The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-08 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1831.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, FERRI:A Itr 7.
The Loin CITA NC E 1.1.01 t took his seat on the Wool4acl;
shortly after Five o'clock.

The E trl of RADNOR presented petitions praying
for Parliamentary Reform from Folkstone ; from a place in
Lancashire, and from Middlesex. The Noble Lord also
presented a petition from Melcombe Regis, for the repeal of
the Coal Duty. _ _

The Archloishop of CANTERBURY presented petitions
from Scarhorough, Warmford West, and several other
places against slavery.

Lord-KING gave notice of his intention this day fort-
night to move for a copy of a report respecting the Union
of Wicklow. The Archbishop of Dublin had represented
to the Council that it was worth 9001. per annum. He
(Lord King) had no doubt of being able to prove that it
was worth double dist amount. If he proved such
to be the case, he should more for an Adams to the
Crown for the dissolution of such unions, and gave notice
accordingly. The notice was fixed for that day fortnight,
and the Lords ordered to be summoned.
THE CHURCH.—COMMUTATION OF TITHES.

Lord KING said as he saw several Right Reverend
Prelates in their places, he would take that opportunity of
presenting seine petitions which had been intrusted to his
care, on the subject of tithes, which he should be unwilling
to do in their absence. The first petition was from Somer-
setshire, and was signed by several thousand persons con-
nected with agriculture. They complained of being
greatly aggrieved by the present system of tithes, to which
they attributed much of the distress that now prevailed in
several parts of the country, particularly in the agricultural
districts. They stated that in its original imposition tithe
was divided into three portions—one for the maintenance
of the clergy, the other for the repairs of the Church,
and the third for the relief of the poor ; but at present the
Last two charges fell wholly on the people, , while the
whole of the tithe was absorbed by the clergy. They
stated also, that in the manner tithe was now collected,
it was a bar to the improvement of land. In these
opinions he wholly concurred. Ile knew it was
said that tithe was property; so it was; but it was
very different in its nature from individual property.
It was for the most part now the property of the
Church, and the Church was the creature of the State,
and its temporal concerns, it, pay, and emoluments, might
be regulated in any manner which the State might think
proper to direct. In the last conversation which took
place in the House on the subject, it was stated to their
Lordships that tithe was property, but it was omitted from
that statement that it was public property, and might be
dealt with as the State should think fir. But lie must con-
tend with those who held that it was property, that it was
a property consisting only of the spontaneous production
of the soil. There should not be taken into it the valve
of the outlay in buildings and other improvements made
on the ground by those who held it. As it was now col-
lected, it was a tax on the gross produce of the soil, on the
capital, industry, and enterprise embarked in the cultiva-
of land, and that in this respect it was a bar to that appli-
cation of capital—to that more extensive employment of
the labouring poor, and the consequent improvement of
landed property—which would otherwise take place. In
these respects it was most injurious to the country, being
a severe and unjust tax on the gross produce of the soil;
and it called loudly, sot for composition, but commutation.
A time was, when the country would have been satisfied
with a innderate composition, but that time had gone by,
and nothing would satisfy the country hut commutation,
by some fixed measure of the valuation of land, and Right
ltev. Prelates might rely upon it that they would find this
to he the case. He would now move that this petition
from tire owners and occupiers of land in the county of
Somerset he laid on their Lordships' table.
The petition was then brought up and read. It prayed
their Lordships to take the subject of tithe into their se-
rious consideration, and devise some means of equitable
commutation, by which (as we understood) much distress,
and, possibly, convulsion and bloodshed, might be prevented.
The Bishop of LINCOLN next addressed the House,
but from the distance of his position, and the low tone in
which he spoke, he was very imperfectly heard at the bar.
We understood the Right Rev. Prelate to say that the
Noble Lord would find it extremely difficult to prove his
position that tithes were public property. It should be
recollected that every large portion of the Church property
was the donation of many pious individuals from time to
time for the purpose of promoting divine worship and
having resident Clergy in the several parishes in the
country. In that view he was at a loss to know how the
Noble Lord could prove that this was public property. It
their Lordships would consider the nature of property, they
would see that the property of the Church belonged to it
in most respects, as much as t?ie property of individuals
could belong to them, unless, indeed, they should take
that definition of property which was maintained by
some writers at the French revolution, that all property
was belonging to the public, and that the landed proptietor
was only a steward of the public, holding it for distribu-
tion amongst them. He would ask the Noble Lord whether
lie found that property subject to tithe was worse culti-
vated than that which was tithe free?.—(" Hear, hear,"
