The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-25 00:00:00

WALES.

Sir ROBERT PEEL.—I am about to call the attention
of the House to a question not connected with any
party matter, but in which the public have long felt
a deep interest. I allude to the facilitating the
settlement of the Tithe question in England and Wales.
I approach the subject with great diffidence of my power
to settle it in a satisfactory manner.—(Hear.) To pre-
sume otherwise would be to betray a great ignorance of
of the subject. The inconvenience has long been felt of
taking the tithe in kind. and it is time the prayer of the public
should be conceded. I will not trouble the House with a displayof
pedantic learning, or by referring to details, but will at
once allude to the variety of interests connected with the
question—to the bad effects of taking tithes in kind
on cultivation, in discouraging improvements, and involving the
owners of tithes in litigation with the payers of tithe, and I
will take for granted that both the House and the country are
unanimous in their desire that the cuestion should be settled.
I think, Sir, that a great object would be attained if we could
devise any other mode by which this might be levied. At differ-
ent periods various suggestions have been proposed for attaining
that object, and it is necessary that I should shortly review
the principal features of those various suggestions ; but
I do not hesitate to say, that if I thought that
any of these suggestions were preferable to those
which I am about to bring forward, or if, in the course
of the discussion, it may appear that any thing bet-
ter can be devised, I shall not hesitate to adopt them ;
because in submitting any measures to effect a settlement of
this most important question, it is impossible to do so
without great distrust and anxiety as to its probable re-
sults.—( Hear, hear.) The measures which have hitherto
been devised for the settlement of the Tithe question have
gone upon one or other of these principles.—( Hear, hear.)
It has at one time been proposed that the tithe of the
country should be valued, and aftei that valuation has
taken place, that an equivalent, either in land or in a
corn rent, should be substituted. for the amount of tithes. I
apprehend, however, that if any measure were introduced,
founded on that principle, it would fail to give satisfaction.
If there were to be a strict valuation, exclusive of every other
consideration, and exclusive of the forbearance of the clergy-
man in the levy ; and if any equivalent were granted in lieu of
tithes, founded upon a reference to its abstract value ; as
it is impossible to refer to the evidence taken before the Agri-
cultural Committee, without finding that there was an universal
concurrence on the part of the surveyors of the lands,
and others acquainted with the actual burden of the lands,
as respected the rents and the tithe—it is impossible to refer
to that evidence, without finding that the tithe paid, or the
sums paid in lieu of tithes, was less than equivalent to the
value of the tithe, and without finding that the clergyman,
the minister of the Church of England, had acted with
greater forbearance than the lay appropriator.—( Cheers. )
Without adverting to any earlier measures on the subject, I
will merely go to those two most recently before the House ;
namely, the two measures successively introduced in 1833 and
1834 by a Noble Lord ( Althorp) when he held the office of
Chancellor of the. Exchequer. The Noble Lord had evi-
dently paid great attention to the subject, and was well ac-
quainted with the important interests connected with it, and
impressed with the necessity which existed for its final set-
tlement. In fulfilment of his often expressed opinions on the
subject, the Noble Lord introduced successively the measures
to which I refer, and I can assure the House that if at the
time I had been at all satisfied that the principles upon which
either of these measures proposed to attain their object, I
should not have opposed them, and I feel confident that the
Noble Lord himself, if he were now in this Honse, would con-
cur in the measure which I am about to introduce. The pro-
visions of the Bill of 1833 were shortly these. It attempted in
the first place to encourage a voluntary arrangement towards
a commutation between the tithe-payer and the tithe-owner
But after a period of one year had expired, should such an
adjustment not have been arrived at, the Bill gave the
power to either party to compel the other to a commutation,
and to appoint valuators, who should have a regard to the
respective interests of the tithe-payer on the one hand, and
of the tithe-owner on the other, and then to adjust a commu-
tation on a certain basis of value. That basis was not a refe-
rence to the actual value of the tithe. The Noble Lord knew
the difference between the actual value and the amount paid
of tithes, and be proposed that the actual average amounts of
tithes paid for the seven years preceding should be taken in
lieu of the real value of the tithe. Objections were immedi-
ately raised against this proposal, and upon this ground, that
by reason of the different degrees of forbearance or modera-
tion—call it what you please—of the Clergymen in different
parishes, tithes had in some places been closely exacted, and
in others levied upon a moderate principle, and , in others, in
consequence of the neglect or forbearance of the Clergyman,
no tithe, or a very small one, had • been paid for many years.
