The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-18 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVO,;INING. APRIL 18, 1833.

placed under the same restrictions as the public-hou.es,
and at the same time the police of those houses required
great alteration and improvemt-nt. He was allo of ()pi_
n;on that stricter inquiries than at present should he in-
stituted ; licenses w. re granted as to the respectability
of the appliiiants. Upon the whole, he expected sotne
valuable suggestions from the Committee, especially as it
was moved for on the principle that they should not be
don • away with altogether.
_ _

Mr. WARBURTON was happy that the Committee
had been appointed. At all events the s,rue hours of re-
st,iction should reeultte the beer shops as regulated the
public houses. It was alleged in that pet tion that the
man hail been fined for letting his own son drink in the
house an brur after the time limited by law; anti it was
said the Magistrate who fined him declared that the
relationship of the seller and drinker was nonsen.e,
for if tt e seller hints 4 had been found drinking
after the li:ni!ed hour, he (the Magistra'e) would have
fined him.—(llear, and laughter.) It was a subject
well deserving of a committee of inquiry. He believed
it would be found that the be- r sold at these houses was
Lass adulterated than that of public-houses.
Mr. HUME cons.dereil the subject to be one which the
public mind `vls much divided up n, and one des rving
of the fullest roosi•terat;on. He himself thougl:t that

r-howies should be extended, and not limited; and
he sh 111(1 be able to prove to the C trttnittre, that the
quality of the beer had improved ;11 con.eqtterxe of those
beer horses.—(Cries of " No," and hear.) He would
maintain in the Committee that it had improv,d in
quality, and been reduced in pure.—(Cries of ‘• No, no,"
and hear.) However, the Committee would afford the
means of t e fullest inquiry.
Mr. BARING differed in opinion with the Hon. Mem-
ber tor Middle ex, whose ideas, although very well ap-
OA to the metropolis were of no use as applied to the
mo-al districts.

Mr. PRYNIE spoke in favour of the present system.
An Host. MEMBER suegested that the inquiry should
he extender' to all public-houses.
Tne question was then put, agreed to, and the Com-
mittee appointed.
A mess .ge from the Lords announced that their Lord-
ships had agreed to thr Mutiny Bill without amendments.
COMMUTATION OF TITHES.

Lord ALT HORP said—ln rising to submit to the
House a proposition for the commutation of tithes,
I do not apprehend that it will be necessary for me
dm.; to detain the House, especially in prefatory ob-
servations. The principal duty I conceive to be imposed
upon me is, to detail the principl.a upon which the plan
lam about to submit to the House is framed. It is of
great import ince that such a measure as this
should not only be substantially just betwe, n
the partie-, but at the same time, that it should not in-
• ease the burdens al-early imposed upon the land. But before
1 go with this question at all, I think it very desirable th it
1 should disabuse the House and the public with respect to
t e supposed:enormous amount of the income of the Church
of Engl ind. It was assumed on a ree,nt otcasion that
that income was nine millions per annum. Never was
there a grosser exa4eration. The incomes of the
Bishops, including the Bishop of Sador and Man, was
only 155,526 ; and of the glebes and chape.s, 236,0001.
I ton not able to st,.te so particularly the amount of
the incomes of the parochial cl-rgy, because all the
returns have not been made, but I calculate it to be
very little more than the e millions. The whole to-
vther, therefore, amounts to very little more than
three millions and a half, instead of nine
millions —(Hear.) The manner in which I have calcu-
lated the amount of the income of the parochial clergy is
th a : We have the returns from 9,640 benifices, the total
number of which is 11,400. The amount of the income
of these 9,640 is 2,759 6571. ; so that, supposing those

