The Sun.
London, England, 1824-03-26 00:00:00

With S

•
EXECUTION.--Henry Griffith, aged 26, for the
murder of JOHN JOrms, a fellow-sawyer, at Liverpool, was
executed at Lavicatiter, pursuant to his 'sentence, as given in
our Paper of Tuesday last. His body was given to the Sur-
geons foftlisseetion. - • .

Earl SOMERS presented a petition from Leominster, pray-
ing for the Abolition of Slavery- in the Went Indies. Petitions
to the same effect were presented by Lord ELLENWOROIJOH,
from Downton; in the County of Wilts, and by Earl FtTx-
WILLIAM, from places the names of which were not heard; by
the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Devonport, (late Plymouth-
dock,) Bridport, and Tunbridge.
IRISH TITHES. •
Lord CLIFDEN presented several petitions from different
parts of Ireland, against the Tithe Composition Act. Every
one of these petitions objected to the introduction of any com-
pulsory clause, if the re-enactment of such a measure should be
contemplated. He heartily concurred with the petitioners;
but, lest he should be charged with inconsistency for having
lastwas year moved
he had forabeen cod
etfneap
tuelds onrny
tchlaatu
es clause,"Notliing could
, mast say that he
be more unfair than the mode of striking the averages, The
Noble Lotd then recapitulated the substance of the several pe-
titions, one of which, from a parish in the county of Limerick,
complained that there was no resident curate, and that the parish
church was in a ruinous state ; another from lablerry; m the
county of Cork, complained that " the church was not only
ruinous,: but going to decay."
The Earl of KINGSTON presented a-petition against the
same bill, from Brigdoon, in the count of Cork, and another
from Ballyloch, also in the county of Cork. The Noble Earl
made some observations on the subject of this petition, frOm
which it appeared that it related to a dispute with the Rector of
the parish, Dr. Woodivard, respecting a composition for his
tithes. A vestry meeting had been called to consider of the
subject, at which the Doctor proposed that he should have
2,0001. a year for his tithes. The meeting objected to paying
more than the tithes of the parish were worth, the amount of
*bich was calculated at 1,4001. a year. The Rector had let his
tithes in 1809, for 1,6001. a year, and it was stated that he pro-
posed at the meeting to take the same sum ; but the Noble
Earl, who was himself present all the time, declared that he
never heard such an offer made. The disagreement respecting
the composition terminated in the Rector intimating that he
would recover his tithes by course of law. The meeting had
therefore to expect, that a man called " The cruel Delany,"
the most rapacious tithe-proctor in Ireland, would be employed
in the collection.
The Bishop of LIMERICK observed, that the petition was
erroneous in several of its statements. He did not mean to say
that the Noble Lord who brought it forward had been guilty of
the least mis-statement as to what came under his own observa-
tion, but, from his personal knowledge of Dr. Woodward, who
contradicted the statements, he was confident there must be
some mistake. The statement respecting the year 1803 being
referred to for the value of the tithes, was wrong. The Rector
had said, that if that settlement were proposed to him for the
benefit of the parish, he would accede. It had been agreed
that three farmers in each town-land should assess the tithes.— ;
These farmers were to pay among them 1,0001. a year; and
the rest was to be raised in the usual mode of tithes ; but this
agreement was set aside in consequence of a failure on the part
of the farmers. In pursuance of the Act of Parliament, the
Hector applied to the parish for a composition, and asked
2,0001. a year, but he expressed his readiness to take 1,6001.
' If the Noble Earl said he did not hear him, it was certain he
did not ; but that was no contradiction of the fact. For his
own part, he must say that it sometimes happened that many
things were said in his presence which lie did not hear, and he
supposed that the Noble Lord was on this occasion in the same
situation. He had received a letter from Dr. Woodward on
the subject, which lie would read. [Here the Right Reve-
rend Prelate read a letter, which corroborated the statements
he had made.] Dr. Woodward was anxious to defend him-
self against a charge which had been brought against him in a
way which, he must say, was inconsistent with the spirit of the
British Constitution. It was sapping the law, of the country
in the very place whence those laws proceeded, since their first
principle was, that every man must be held innocent until he
was proved guilty. Ile would wish Noble Lords to take care,
that charges which they brought forward against persons who
could not defend themselves in that place, were well grounded.
The accusation in the present case was particularly unjust; for
a more pious, mild, and assiduous clergyman than Dr. Wood-
ward, was not to be found. His upright and gentle conduct
had secured him the affection of the poor ; and if the people of
his parish were called to give evidence respecting this Rector,
they would say that they never had a more worthy clergyman
among them ; they would, he was sure, express as strong an at-
tachment to him as to the gentry of the country. The ques-
tion of the composition would have been settled without diffi-
culty, if it had not been for persons who were interested in re-
sisting the arrangement, and who wished to throw the great
burden of the tithes on the poor, instead of placing it Oil the
shoulders of the landlords, where it ought to be laid,'

