House Of Lords, Thursday,...
The Times, 1824-03-26T00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENACE. Earl SOJUtSKb presented a petitiorn trom beomiister, praying for the abolition of slavery in the NVest Indies. Petitions to the same effect were presented byLordELLENauROuGsI from Downton, in the county of WlV*ts, and by E:ar! FaTZw sILLIA- I, from places the names of which were not heard; by the Iarquis of LANSDOWY, *rom Devonport, (late Plvmoath-dock,) Bridport, and Tunbridge. IRISH TITHE5S rLord 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 compulsory clause, if the re-enactinent of such a neasure should he contemplated. He heartily concurred with the petitioners ; but, lest he sheald be charged with inconsistencr for having last year moved for a compulsory clause, hie must say tbsat he was glad heO hatd been defeatecd on that occasion. Notbing cosId be more unfair than the mode of striking the aver- ages. The noble lord then recapitulated the substance of the several petitions, one of which, from a parish in the comnty of Limerick, complained that there was no rtsident cutate, and that the parish church was in a ruinous state; another t~roil iKilderry, in the county of Cork, com,plained that " the church was not only rutinous, but going to decay.' Trhe Earl of KINGSTON presented a petition against the same bill, from Brigdoon, in the county of Cork, and anotlher from Bal- lyloch, also in the county of Cork. The noble earl made some ob- servations on thie subject of this petition, from which it appeared that it related to a dispute with the rector of the parish, Dr. .Voodward, xrespecting a composition for his tithes. A vestry meeting had been caled to consider of the subject, at which the doctor proposed that he should have 2,0001. a-year for his tithes. The meeting ob- jected to paying more than the tithes of the parish were worth, the amount of which 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 proposed 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 thle composition terminated in the rector intimating, that he would recover his tithes by course of law. The mceting had therefore to expect, that a man called "' he cruel Delanv," the rmost rapacious tithe-proctor in Ireland, would be employed in; the collection. The Bishop of LilMERICK observed, that the petition was er- roncous in several of its statements. HYc did not mean to say that the noble lord who brought it forward had been guilty of the least misstaterllent as to what came under his owvn observation, 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 1809 b-ing 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 shoald as- sess 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 falure on the part of the farmers. In pursuance of the act of Parliameut, the rector applied to the parish for a composition, and asked 2,0001. a vear, but he expressed his readiness to take 1,6001. If the noble carl said he did not hear him, it was certain he did not; but that was 3nocontradictionofthefact. For his own part, he must say that it sometimes happened that many things were said in his presence which he did not hear, and lie supposed that the noble lord was on thiB occasion in the same situation. He had received a letter from Dr. Voodward oli the subject, 'vhich he would read. [Here the right rev, prelate read a letter which corrobotatetI the atatements lie had made.]. Dr- WoodwarA was anxioatis to defend himself against a charge which had been brought against him in a way which, he must say, was inconsistent with the spidit of the British consttuttion. It was sapping the laws f the country in the very p lace whenee those laws proceeded, since &aqr grt pdciple wai4bIt every mu~ mual be khl innocent un. til he was p~roved guilty. He would wish noble lordi to takec care that charges which tEey brought form,rd against persons wToho~ not defend themselves in that place, Were well grounded. Te ac- cusation itn the present case was particularly unjust - fo-r a oe piou's, mild, and assiduous clergyman than Dr. Woodward, was not to he foun'd. His upright and gentle conduct had secured him the affection of the poor ; and if' the people of his paish were calledl to give evidence respecigti rco,te woul sata they never hiad a more worthy clergyman among them ten wud he 'was suire, express as strong an. atahenohm astohegnr of the country. The question of the composition woulhaebn settled without difficultv, if it had not been for persons who were in- terested in resisting the arrangement, and whio wished to throw the great burden of the tithes on the pooir, instead of placing it on the shoulders of the landlords, where it ought to balaidi. The Earl of KINGSTON hoped hie should he permittedI to say a few. words, in reply to what had fallen from the right reverend pre- late. He was not surprised at the mranner in whicli the right TeM-- rend prelate had taken up this subject, as he was confident no act had ever passed that houise which the cler-gy