from which the returns were not made were in the same
porportion, which there is nit reason to believe they are,
not, the total amount of income for 11,400 would be
3,256,0001. If this were divided among the whole of the
clergy, the average income of each would be 2851., and if the
prebend tries, deanries, and chapelries were net counted in
3001. fyr each of the parochial clergy. The clergy are
,tifferently situated in this country with regard to the re-
ligion of the people thin they are in Ireland, and all who
have looked at this questi ,n either in a political
or moral point of view, and have seen the misfortune of
having a resident clergyman in each parish, will
acknowledge that this sum is not I irge for the attainment
w such an object. I now come to the manner in which
the revenue of the clergy is levied Whatever authority
may •xist for the present practice, we are bound,
in looking at it in a legislative point of view, to con-
sider iv ether it be not productive o great disadvantages
not merely to the payers of tithes, but to their receivers,
the clergy, part,cularly in destroying that feeling of good
fellowship which ought to exist bet•veeri the clergy and
their parishioners. The payment of the clergy by means
of ti hes has existed alms-t from time immemorial.
This has been the view of the Legislature for a great num-
ber of years, bee fuse there has scarcely been a single en-
closure Bill passed in which the tithes are nut enumerated.
It has been tlt to be so desirable for the interests both of
the Church and the people, that such a course has been
alopted in almost every inclostire bill, although in several
perishes where inclosu, et have tak.n place, in early times,
tithes still continue to be paid in kind, and although in
many instances neither side have felt any great incon-
venience—(Heir, hear, hear)—yet, the tnlority of
instances whenever disputes have taken place, the
taking of tithes in kind has been productive of very
greii inconveniencd. As I said 4,efore, nothing can
be more advantageous to a parish than a resident
clergyman—(Hear, hear)—but at the same time, it is
ecessary to have a resident clergyman on good t-rins with
his parishioners—( Hear)—and to provide for the clergy un
',bet al terms would remove many difficulties. Having made
these observations, in which I feel that I have the entire
cuncurr•.nce of the House, and believing that the
House will go along with me in saying it is desirable
to introduce a commutation of tithes, I will now
. . .

proceed to state to the House the principles on
which I proceed. I know there have been in many parts
of the coon ry extravaeant notions as to what the :ilea-
might he, but I think what I have already stated, will
snow that the object of the measure is not to take a step
to produce any great sensation, but to propose that the
c ergy should he properly rennin rated for .heir services.
I think it is desirable that a m-asure of this kind should
~e in the first place purely purely permissive, and that
the parties should fairly agree as to any arrangement they
may think desirable slautd,l be made. I caulk coat a per.
tnis-ive measure should have its fair trial first, although
I arm free to confess that I do Got think th it a purely

permissive measure will have all the effest that is desirable.
I would, thetetoie, propose, first, that the measure shall
give permission to the clergyman and the tithe owner,
and the tithe payer, because, when I speak of
the clergyman, I do not think it right to confine
the commutation simply to the clergyman, because I think
the same measure should be applicable to the MI e owner
it be be a lay impropriator.—(Cheers.) I would first pro-
pose that p! mission be given to the tithe payer and tithe
owner, whether he be a clergy man or a lay iinpropriator,
to 'cake an arrangement for the perpetual commutation of
tithes into a corn rent—l mean by a perpetual corn rent,
a rent varying according to the price of corn.—(Hear,
hear.) In making a proposition for a perpetual commuta-
tion, I think you should not confine the rent to the value
of money, but that it should vary according to the
value of Coen. The Clerym in, however, should Dot be
allowed to commute tithes without the consent of the pa-
tron of his living, and the Bishop of his diocese, neither
should the tenant be allowed to commtve the tithes
of his farm, without the consent of his landlord.—
(Hear.) My first principle will be to give a period
of 12 months from the passing of the Bill, and permit
the tithe payer and the tithe owner by mutual consent to
commute tithes into a perpetual corn rent; but if after
the expiration of 12 months this be not generally done,
and I dare say in many instances it may not
be done, although I believe iu a vast number
it will ; if after that period the commutation be not ac-
complished, I then propose that either the tithe payer or
tithe receiver, without mliking it necessary for a whole
parish to agree, I vmuld allow any individual tithe
payer to give notice to a tithe receiver that
he intends to :_atninute the tithes.—(Hear, hear.)
The tithe receiver would then be required to appoint the
value in the manner I shall presently state to the
House. It is of great importance that valuers should
be men of *eat respectability, and there were other
reasons than this why they should not be debated merely at
the option of the parties themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
It is my intention, then, to propose that those
valuators should be nominated partly by the Bishop
of the dioceses, and that au equal number shall he nomi-