from Lord King.) He believed it would be found that it
was not. He had sought information on this subject from
some clergymen in his diocese, and he found that in many
cases the tithe taken by the clergyman was from twenty to
thirty per cent. below its actual value. In some parishes
where tithes were collected, the poor rates were lower
than the others which were tithe-free. He begged to be
understood as not saying this with the view of deprecating
a commutation of tithes ; so far from it, that be was quite
favourable to commutation if established on fair and eqni-
table principles.--(Hear, hear.) His object in rising was
not to oppose the principle of such commutation, but to
state to the Noble Lord the great difficulty he would find
is proving that tithe was public property.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS said, as he had been
informed of this petition, he had made inquiries on the
subject, and had found that there was nothing peculiar in
the situation of the petitioners, as it was affected by tithe,
which would warrant the presentation of such a petition.
Having stated this, he would not go farther into the subject
at present, but would be prepared to meet the Noble Lord
on the general question whenever he should bring it regu-
larly before the House. On the subject of commutation of
tithe, be would observe, that in a conversation which he
held not long back in that House with the Noble Lord, he
stated to him, that no one was more desirous of the esta-
blishment of such a principle than he was, and he was sure
it would lie found generally to receive the approbation of
the Clergy. In the first living lie ever held, he entered
into a commutation with his parishioners on the principle
(as we understood the Right Rev. Prelate) of corn rent ;
and he did so with great benefit to himself, and with ad-
mitted advantage and satisfaction to his parishioners.
Lord KING was glad to hear from the two Right Rev.
Prelates who had just addressed the House, that they were
favourable to the principle of commutation, and did not
limit themselves to composition. Formerly many Right
Rev. Prelates were favourable to composition, as was seen
in the Bill introduced by a Right Rev. Prelate, which went
to allow the clergy to lease out their tithes for 21 years.
That, however, would not do at present. Nothing would
satisfy the country but commutation for something that
was not tithe, and to be measured by a corn rent. He
owned he was glad to hear this, because he hailed it as an
approach to a better system. The Right Rev. Prelate (of
Bath and Wells) bad said that there was nothing peculiar
in the condition of the petitioners with respect to tithes.
He (Lord King) had riot said there was. He believed
there was not, as the people were as badly off every
where else. The Right Reverend Prelate (of Lincoln)
had stated, that he (Lord King) would find great difficulty
in showing that tithes were public property, as much
of what was now belenging to the church had originated
in the grants of private individuals. True, it had; but it
was no less true, that a large portion of this kind of pro-
perty had got into the hands of the Crown and the Church,
and this he looked upon as public property. Ile admit-
ted that a considerable share of it was still in the pa-
tronage of private individuals ; and this he was willing to
admit stood upon somewhat different grounds. But the
Right Reverend Prelate said, that much of it was left by
pious persons, to promote public worship, and to secure
the benefit of resident clergy in the several parishes. It
so, he would beg to ask the Right Rev. Prelate and their
Lordships, how had this pious purpose been answered ?
Were there resident clergy in the several parishes? On
the contrary, was it net too well known that many of
these livings were allowed to accumulate in gross pluralities

in possession of one clergymen, to the great disgrace of
the church ? 9,T it not a fact that out of 10,500 pa-
rishes, there were not more, if so many, as 6,040 resident
clergy ? Was this answering the pious purposes of those
who left this kind of property ? Let their Lordships look
to Scotland, and see whether any such evil was allowed to
exist,—and he put this as an argument ad verecundiam to
the Right Rev. Prelates,—did not they manage the care
of their parishes, as to religious instruction by resident
clergy, without the costly apparatus of a hierarchy? The
Right Rev. Prelate had contended that this was like other
property of individuals, and could not he considered as dis--
posable by the public; and he asked was it cot useful that
it should be so considered: but he (Lord King) asked, in
turn, was it not useful that this should be a tax on.the
gross produce of the soil, and on the capital, industry, and
enterprise of the person by whom it was cultivated ? The
operation of this tax-was so injurious to the general in-
terests of the community, that be contended the State
would be perfectly justified in altering it from its present
character, and giving remuneration to the clergy in any
other shape. As to the opinions of any writers of the
French revolution on the nature of property, he had no-
thing to do with them. He had not made any allusion to
them, and no man in his senses wonld attempt to illustrate
the view he (Lord King) took of the subject by any such
allusion. They hid no bearing whatever on the subject
be fore their Lordships. •
The Bishop of LINCOLN wished not to be misun-
derstood in what he stated with respect to commutation.
He repeated that he was favourable to the principle of
commutation, but it was commutation for land instead
of tithes.

