties concerned, and was by far
the best and fairest measure ever proposed for the commuta-
tion of tithes,—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It