nate] by the quarter session.. It might thit-
fiequently happen that the parties kowing th•
individuals who had been aupointed as valuators the same.
individu Os would be chosen to value one subject.
Thus each party, either the tithe payer or the title
owner may give notice to the other party that they intend
to app int a valuer ; and thus notice being given
the valuation will proceed. Any persou, however, wh
knows anything of the state of tithe property in this
country, must know that, if an actual valuation
were to take place for titheable property, in
each parish, the effects would he to raise the
tithes thronghout England most enormously, and wool
most certainly prevent any commutation from taking pla,e.
and, although it might seem to be justice, would really are,
practically be most unjust. Aly plan, therefore, is, that in
place of being an exact valuation the valuation should pro.
coed on what has been paid for an average of previous
years. The valuers, therefore, appointed will not have
the :duty of valueing the tithe, on the ground
they wonld mita have to ascertain what had been the
amount paying during an average of seven years previously.
I think, however, it would be desirable to give then
s,me degree of latitude in making that valuation, and
I propose that they should have the power o• altering the
valnati in to a certain per centage, either above cr below
the amount of tithe actually paid to the extent o
between five and seven per cent. The Noble Lord went
on to sty, if the valuers differed in their award,
an umpire should he appointed, which umpire should
he the senior judge of sessions. The valuers would have
to fix the am iunt of tithes to be paid in corn, or in
money ; and the tithe receiver should have the option o!
taking it in kind or looney, fur a given number of yarn.
If he preirred receiving his tithes in grain, the payer
sh‘uld (led& in what grain to p•y it. It would of course
he desirable that, when it W 7.19 feasible, a number of indi•
viduals should agree as to the made—a whole parish, for
instance; hut a holder of a lease might be permitted to
arrange with the landlord to pay him the tithes
in kind or in notney ; and the landlord be left to
make his arrangement with the tithe proprietor
The only object was to render a commutation of tithes upon
equitable principles safe and easy. The advantage to
both parties would be so great in the commutation tit
tithes, that he felt confident each party,

having the power of compelling the commutation
of tithes would have the effect of pretty generally pro-
ducing a commutation throughout the country..—(Hear.)
That would be a great advantage. He did not think it
would be at this moment desirable to prapose any eq,,itahle
measure that would go ro an actual compulsory commuta-
tion He felt greai difficulties is doing that ; and, after
the best consideration he could give the subject, he
that it would be hardy possible to propose any
measure for an actual and forcible commute
thin of tithes throughout the country. Having said
thus much upon the measure het intended to move this
evening, he hoped it would not be understood that in
proposing the present measure, Government had no others
in contemplation with respect to the Church of England.
_.(Hear, hear, hear.) Other measures were absolutely
necessary, some of them pressing more, some less. There
was one measure which he hoped would be brought for-
ward either in this or another place, which was
the prevention in future of pluralities.—(Cheers.) That
was a measure which be considered pressed very
much.—(Hear.) There were other measures perhaps
equally as important, which were beset with difficulties,
that he hoped would soon be overcome. Though the
present measure might not appear of so very great
magnitude, he thought that the House would ad-
mit to him, that if it succeeded in causing
a general commutation of tithes, it would be
productive of the beet effects. The proprietors of
land and those generally interested in agricultural
persuits generally would reap the very greatest advantage
for the measure, as they would have the power of em-
ploying their cattle on their land for their own advantve.
On the other hand, I do not think the Church ought
to make any resistance whatever. I will rather
think I do not think they will.—(Heir, hear. )
Sir, I do not think it necessary to trouble
the House fur her ; and I move fur leave to bring in
the Bill.—(Cheers.)
(LEFT SPEAKING.)