The Bill met with great opposition, and being referred to the
Agricultural Committee, they came to the conclusion that it
was inexpedient to pass it into a law, and the consequence was
that the Noble Lord declared towards the close of the session,
that he did not intend to persevere in so much of it as related
to the seven years' valuation. The Noble Lord was induced,
however, to persevere in so much of his Bill as involved the
voluntary principle of commutation, but finally abandoned it
altogether. At a subsequent period, in the year 1834, the
Noble Lord brought in another Bill for the settlement of the
question ; and so little bias have I in the matter, and so
little wedded am I to the Bill which I now propose to bring
in, though I do think it preferable to any I have yet
seen upon the subject, that I do hope that if there is
any Gentleman in the House who deems the Noble Lord's
last Bill preferable to mine he will give notice of his inten-
tion to produce it, in order that both may be compared, and
that the House, after discussing the respective merits of
each, may select that which they may think best.—( Hear,
hear.) I paid Lord Althorp's Bill verb great attention, and
if I dissent from its principle I pay no disrespect to the Noble
Lord's intelligence and good intentions. The Noble Lord's
Bill proposed a commutation of tithe for a money payment.
The Bill is rather complicated in its provisions, but I will en-
deavour to explain them. The first provision of the Noble
Lord's Bill was that there should be made to the tithe owner
a money payment in proportion to the rent of the farm or
land chargeble with tithe, in lieu of the tithe before levied.
The Bill further provided that a power of redemption should
be given to the proprietor, on the payment of five years' pur-
chase of that money payment. If that redemption were to
take place, then the money so applied to the purchase of the
redemption would be used for a further security of the rights
of the clergy, and would be converted into a rent charge on
the property of the landlord. The relative rights of the
clergyman or the lay owner of tithe and of the land owner
being thus established, it comes to be considered how the other
provisions of the Bill consequent upon the former are to be
carried into execution. It was accordingly provided that, in
order to carry them into effect, and as a guarantee to the
tithe owner on the one hand, and the tithe payer on the other,
against imposition or extortion, or any of those difficulties or
inconveniences attendant on the adjustment of such a complex
question, that a power was to be given to the Secretary of
State to appoint valuators in the several districts, whose duty
it would be to fix the proper value of the land, and the
amount of tithe to be levied upon it. It was proposed, by
the Noble Lord's Bill, that the valuators should take each
district seriatim, and in their valuation take° the amount and
quality of the arable and the pasture land. Two divisions
were to be made of the land, the one into arable, the other into

pasture land. The -arable land, in the criterion
be formed of what cncler cultivation for five years.
to be considered land
onstituted that description of propertyro4
be their duty further to asevrtain what was the amount oil.,llu_t
able land in each district,
merely in the aggregate, but fractionally. They should! -eci,;d
was to be paid from 1
and report what amount of !tile _
aid the amount ef tithe pal
that was arable and that was not. lal'‘'ing:
each species f n
amount of tithe for the last five years on ere to
and the average value of the land, the Con:missinel
mos.
transmit to the Magistrates at the Quarter Se'ssi"slti :„isteates
tered value so laid down by the valuators.
lie
guage
then, having considered the case, were to take s
a• .t ip order
then ascertaio datnti:
the average amount of tithe and the value of the le l s
there
to ascertain the quantum of titles to be paid. Now .0-1 d and
are striking difficulties io the way of coming to a fil._ntsio
agreed decision on this point. The valuators were to as" of
the value of the arable and non-arable land, and the alronn lye
tithe to be paid on each, and then they were to stell'.et,•
mean of the value on each, and the Magistrates on a ctiA,,,:ne'r,
tion so liable to chance, the operation of caprice, or u.'ened,
tainty, were to be called on to determine the data furni
data of a doubtful and fleeting character, the amount of
vteliiila
to be paid. Suppose the valuators were right, which be
be often questioned, would the decision of the Magistrata.e tbo
always thought unimpeachable. Now, the decision or
the
magistrates was to last five years ; and, taking into accolnlcte
circumstances that might lead to the award and the j:lstl.,swet
injustice of the valuation, I do not think that such a it', 3
should be given to the magistrates accidentally attending'.
Quarter Quarter Sessions —( Hem.) Well, it seems by the lat
tt t
titheshe the a r ocle eel ratesrsat
recommendationandcharges sve roef toth
ob eßdi
Bill
deducted
t°t bb'`.
lie approval was said to be the fact that tithes were to be stiurnd
jest to the parochial rates and charges. But these rate.sonly
charges should be guided by one equitable principle, and
ties
press on a district in the relative proportion of its capabui
of the superior fertility of One soil to the other. The pritlecuPre,
then, and the detail of the Noble Lord's Bill, I ailleei,ers
would not be acceptable to the House or the country. 11306,
was first to be a valuation of the annual profits of the
tbat
with the amount of tithe that was chargeable upon it 1,1, be
value was not careful and correct, then the result woui;_a
involved in uncertainty and confusion. The value of the} 11,0
could not be ascertained without knowing the liabilities ofal4.