The Earl of KINGSTON hoped he should be permitted to
say a few words, in reply to what had fallen from the Right
Rev. Prelate. He was not surprised at the manner in which
the Right Rev. Prelate had taken up this subject, as he was
confident no Act had ever passed that House which the
clergy liked better than this Tithe Composition Act. It
had the effect of producing a great addition to the income
of the church, and that, indeed, not at the eapence of the
farmer, or all classes generally, but solely at that of the land-
lords. On them the whole burden fell. In consequence of
this Act, he had now to pay 168/. in tithes for his grounds.—
He had stated the circumstances which occurred at the vestry,
some of which the Right Rev. Prelate contradicted on the au-
thority of Dr. Woodward's letter. The Right Rev. Prelate
was pleased to suppose that he might not have heard the Doc-
tor's offer ; now he must say that he was not farther from that
Reverend Person than the breadth of their Lordships' table,
and he would declare on his honour that he never heard him
offer to,take 1,600/. As to the mode of collecting the tithes, it
was on record, and on this subject he would refer their Lord-
ships to proceedings which had taken place before the Castle-
byde magistrates.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN was perfectly
-unaware of

the circumstance which had become the subject of discussion,
e.td therefore was not competent to give an' opinion on' the
compensation which might be proper in this case ; but he was
induced to rise in consequence of the observation made by the
Right Reverend Prelate in the latter part of his speech ;
noticing which, he begged to say that the few words oT com-
ment he had to offer would be made with a sincere respect,
both for the station and the personal character of the Right
Reverend Prelate. It had been argued that the exertions of
the landed Proprietors to prevent the Commutation Act from
being carried into effect were made for the purpose of casting
the burden off their own shoulders, and placing it on the
poor. Now their Lordships would remember what had passed
on this subject last year. He had shown that dispute
of this kind would arise when that just influence to which
parties were entitled was exercised. If it was supposed that
this Act was intended to prevent persons from exercising
that just influence which the law and the constitution gave
them—and God forbid that he should defend any unlaw-
ful influence—then it would be one of the most monstrous
laws ever passed by a legislative assembly. He would ask their
Lordships whether they were not aware what the object of the
Act was ? Was it not to divide the burthen equally ? He was
one who felt it to be his duty to point out the intended compul-
sory measure as one of the greatest interferences with the tight
of property ever attempted. To call on persons who held pro-
perty tithe-free under the authority of an Act of Parliament—
an authority equal to that on which the claim of the Church
was founded, to part with their property, was, in his opinion,
most unreasonable, and so he had' at the time stated it to be.—
The answer given was, that the compulsion, as applied to those
persons exclusively, would be unjust, and therefore the means
of making effectual resistance was to be given them by a num-
ber of votes. On this ground, then, he was warranted in say-
ing, that these persons only exercised a right of 'Voting to which
they were legally entitled. Calls might be made on them for sacri-
fices, and he himself might be disposed to advise such sacrifices,
but they were to be made only at their own discretion ; and for
making them or nOt they were accountable solely to themselves.
To make individuals in the situation he 'had described liable to
absolute compulsion, would be most unjust; it would be a
breach of all the rights of property, 'and a vielation of princi-
ples which their Lordships' House, as the chief guardian of
property, never could sanction. There were, he hoped, many
instances of willingness on the part of proprietors to make sa-
crifices without any necessity for the exercise of compulsion.—
He bad said this much, because it was most desirable that
the
arrangement contemplated by the bill should be fairly carried
into effect, hut he deprecated any thing like partiality, or the
appearance of injustice.
The•Bishcrp of LIMERICK said, their Lordships must. be
aware that he had not taken
uponliimself to impute any

