The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-18 00:00:00

COAL METERS.

Mr. HUME rose now to move for a return respecting a
subject which was highly worthy of the attention of his
Majesty's Government,he meant the coal-metage in and
about London. There were a number of local Acts by
which coal-meters had been appointed in those several
districts. In his opinion the trade in coal should be left
entirely free.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member then moved
for a return of the amount paid for coal-metage in London
and Westminster, and Surrey, during the last year.
Mr. PEEL—The Honourable Gentleman says the sub-
ject is worthy of the attention of Government, and I have
no doubt that it is so.. But really it is not in human
strength to attend to every subject; and in the situation
which I now fill, I cannot possibly find leisure to devote to
local matters of this description. It is, the duty of the
Members for London, Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, to in-
quire into the subject, and see that no abuses are permitted
to exist.—The return was then ordered.
IRISH VESTRY BILL.

Mr. HUME, with reference to a petition from the
Roman Catholics of Ireland against the Vestry Bill, which
he had been prevented from presenting to the house on
Thursday last, gave notice that he would on Thursday
next bring it under the consideration of the House.
TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

Mr. TENNYSON presented a petition from the Dis-
senters of Market Raisin, for the repeal of the ,Test and
Corporation Acts.—Laid on the table.

MALT
_TRADE.

Mr. F. MUNDY presented a petition from the malt•
sters of the town and borough of Chesterfield, Derbyshire
—Laid on the table.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
the report of the annual duties (pensions) bill was brought
up, and agreed to.—Bill ordered to be read the third time
to-morrow.

On the motion of the CHANCEI.LOR of the EXCHEQUER,
the report of the Annual Indemnity Bill was brought up,
and agreed to.—Bill ordered' to be read the third time to-
morrow.

On the motion of the CHAtrezt.tott oldie EXCHEQUER;
the Life Annuities Repeal Bill was read the second time,
—To be committed to- morrow.

TITHES COIIT ATION BILL.

Mr. PEEL had given notice, that before this Bill went
into a Committee, he should take the opportunity of mov-
ing, that it should be an instruction to the Committee, that
they should have the power to limit the duration of any
bargain or agreement entered into under the provisions of
this measure to 21 years. He objected to this Bill as it
stood at present, because it appeared to him to be pregnant
with injustice to the Church of England. - As'now con-
stituted, it enabled parties to enter into agreements to de-
termmV, for ever, the future stipend to be paid to Minis-
ters of the Church of England. If this principle were
acted on, it would be fraught with manifest injustice; for
he could see no reason whatever, why a calculation of the
reckipts of any given Living for the last seven or fourteen
years, should be 'laid down as the allotted stipend of a
Minister of the Church of England for all future time.
Suppose such a system had been adopted 200 years more
remote from the present period, what would have been its
affect on the Church of England ? In what situation would
that Church have now been placed,if, 200 years since provi-
visions had been made for fixing, on the ratio of the past re-
ceipts, the future stipends of the Ministers of the Church of
England ? Surely it would have created manifest injustice
in many individual instances; and it would evidently have
lowered the condition of the Ministers of the Church of
England, as compared with other classes of the community.
He might be told that the provisions of this Bill would not
be generally found unjust, because in several parishes, where
perhaps cultivation might retrograde, the value of the pro-
duce would, at a future period, be less than at present, and
that therefore the gains of the clergy in these parishes
might be viewed as a set-off against the losses which they
might sustain in other parishes where cultivation had been
extended. Now, he did not wish any portion of the clergy
to gain iu this sway,because he did not think it would be
satisfactory to any party. He would suppose the commuta-
tion of a certain parish fixed at 5001., taking the receipts
of the produce for the preceding seven or fourteen years,
and that the real value of the tithes, from peculiar circum-
stances, turned out to be, at a future period, only equal to
3001. : he did not wish to secure to the clergyman 500/,
when, if he received his tithes in kind, he would be en-
titled to merely 300/. This would be an evident injustice
to the parishioners, and would doubtless be felt as such.
If they took the case of the county of Norfolk, it would
clearly illustrate his principle. Suppose a measure
like this had been carried into effect sixty years ago,
before the extensive cultivation of barley and turnips was
introduced into that county, would it not have been a
manifest injustice to calculate the future stipend of a clergy-
, man on the preceding seven years' receipts ? Was no al-