The Bishop of LONDON said that he would trouble
their Lordships with only one or two remarks on what had
fallen from the Noble Lord on the subject of non-resi-
dents. The Noble Loud had said, that the evil of non-
residents was unknown in Scotland, which was without
what be was• pleased to call the apparatus of a costly
Hierarchy. Ile (the Bishop of London) must observe,
that the evil of non-residence was owing to the system of
lay-impropriation : but for that, it would have been cured
long since. The Noble Lord might recollect that when a
measure was introduced on this subject some time ago, and
an attempt was made to enforce residence more strictly,
the lay-impropriators--noblemen and commoners--
throughout the country, in whose hands so large a por-
tion of church patronage existed, took the. alarm. The
strict enforcement of residence would lessen the value of
that which was considered saleable property ; and by their
means the measure was, in a great degree, defeated. Let
not the Noble Lord, then, attribute this evil to the
Hierarchy, who did all in their power to remove it, but to
the extensive system of lay-patronage in the Church.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA said, that he fully agreed
with the Right Reverend Prelate who had just addressed
the House, that to the great extent of lay impropriation
and lay patronage was to be attributed the evil which all
must lament, that so many of the clergy were non-resi-
dents on their livings, and not to any neglect in the
hierarchy, on whom the Noble Baron was so ready to
throw blame. He (Lord Winchilsea) was the owner of a
considerable portion of church property, and he would
must readily give his support to any measure which would
compel him and others similarly circumstanced to give up
for a reasonable equivalent that property which he. thought
ought not to belong to them—(Hear, hear)—for in the
possession of that kind of property he felt that be had
that which he ought not to hold.—(Hear.)
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that he did
not:rise to prolong this conversation by entering into the
subject to which it referred. fie rose rather for the pur-
pose of giving notice of his intention to bring forward in
a short time a measure for more effectually enforcing the
residence of the clergy on their livings, similar to that
which (as we understood) had been introduced in another
place. He was the less disposed to enter upon the sub-
ject of tithes at present, because he thought it <xtremely
inconvenient that a question of such importance should he
brought forward for partial discussion, attended with no
practical result, on the presentation of petitions. The
practice would be the more inconvenient, as, from the
known opinions of the Noble Lord on this subject, it was
probable that most of the petitions which might be agreed
to on this subject would be placed in his hands. If, in-
stead of those partial discussions the Noble Lord should
bring forward any general or specific measure on the sub-
ject, he should be prepared to enter fully into its consi-
deration and discussion with him.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Lord KING, in presenting two other petitions on the
same subject, from parishes in the county of Somerset,
said that he would take that opportunity of stating, that
though it might be very inconvenient to the Right Rev.
Prelates to have this subject brought frequently before the
House, they must prepare themselves for that inconve-
nience, for, from the number of petitions on the same
subject which he understood were on their way to him
from different parts of the country, he should have very
frequently to call the attention of the House to it. In_
deed, the Right Rev. Prelates must now expect to hear it
brought forward de die in diem.—(hear, hear.)—The
Right Rev. Prelate who had addressed the House the last
but one kad thrown the whole blame of the evil of non-
residence on the lay proprietors of church patronage. He
(Lord King) owned that he was surprised at this, for he
had always considered that they were looked to from that
quarter as the great props and bulwarks of the Church,
under whose wing its members would look for shelter and
protection from any blame which might be cast on them.
The Right It,v. Prelate who had talked of the right of
property in the church as an abstract right, should reeol_
lect the circumstances under which that property was ac-
quired. He (Lord King) did not deny that it was pro-
perty :but he contended that it was public property, over
which the State had controul. In what way was it claimed
'by the church ? Surely not as the heirs of the Catholic
church, to which it had once belonged ? They got it by the
law of the reformation, which gave them a part of what
was before that considered the property of the church,_
which disposed in other ways of the remainder. The
same law might have given it all, or only a small part, or
none at all. The church got at that time what the State
thought fit to grant, and unless the Right Rev. Prelates
would revive the antiquated doctrine that the church was
greater than the State, they must come to the conclusion
to which be did—.that it was the creature of that State,
and that it held its property by a law of that State, which
law the same authority might revoke or modify in such
manner as the circumstances of the country might require
The Right Rev. Prelate had stated, that a law for en-
forcing more strictly the rule of residence of clergy on
their livings had been defeated by laymen in possession of
church patronage. He, however, would inform the Right
Rev. Prelate that times were now changed. Leta similar
measure be now introduced, and he was certain that it
would be more successful. For his own part, be would
give such a measure his cordial support, and he was sure
it would meet with that of a majority of their Lordships.
The petitions were then read, awl ordered to lie on the
table.