tenants—without estimating. the value and qualities and er the
bilities of the soil—without also escertaining the value 0' it,
buildings, the houses, and the barns that xere erected urns of
Now these are fluctuating things in the constant firtaee.asioe,
growth and decay, and it is difficult to ascertain their %(:,
There is a second difficulty, which is that tithe was nett t_ 00
ehaguje,o
valued in kind,' but was to be taken as a money
the litho
the average produce of the land. The average of
collection was to be taken for five years, and was to be, mid
on the average of the tithe- collected both on the arable
pasture land of each parish. Then how is a strangey'rbe
valuator, to determine the amount of tithe to be paid
.ear`,
real rule was not to be the mean value of tithes for five elf
e
but the payment of tithes. A third difficulty presented,l
From the amount of tithes the rates and charges of till.chr it
fishes were to be deducted. Now this is a knot wl 1,.30
required great ingenuity to untie. The rates and chargeb' the
different in different parishes. The parishes in whirpe
rates arc high would have an advantage over the oe.le! cie-
rishes in which the rates were low, so that a genera, r
duction of the rates would establish but a false rule for
guidance in this question ; and it is peculiarly unfortunate.
oidd
for the purpose of equalizing dues and charges a rule °lose
be adopted to unequalize them more. Well, then, reler.oo
was to Le made to the Magistrates at the Quarter fared
But how was this clause of the Bill to work? It ail), to
that no reference was to be had to the value of the laniny
the capabilities, qualities, or produce of the soil, or to atilt to
tural connection between distinct districts or parishes, ,acee
the simple accident of having a number of resident N,,F to
trates in that district. Now, though it might be desiralecoo
have a number of Magistrates residing in a district, thet,sei,
no reason why land districts of unequal capabilities, resoa
and powers should be huddled together. Why should 3900.
trict that had no resident Magistrate be wedded to ishe
ther under great inequalities and advantage? If Pa•rtscot
were leagued together at the will of the valuators, winogi-
reference to their identity of advantages, or their ju:tta-,,r to
tion—or if the decision of the Magistrates i'vel;rea,
be the ultimate rule of decision, there would be the
dissatisfaction. If the plan were to spread over enoulll
country it • might perhaps be sufficient, all landlords pro•
then bear the burden alike. But, when, by the Plfierliell
posed, only particular parishes were to be relievenr., tbe
there was to be no general relief; when in some parisue—e
ip
tithe was to correspondent with the amount of rent w'rebrir
others it was to bear no such proportion,' but was to be oso
lated by the value of the land ; when one parish was to
placed in one condition, and another parish to be Pla,,cce toe
another ; when there were these anomalies ; then it wrt
to avoid these objections in any Bill now to be brag' to be
ward. There is one great misconception which deserves.d
the
corrected in the consideration of this question. sf
rent
amount of tithe is in the proportion to the amount
Now that is not so. The tithe was always determined )(1
value of the land, the rent by the cultivation, labour, and One
pease laid out upon it. For instance, if a farm produeeXtiot
hundred quarters of wheat, and bringing in 3001., 811, net
the expense of production be 200/., then there will be
But
profit to the farmer of 1001. for the payment of his rent•
coo
if there be another farm yielding the same amount ofesol,
modity, the cost of production on which amounts to 2501.+
modity,
hla
and only leaving 501. to the farmer for the nt ° r
payene . clear
rent ; and if the tithe be the same on both, then itlAser able
that the holder of the richer farm will be a-cea"" e 0
gainer. In the one case the amount of tithe is as 2°,00
liis
100/. ; in the other it is as 20/. to 501. Tithe then cot°, tile
the amount of the produce, and not on the profit '3o' 00
rent. Suppose an application be made to the Quarter S tbst
to fix the amount of tithes on a particular district, and its
district varies in the quality, produce, and capabilitYAsisif
soil, and that the Magistrates make a general order B'4ol
the specified amount of tithe on that district, without recess'
to the particular condition of its several sections, to thesP into
liar advantages or disadvantages of the various segment Ibe
which it may he divided—see what peculiar hardships 1117 the
imposed, considering the difference of the capabilities of
soil, and the consequent capabilities of the occupier toe core
the tithe demand by this junction of parishes. The di,ffotes°
would be so great as to reduce tithes in one parish andal ei
them in another to an injurious and most unfair extent.