lowance to be made for improvements? He wished the
stipend which arose from tithes to vary according to the
success of agricelture, and the amount of produce in every
parish. * He was anxious to promote satisfactory arrange-
ments between parishioners and the Church of England.
He opposed this Bill further, because he believed that, in
many instances, the bishop would interfere and prevent its
provisions from being carried into effect. It was a very'
bad general principle, first to adopt a measure of this kind,
and afterwards to afford an opportunity of its provisions
being defeated, in consequence of the dislike or disappro=
bation of those persons whose consent is .was necessary to
obtain before those provisions could be acted on. He
thought it would be very easy to propose some other ar-
rangement better calculated to conciliate the two parties
than that which the present bill offered. To show the in-
justice of the principle, he would suppoSe a lenient clergy-
man, who had abated his demands on his parishioners ;
and he would ask, if that clergyman. commuted his
claims, and consented to receive a stipend equivalent to
the produce of the preceding seven or fourteen-- years,
whether it would lie fair that his successors should he
bound by that agreement ? The amount of the sum to
be paid hereafter to the Church of England tinder this
Bill was, it appeared, to be in accordance with the amount
of the receipts for the l years preceding the bargain,
varying according to the price of corn ; so that if the
price of corn fell in consequence of an extensive importa-
tion, or front any other circumstance, then the amount
of stipend must also fall. What he objected to most de-
cidedly was, the permanently fixing, on any calculation of
past receipts, the sum which was for the future to be paid
to the clergymen of the Church of England, that sum
varying with the price of corn. He could not see why
there should be such a difference between this Bill and the
law-introduced into Ireland on the same subject. If ever
there was a good and beneficial Act introduced into rreland,
it was the Tithe Composition Act of 1823. It had been
carried into operation in 910 parishes, and the sum paid at
present in consequence of these agreements amounted to
286,0001. Under that Act, the agreement could not ex-
tend beyond 21 years, and it was perfectly consonant with
policy and justice. In conclusion, the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman moved, " That it be an instruction to the Com-
mittee 'on the Tithe Commutation -Bill, that they shall
have power to limit the duration of any agreement to 21
years."
Mr. BENETT defended the Bill as it at present stood,
which he was convinced would encourage individuals to
expend money on the cultivation of waste lands. Ths.
they were at present deterred from doing, becanse under the
existing system a considerable portion of the capital so On-,
ployed found its way into the hands of the clergyman: An
individual might burn bricks and build factories, and give
nothing to the tithe-owner. This formed a great encou-
ragement to building houses. Whereas, if the agriculturist
brought neglected land into a state of high cultivation, a
large part of the profits Were taken from him by the tithe-
owner, and thus improvement was retarded.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed entirely .in the
observations of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel). He
objected to this measure as authorising a.perpetual irre•
vocable alienation of the inheritance of the Church, for a
money payment. He was not particularly pleased with the.
principle of regulating the money-payment by the price of
corn, which would make the farmer and the parson search
as anxiously into the price of corn as into the price of
Consols. This scheme of alienating church property was
liable to objections both ways. If the land beclime im-
proved, then the commutation would be unjust to the
Church ; if it became impoverished, the commutation'
would be as unjust to the other party. He would not now
discuss the whole of the Bill, nor pledge his humble vote
any way ; but as the Bill now stood, he certainly did riot
feel disposed to agree to it ; and in his opinion, the nearer
it was brought to the Irish Bill- the better it would be.
Mr. GREENE was conscious, that after having la-
boured so long upon this Bill, he might have become
wedded to it, and in a certain degree prejudiced in its fa-
vour. He could not help
_thinking that the Right Hon.
Gentleman's (Mr. Peel's) opinion had been somewhat
biassed by the sentiments of his constituents in the Univer-
sity of Oxford ; but he must submit to the House that the
two Universities knew less about parochial tithes than any
other persons in the kingdom. Living in their respective
colleges, they knew nothing about the bargains made with
farmers, and the unpleasant situations in which clergymen
and their parishioners were placed in consequence of those
bargains. Nothing would be more likely to induce clergy-
men to reside upon their livings than the removal of the
present system, and nothing more likely to increase the
number of non-residents than the continuance of it. This
Bill merely amounted to reducing to a system the powers
which the House had so given by other Bills. A consi-
derable number of Commutation Bills had been passed by
that House ; but they were so mixed up with Inclosure
Bills, that he had not been able to ascertain the precise
number of them. He would mention one fact. In the

