The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-26 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

The Earl of DESART presented several petitions
complaining of agricultural distress.
The Earl of HARROWBY presented several petitions
complaining of Pupal aggression.
ASSESSMENT OF TITHES AND RENT-
CHARGES.

The Earl of MALMESBURY presented two petitions
from fifty clergymen of the diocese of Bath and 'Wells
against the present system of assessing the tithes and
renteharges for the poor-rates. He referred to the Com-
mittee of their Lordships' House that sat upon this sub-
ject last session, and Bail he agreed in the recommenda-
tion contained in the 10th clause of that Committee's re•
port, that the present mode rof assessing upon the full
value of the tithe commutation, which in many instances
was not received by the clergy, was unjust, ;and ought
not to bo continued. Pensioners, fundholders, mortga-
gees, mines, except coal-mines, professional incomes, and
offieial incomes, were all exempted from the payment of
poor-rates, whilst the working clergy were not ex-
empted. From returns before him it appeared that in
the county of Oxford clergymen paid on an average
2s. sd. in the pound, or 12 per cent. for poor-rates; in
Dorsetshire the average paid by the clergy was 2s. 2d.,
or 11 per cent.; and in Norfolk the average was the
same. That was the average, but in some cases indi-
vidual clergymen paid as much as 15,20, and even 30 per
cent. on their incomes. The prelates of the Church were
to a certain extent withdrawn from the operation of the
law, for he believed that they were not assessed to the
poor-rate on their fixed incomes. In that respect the
contrast between them and the working clergy was pain.
ful. In one instance a working clergyman with 3001.
pazd 10s. in the pound, or half his income, for poor-rate,
whilst his diocesan, who lived three miles from him,
paid nothing. This state of things was not the fault of
the prelates; it was the defect of the law. The prelates
of the Church exhibited on all occasions the utmost
liberality and generosity. But why had the law been
permitted to remain in its present defective state after
the grievance had been pointed out? Simply because
the Government had not the courage to grapple with
the question; but be trusted that, whatever Ministry
might be in power, the day was not distant when the
anomaly in the law, which now worked so much injus-
tice, would be corrected. The scheme which he pro-
pounded in the Committee of their Lordships' House
last session had been condemned on the ground that it
was founded on Socialist principles; but the principle of
the scheme was simply the assessment of all property,
instead of particular species of property, to the sup-
pmt of the poor. 250 years ago a wise Sovereign and
her sagacious Ministers, feeling that property had
its duties as well as its rights, caused a law to be
enacted by which property was made liable to the sup-
port of the poor. It was then intended that all pro-
perty should contribute equally to that object; but the
rust of ages had impaired the efficiency of a part of the
machinery of the law, and only that portion which ap-
plied to real property retained its pristine vigour. The
original character of the law ought to be restored to it.
He had been desirous of introducing a Bill founded on
the principle of the scheme which he proposed in the
Committee of last session; but it must be obvious that
this was not a suitable time for bringing forward so im-
portant a measure. In the present state of the Govern-
ment and of the other House of Parliament, and taking
into consideration all the circumstances of the time,
their Lordships must be of opinion that it would be
useless to propose such a measure now. In conclusion,
he would lake the liberty of asking Ministers whether