. The Earl OTHARROWBY would not follow the observa-
tions of the Noble -Lord who had just sat down, but would
merely say, that if the Irish tithe proctor was to be brought
to the blir, .exhibited there, lie hoped he would be accom•
pitied by the stewards of the landlords. As to what had
fallen from the Noble Marquis, he must observe, that in corn.
,pletely exculpating the landlords who assembled at the vestry
of I.3allyloch, from the charge of acting illegally, he had its
the same breath exculpated the clergyman for proposing to
his parishioners the ttrms he was willing to accept. Whether
the terms were unreasonable or not, he was entitled to pro-
pose them. The Legislature had given to him that right,
as well as to the landlords the right of objection. He hail
always hoped that both parties would concur in carrying the
Act into effect, for the sake of the pea'ce and tranquillity of
the country ; but what he particularly regretted was, that
both here and elsewhere the names and characters of indi-
viduals should be made free with, and often when they had
nothing to do with the point in discussion. Whether Dr.
Woodward asked too little or too much for his tithes, was not a
question for their Lordships' decision : the House had no concern
' with it whatever. He was sorry, also, to hear a person in the
situation of life of a tithe proctor stigmatized as the individual
alluded to had been. Did their Lordships consider, that in con-
sequence of what passed in that House, the term " Cruel
Delany" would go forth to every part of the United Kingdom ?
It was most unjust to stigmatize the character of any indi•
vidual in this manner. He certainly excused the Noble Lord's
mentioning the name in his speech, for be was confident no
harm was intended by him. This he said . with the same can-
dour which he hoped would excuse him for calling their Lord-
ships' attention to the subject.
The Earl of CLARE said a few words in favour of the
petition.
The Earl of KINGSTON would be sorry to bring forward
unjust charges, or cast imputations on any. It was not he
who christened the tithe-proctor "the Cruel Delany." The
rector gave bins that name himself ; and he could assure their
Lordships that nothing which might be said of that person in
their Lordship's House would do him any harm.

The Earl Of LIMERICK was Chairman of the Committee
in which the• Commutation Bill originated, and it certainly'
never was the intention of the Committee that it should con-
tain any thing injurious to the landed proprietors of Ireland.
In his opinion, it would be most unjust and mischievous if it
were compulsory.
The Earl of lIA R ROWBY explained.
Earl GROSVENOR thought it was impossible that the
tithe proctors should not act in a prejudiced manner. It was
impossible any individual connected with the Bishops' Courts
could act impartially. The Noble Earl then described the
manner in which the Bishop's Court is constituted, over which,
he observed, a clergyman appointed bi the Bishop always
presides.

Lord CLIFDEN called the attention of the House to'the
unjust manner in which tithe proctors act, with_ respect to the
tithes of the Irish peasantry. When the peasant Inys out hia
tithe in kind, the proctor refuses to tell him the value, bediuse
lie wishes to extort a money tithe. If the peasant be cited to
the Ecclesiastical Court, he comes before a tribunal, where the

tithe-receiver is both judge and jury. Courts of this descrip-
tion exist in two.thirds of the dioceses, and the clergy generally
resist the taking of tithes in kind. ihe state of Ireland with
respect to the church was melancholy ; at most only half a
million, out of a population of 7,300,000, belonged to the Esta-
blishment. Ireland was in a similar situation to Scotland
before the revolution. In that country there were assassina-
tions too. Archbishop Sharp was assassinated, and the people
fought up to their knees in blood in resistance to the church
which was imposed upon them. But King William settled
the question in Scotland, and that country had since continued
in a state of tranquillity and peace. The great misfortune of
Ireland was, as he had on form& occasions said, that She had
two churches to maintain. This was a subject to which he had
often alluded, and which he thought it his duty still to ring in
their Lordships' ears.
The LORD CHANCELLOR reminded the House that the
only question before them was, whether the petition should be
laid on the table.
After a few words from Lord CALTNoUrE, in vindication
of the character of Dr. Woodward, the petition was laid on
the table..

The Eitri of KINGSTON said, he had another petition to
present to their Lordships of a different nature. It was from
an individual named George Bailey, and complained of the
misappropriation of the funds left by the will of an ancestor of
his (Lord Kingston's) for the relief of the poor Protestant in-
habitants of Mitchelstown.

The LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the petition be-
ing received; on the ground that it complained of a breach of
trust, which was cognizable in a court of justice.
After a short conversation, in which the !Marquis of Lams-
DOWN, the Bishop of Li stEnicx, and Lord KINGSTON took
part, the petition was read and rejected.
Eorl GROSVENOR gave notice of his intention to move
for a Return of the reduced Salary of the Clerk of the Pella in
Ireland.
The Earl of DARNLEY said, he had intended to have pre-
sented a petition to their. Lordships- on the important subject of
the Tithe Commutation Bill, but as the Noble Earl at the
head of the Treasury was not in his place, he would postpone
it till Illonday.—Adjourned.