County of Bedford, out Of 125 parishes 61 had commuted
their tithes. His Bill went only to this extent—to allow
that to be done before commissioners (whose characters
should place them above the suspicion of conniving at
fraud), which was now done every day by other means.
It was not proposed by the Bill to alienate tithes, but
merely to commute them on a footing which would be
fair to both parties. Nothing like alienation was contem-
plated ; it was merely commutation. Whatever might be
the fate of the Bill, he certainly should feel it his duty to
resist the proposition that was now made to the House.
Mr. E. DAVENPORT argued in support of the Bill.
The greatest inconvenience was produced by the anomalies
of the present tithe-laws. In general, a man's title to
property became better in proportion to the length of time
lie had been in possession of it ; but where the church
was concerned, a man's title became the more insecure from
age, because the church insisted upon proof of the bargain
—upon the production of deeds, which even time itself
might have destroyed, Was it right that the common
principles of evidence should be departed from, wherever
the church was concerned? Another calamity of tlies
laws was, that the same circumstance which prompted
tithe-owners to prosecute farther claims, rendered it more
than ever difficult to meet those claims—he meant the
distress of the times. He trusted that these defects would
be removed, but it was_quite obvious that if the proposi-
tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman were acceded to, the
incubus now complained of would weigh as oppressively
as ever on agriculture.
Mr. ESTCOURT did not think it fair in his Hon. Friend,
to infer that the mind of the Right Hon. Gentleman bad
been warped by the sentiments of his constituents. He
was quite sure that his was net. Nor could he admit that
the University of Oxford was incompetent to decide upon
a question like the present. The objection to this measure
was, that it put the power of alienating property ijito the
hands of a tenant for life. The Hon. Gentleman concluded
by declaring himself favourable to a temporary and experi-
mental, rather than a permanent measure. He should
suggest that the Bill should be tried in the first place, at all
events, for a period of 21 years.
Mr. HUME said, that the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr.
Peel) asked what state the Church of England would have
been in if the Commutation Act now proposed had passed
two centuries ago ? He (Mr. Hume) would answer that
question by a reference to the condition of Scotland, where
the tithes had been commuted two centuries ago, and which
bad benefitted immeasurably by that commutation. Scot-
land, from being, two centuries since, a very partially cul-
tivated counixy, was now almost a garden. She would
have been in a very different different plight if every mail
who had proposed to lay out his capital on the improve-
ment of land had been met with the demand of one-tenth
of the fruit of all his outlay by the clergy. In his opinion,
the removal of tithes altogether would do more for the
advantage of England than all the . schemes of einigra:-
tion which could be devised ; for then the waste
lands of the country might be turned to account;
which, under the existing law, was almost impossible.
But the proposition of passing the law before the
House for 21 years was a monstrous delusion : it was
merely saying to a capitalist, buy land—improve it—lay
out your money upon it ; go on raising it from a state of
uselessness to one of high value for 21 years ; and at the
end of that time the church shall step in, and have a
i
claim to one-tenth of all the good that you have been
doing. The established Church of all France, it would be
well for the House to recollect, cost the nation less than a
million a-year ; and no inconvenience was found there from
the under-payment of the clergy. He (Mr. Hume) trusted
etientho tluaarlt y some
col-
lision between clergymen and their parishionvrs, which
that the Hon. Mover of the Bill would presshis nieasre to
the
a division.
Colonel WOOD denied that the exaction of tithes had
been any bar to the cultivation of waste lands in England.
He hoped that the temporary course would be acquiesced
in, as the measure was likely to be highly valuable
country.
melNalsru.re should
oßulAdßble takenNGth to putitoughtan entd expedient
most
almost neutralized the utility of the former. The real
question before the House seemed to be, whether the Bill of
the Hon. Member for Lancaster, or the Irish commutation
measure, was the-best ; and be confessed he thought the
University of Oxford was mistaking its own interests in
opposing the Bill ; besides which, whatever might be the
claims of that learned body, they were not 'Such as to entitle
that
it to dictate to the House. For the objection that under
this proposed arrangement, any clergyman who had been
content to accept ' a low rate of tithe from his parishioners
from motives of liberality, would be bound by that average,

that statement was directly in the teeth of one of the
clauvs-of the Bill : for it was especially provided, that the
valuation of the tithes was to be made liy a particular party
--by tithe valuers, to be nominated for the purpose. As
it seemed to him, however, (Mr. Baring,) after all, neither.
the Irish Commutation Act, nor the Act before the House,
were calculated to effect a great deal more than it was com-
petent to parties, independent of any such statutes, to
effect by private agreement. -