liked better than this tithie composition acet. It had the eflfect of producing a great addi- tioii to the income of the chiurch, and that, indeed,not at the ex ense of the farmer,or of all classes generally,but solely at that of the land. lords, On them the wholeburden fell. In consequenceof this act, lie had now to pay 1681. in tithes for his grounds. He had statedi the circumRstances which occurred at the vestry, some of which the right reverend prelate contradicted on the authority of .Dr. Wrood- ward's lttter. The righit reverend prelate was pleased to soppost thsat he miight not have heard the doctor's offer ; now lie must say that he was not farther from that reverend person than the breadth of their lordahbips' table, and he wvould declare on his honour that he never heard hiim offer to take 1,6001. As to the miode of collect- ing he tthe, itwason rcor, anonthis subj'ect he would refei therlodahns o pocedins wichhadtaken place before the Cas- The arqus ofLANSDOWNwas erfetlyunaware of the circmstnce hic hadbecme te sbjec ofdiscussion, and therefore was not coptn ogive anoiino the compensatiot whiich might be prpri hscase; bu i anduced to rise ir consequen,ce of th obera iomadebth htrved er i th latter part offhis speech; in notiefwic, ebegge( to say that the few words of cormment ehdt fe would bt madle with a sincere respect, both fr the station and the personal character of the right reverend prelate. It had been argued that dlit exertions of the land(ed proprietor-s to prevent the commutation adl f'rom being carried into effect were made for the purpose of castinj the burden off thieir owvn shoulders, and lplacing it on the poor. Now their lordships wouild remembe,r wvhat had pasted on this sub. ject l'ast yer. He had shown that disputes of this kind would arise w heyn that just influence! to whiche pardies were entitled was ex. ercised. If it wag supposed that this act was intended to preveni persons from exercising that just influence which the law anid the constitution gave them-and God forbid that he should defend an) unilawful influence--then it would be one of the most monstrou, lawvs ever passed by a legislative assembly. He would ask thieii lordsahips wliether they were not aware what the object o; the act was ? liras it not to divide the burden equally? He was one who felt it to be hiis duty to point out the intended compul. -ory measure as onfe of thec greatest interferences witli the right 01 property ever attempted. To call on persons who held property tithe free under the authority, of an act of Parliament, an authoritv equal to that on whiich the claim of the church was foundled, to part withi their property, was, in his opinion, imost unreasonable, and so lie had at thle time stated it to be. The answer given was, that the compulsion, as applied to those persons exclusively, would be un- just, and thierefore the means of makiang effectual resistance was to be given them by a nuriber of votes. On this ground, thien, he was arnedi aying, that these persens only exercised a right of voting to wihthey were legally entitled. Calls might be made on them for sacrifices, and lie himself mnight be disposed to advise such sacrifices ; but they were to be made onl ,at their own discretioni; 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 mnost unjust; it wvould be a breach of all the rights of property, and a violation of principles whichi their lordships' hiouse, as the chief guardiani of property, never could sanction. There were, he hoped, many, instances of willingness on the part of proprietors to make sacrifices without any necessity for the exercise of comipulsion. He hiad said this miuch, because it was most desirable that the arrange- ment contemplated by the bill should be fairlycarried into effect, but he deprecated any thinglike partiaity,or the appearance of injustice. The Bishop of LIMERICK said, their lortslsiips must be awlare that lite had not taken uponi himself to impute any illegality or criminality to those landlords who opposea the arrangement intended by the act of Parliament. It was undoubtedfly lawful for them so to do. In great part of what the noble marquis had said he concurredl. As to the lawfuilness of the oppsition, he hiad notin tosy,hwver questionable its prudence migh1,t be. However, hecranyhdntmeant to say any thing 0to hr thefeelings of th addporeosof Ireland. Lord KING took tfogrneththe righit reverend prelate liad moat justly descrie th hrce fmeekness and pentleness wvhich belongea to the wotyrector of the parish in question: from what the righit reverend prlt had saLid of that gentleman, he must regard htasteprct beau ideal of an frisli parson--as the most moderat otihsekng divines-.