Lord KING again intimated that he should have many
similar petitions to present to their Lordships.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Dundee,
praying for Parliamentary Reform. The petition, his
Lordship observed, was signed by 6,014 persons out of a
population of 14,000. He concurred with them in prin-
ciple; for he thought the time was now arrived when the
gross abuses in the representation of the people should be
remedied. He had stated before the recess that the people
of Scotland were in favour of Reform, and he might ap-
peal to this petition as one proof of that fact. A contrary
opinion be knew had been given, and the petitioners al-
luded to it by stating that they had heard with surprise
and indignation that such an assertion had been made;
and that if they had been hitherto silent on the subject, it
was from the utter hopelessness of obtaining redress by pe-
They added, that the people were now every
where becoming daily more and more in favour of Reform.
petitionersr‘r left the kind of Reform to be made to the
SA'ti,thihii:eed De. o
m of Parliament; but they ventured to suggest the
policy of introducing the vote by ballot.
The petition was then brought up and read ; as were
three similar petitions presented by the Noble Lord from
other parts of Scotland.
Lord DURHAM presented a similar petition from a
parish the name of which did not reach us.
The NOBLE LORD also presented petitions from places
in the county of Bedford, for the abolition of slavery.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a
place in Sussex, complaining of distress, and praying for
a repeal of the Malt Tax, the commutation of tithes, and
Reform of Parliament.

The marquis of LONDONDERRY presented petitions

from Gainsborough and Saltash for a repeal of the duty on
sea-borne coal.

SCOTCH LANDLORDS AND TENAMTS.

As the House was about to rise,

Lord BROUGHAM said he was anxious to call the at-
tention of their Lordships to a Bill which he had felt
his duty to introduce, under circumstances which he would
briefly state. It appeared that the law in Scotland ren-
dered the purchase of corn, for instance, from a tenant of
land in Scotland liable m that amount for any arrears
which the tenant might owe his landlord at the time for
rent. Such a law as this might, if in operation in this
country, starve all London in a fortnight; for surely no
person would go to Mark-lane to purchase corn, if he had
first to inspect the roll of the vender's landlord, to see if
his rent was paid. To meet such an inconvenient state of
the law, he had introduced a Bill which he allowed to lie
over for a time to give the parties interested an opportu-
nity of considering it ; but much to his surprise he
found that the landed interest in Scotland were all
aroused by the proposed measure,_and from all quarters in
that country he had communications on the subject.
It seemed to be the opinion of the majority that they
would consent to have the law altered, provided the pur-
chaser first applied to the landlord of the tenant, being the 1
vender, to ascertain whether he was in arrear for rent.—
Now, this their Lordships would agree with him iu think-
ing would be rather a tedious mode of making a purchase
of such an article as corn. A man, for instance, requiring
a quantity of that article, and going to the Tuesday's
market, would first fix upon the lot that would suit him,
and then would have to wait until he wrote to the Duke
of Wellington, or Lord Grey, or any other nobleman
who might be the landlord, to ascertain how far the tenant
was in arrear for rent; till which information arrived the
bargain should stand over. This was a state of law to
which he would not give his sanction, and therefore he
now stated that instead of so modifying the Bill, he would
withdraw it altogether, and let the landlord and tenant
settle the matter between them as they could ; and when
they should have agreed upon some plan which would get
rid of the inconvenience of the present state of the law,
he should be ready to lend his aid in carrying that measure
through the House. As be had received a great variety
of communications on the subject, and could not find time
to answer them separately, he took the present compen-
dious mode of making the several parties acquainted with
his intention.
The House then adjourned at Six o'clock.