Mr. R. GRANT was by no means disposed, upon prin-
ciple, to object to a more decided measure ti.an the 'pre-
sent, for the alteration of the system of tithe property ;
but nevertheless he would not agree in the peculiar pro-
visions of .the Bill before the House. He thought that
the Bill would be likely to-do considerable injustice, and
especially to parishes. The Hon.
,Member fur Wiltshire
seemed to suppose that one provision of the Bill was to ex-
empt newly enclosed land from the payment of tithe ; but
this view, he begged to observe, was erroneous ; for the
Bill eipecially provided, that a charge should lie upon
newly enclosed land for the benefit of the Clergy." The
Hon. Member for Callington (Mr. Baring) said, that he.
saw power in this Bill, or in the Irish Commutation Bill,
to do more than he or any other individual could effect by
private arrangement : but the fact was, that both those
Acts gave this peculiar power,—that they enabled the ma-
jority in a parish to bind the minority. - He was not averse
from the discussion of even a more general measure for the
' commutation of tithes than that before the House, for such
a measure would have the effect of a healing balm to the
irritation which too frequently existed on this subject, but
it would be impossible to effect it by such a Bill as that
before the House. To fix the value of the tithe permanently,
the qoniririssioners should take into consideration, not its
value for 14 or 21 years before, but the whole value, with
its chance of future improvement or future deterioration,
and from those elements should fix the amount to be paid
in commutation, but that would be attended with great
difficulty. In any plan of commutation, the fund out of
which the payment. was to come should he equal to the
charge upon it;" but his objection to this measure was,
that the payment was fixed and constant on a fund which
was variable in its produce. The Bill made provision for
an alteration where new land was brought into cultiva-
tion, but it made no provision for a decrease of the tithe-
able produce of land. This was unjust thtis far, that
while it gave a prospect of possible advantage to the re-
ceiver, it gave no prospect of diminution to the payer.
The value of the produce of land might be diminished, or
its productive power might be reduced, but the payments
must continue the same. Suppose this Bill had been
passed in 1814, it would now have the effect of throwing
a very heavy burden on the payers, which would be ex-
tremely unfair, unless the Bill were limited, as his Right
Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) had proposed. Without new
going into the general question of commutation, he would
only observe, that he could not in any view of it, assent
to the principle of the measure before the House, except
in connexion with the proposed instructions to the
Committee.

Sir J. NEWPORT said that the measure adopted with
respect to Ireland was totally different in its application
from that before the House. Its object was to get rid of
' t7tat vexations suffered by the people in the mode of collecting
the tithe ; and though it had in many instances increased
the income of the clergyman, that was agreed to for the
purpose of getting rid of those vexations. He rose not for the
purpose of entering into the merits of the question, but to
state, that if the Irish Bill had enacted a permanent com-
mutation, it would not have passed. He did not know
what were the particular enactments of this Bill, but he
trusted that care would be taken not to give to the Bishops
here such enormous powers as were given to the Irish
Bishops. '1 here it was not uncommon for the Eshop to
quash the agreement entered into by the parish, because
the amount given to the incumbent was not considered
sufficient.,

Sir M. W. RIDLEY recommended to the Hon. Mem-
ber who introduced this Bill to adopt the amendment of the
Right Hon: Gentleman. As to the machinery of the
Bill itself, he thought that unless it was made more ad-
vantageous to the payers, the Bill would be altogether in-
operative, and would be seldom taken advantage of. At
the same time he thought it would be better to have this
Bill with the proposed limitation than none at all.
Mr. PEEL had proposed the amendment because he
'wished to see the Bill carried into operation, and with the
example of what had been done in Ireland, where in 904
cases the Bill applying .to that country had been acted
upon, he thought there was reason to hope that this
measure would be carried into effect here. The remark
made by the Honourable Member opposite (Mr. A. Baring),
that the House should not be dictated to by the University
of Oxford was, he thought, wholly uncalled for by any
thing that had fallen from him. He had not referred to
the petition from Oxford, but if lie had, he thought it was
his duty to express the opinions of his constituents, and he
had as good a right to do so as any other Honourable
Member had to state those of his constituents. He did not
know any thing which should disentitle the University of
Oxford to be heard on any subject connected with the per-
manent interests of the clergy. On that subject the Uni-
versity was particularly entitled to be heard, as the clergy
were by law excluded from seats in that House.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. BENETT,
the House divided. The numbers were—

For the amendment
Against it 29
Majority
The Bill was then ordered (as we understood) to be com-
mitted on Thursday.
PAUPER LUNATICS BILL.

On our return to the gallery we found the House going
into a Committee on this Bill. In the Committee several
verbal and other amendments were agreed to. _ _

After .the several clauses had been gone through, the
report was brought up, and ordered to be considered ou
Monday.