in the
by way of example, a district—in Sussex say. Take the ee
north and south side of the Downs, and it will be seiellelociet
, great would be the disparity of tithes in both cases. 11,;13i,,"
of equalising the burden, the effect of the Noble Ler:",„,iols
),,"
would be to increase the tithes on the rich lands and ri""; port
those on the poor. Supposing from the light land 00 thheiie
side of the Downs that the rent was 9s. an acre, r‘" sou
°
tithe was 35., and from the richness of the soil on theacre'
side the rent was 405., while the tithe was 49. an bide+
in place of throwing the burthen chiefly on 00.,enrtiolY
the better course would be to levy the tax Pret—isitt';
ately to the relative capacities of the two districts, Ift
out encumbering. one at the expense of the other'cies
would not be fair or prudent to encumber one Set otlfr,
agriculture, in order to yield relief to another when that, if
could bear its own relative, proportion of the burthell'it. could
general average of the amount of tithe were struck, 4_,,t50.1
have the effect of increasing the tithe on the rich IsP"e„, peT,
diminishing it on the poor land. This would produce
dissatisfaction, and would be one of the greatest spa tr
country could complain of—an evil that the House sisettAi°
Government should labour to avert. Having now ref" stsr
the former plan introduced by the Noble Lord-110'11%s it ai
my reasons for considering it objectionable, for lookin
too complex in its nature and too difficult in its 0,,,,,Pe0r: Oro
come to the substitute I mean to propose as giving tee
faction, and less liable to objection. My objections t°, ", 19 °-e
Bill may be reduced to three heads. My first objectle-erstc-
the ground of valuation ; second, on the ground of then, tDe
receipts ; third, on the ground of the proportion betweeooos°
rents and tithes. What, then, is my principle? a ,15
will see that the question is one that deserves exceethelegob
t
tion and care, and while I am anxious to maintain the
and property of the Church, I do not wish to trene`elarog-f
right of the layman. My principle, then, is to ene
voluary commutation of tithe.—( Cheers.) This Prilic `settn
voluntary commutation is not a new one ; it has be it,
on for many years. The people seem attached t° ;„ Ore
I now propose to give it legislative support.--( Hear'),„e
port of the fact that voluntary commutation has ieee
• acted on,
thef
Member for
Ctoamthberidpgaoperssorocealledearfsorabgyo.la„l;
Friendge
manic
papers were produced to the House. They embraced to tP,i
c
topics connected with this subject. They relateo,o cos;
number of parishes in England and Wales, and in vc;`.„tho
commutation had been effected ; whether the tithes
parishes were the property of laymen or of clerics,' e, fro'
priators. The documents extended over a large sPa,°,-Itolio
or
1757 to 1830. They stated the nature of the CO
whether it was for a corn rent, or for money, or for ,5 it 4:
for small or for large tithe. From these docuinee' tocatje
peered that in 2,000 parishes, from voluntary arranger tbesint
voluntary commutation was entered into. Many, re
gres,
arrangements of commutation were attended w'',l iieeecie
difficulty and expense. In many cases it was fon- J.-a
sary to procure private Acts to give them sancti°llbie,
expense of these private Acts was great ; the tr°l-`, reos,e
annoyance, and difficulty, too, of procuring tbenn. TIC C,iflj.
matter of considerable importance to all parties. '11,,; rv"
2,000/. was expended in procuring one Act. If t":„s(re cc'
culties and this expense in procuring Acts for legaliAzi-e'otageb;
mutation were removed, would not that be a great anCict let q
—( Hear, hear.) As every parish was a sort of CliStt
kingdom in itself, having its own rules for its goVerN3d'
some parishes were small and others large, and each (-10°. e
general, separate interests, it would be difficult to IaY3II
tgoenaeprapllyruale frourlet,hetior abdemdinirisetcrtaotdio,n.b
owHavoewre, However, I Shall
10°s1c1
by loceinie, pd
ledge, particular interests, the habitudes of the Pereppli
the condition of the several parishes. The rule she „„sr
each parish according to its circumstances, but shall b_°, l'are,evse
Live upon all. My rule is to facilitate commutation °at otbe
principle. I mean, then, to propose the anrinutitieerf
Board of Commissioners, composed of a small this oe
smaller the better, to superintend the execution 0, to Pio..
These Commissioners, who are to sit in London, ar',opel r,
the power of nominating Assistant Commissioners to
the foo_
tend the local districts, and afford every facility .t° that I
therance of that system of voluntary commutatafitoisrae,
fibeeresnolifitthheertcoomacmteudtaotinonp;artially. The duty Of th or rectit.
I mean that in every
Commissioners would not merely be to be witnesses effect hie
parish
iet itrhbouspianye
payers
should meet to arrange the terms of the cominuteltwbosines,
body to use the common ade 4, what is every t leo 0
is nobody's," and as it might, frequently happen til;pr°ll3l
the parties might be well inclined to come to a eau
yet a meeting could not easily be got up betv,ooololo
will, if the Bill pass, be a principal duty of Ore
waonudl do
bewoet; :f; (4;