-in short, as the SL. Charles tie Borrome ofteIhchurch. All that the parish was told was, thlat if they did not coinpouatl withi the parson, they would be deli. vered over to the lawvers,-that the lawyers would deliver them to thle tormentor, the tithec inc-arnator. He should like to see at the bar this curiosity in natural hiistory, this chimera or Gorgon, "the cruel Delany,"svho was emnployed by, the ecclesqiastical authorities of the chutrch of Ireland. The Earl of HARROWVBY would not follow the observations of the noble lord who kiad just sat down, but would merely say, thlat if the Iris,h tithec proctor was to bte brought to the bar, andl ex-- hlibited there, lic lhopedl he would be accompanied by the st'awards of the landlords. As to what had fallen froim the noble marquis, he mnust observe, that in, completely excuilpating the landlords who as- sembled at the vestry of B3allyloch, from the chiarge of acting ille- gally, lie had in the same breath exculpated the clergyman for pro- posing to his parishioners the terms he was willing to accept. Whether the terms were unreasonable or not, he was entitled to propose themn. The legislature had g4ven to him that right, as well as to the Ilundlords the right of objection. He had always hloPed that both parties would eoncur in carrying the act into effect, for th. sake of the peace and tratnquillity of the country ; but what he particularly regre.-ted was, that both here and elsewhiere, tbe names and characters of ind(ividuals shouldl be made free with and often when they hiad nothing, to do with the point in discussion. 'irVhe. I thoer Dr. WVoodward asked too little ortoo mach forhis tithes,was nota question for their lordasiips' decision : the house had no concern with it whatever. He was sorry, alsoto har a person in th sias. tion of life of a tithe proctor stigmatized as the individual alunded to had been. Didl their hordshiips consider, that in consequence of, whlat paissed in tihat house, the termn " Cruel Delany" would go forthi to ever), part of thle United Kingdomii? It was most unjust to stigmatize the character of any individual in this manner. Ile cer- tainly excused the noble lord's mentioning the nam-e in his speech, for he was confident no harm was intended by him. This he said with the samie candour which he hopeed would excuse hfim for callingl thieir lordlships' attemition to the Salsject. '1'he Earl of CLARE said a fewv words in favouir of the petition. The Earl of KLNGSTON would be sorry to bring forward unjust charges, or cast imputations on any. It was not hie who christened the tithe-proctor "1the Cruel Delany." The rector gave him that name himself; and lie could assture their lordships, that nothitig whIich mnight be said of that person in thjeir lordships' house wodldi do hiim any harmn. The Earl of LIMERICK was chiairman of the committee in which the commutation bill originated, and it certainly never was the intetitiom, Of the cOmmittee thiat it should contain any thing in- I jurious to the landed pro prieotrs of Ireland. In his opinion, it would be miost uinjusat and misciiievous if it were compalsry. The Earl of HARROWIBY expand Earl GROSVENOR thoughtitwsipsblththeihe proctors shouldI not act in a prejudcdmn er Ithwas thitpos. sible any individual connected wit the Bishops' Courts could act mpatialy.Thenobe erl henderribed the mnanner in which theBisop' Cort s cnsttutd, verwhich, he observed, a clergy. man apointe by te Bisop alays pesid'es. LordCLIFEN clledthe ttenionof the houlse to the unjust manner in wliceh tih Proctors act, with respect to the tithes of the Irish peasantry. 'Wen the peasant lays ojut his tithe in kind, the' proctor refuses to tlhim the value, because he wishes to extort a mOneY tithie. Ifth peasant be cited to the Ecclesiastical Court, he comes before a tribuial where the tithe-receiver is both judge and jr. Courts of this description exist in twvo-thir.jsu of the diocerysses, and the clergy generally resist the taking of tithes in kind. Thie state of ireland witli respect to thle chlurch was mnelancholy at most only hialf a million, out of a popu- lation of 7,300,000, belonged to the Establishment. Ireland was in a similar situation to Scotland before the revrolutioni. In that coun- try the-ce were assassinations toa. A rcAbishop Shiarp was assassi- ieated, and the people fought up to their k-nees in btpod in resistance to the chiurch whichi was imposed upon them. But King1 William settled the quxestion in Scotland, and that country hiad sunde conti- nued in a state of tranquillity and peace. The great ntisfortuuld of Ireland was, as lie had on tonmer occasions said, that she had two churchies to tmaintain. This was a subject to which he had often alluded, and whichi he tijouglit it his duty still to ring in their lord. shins' ears. TPhe LORD CHANCELLOR reminded the house thlat the only question before them was, whether the petition should be laid on time table. After a few words front Lordl CALT11ORPE, in vindication of the chiaracter of Dr. Woodward, the petition was laid on the table. TheEarlofK[NGSTONsaid he had anotherpetition topresentto, their lordships of a tlifferent nature. It was from an individual named George Bailey, and complained ot' the misappropriation of the funs lft y te will of an ancestor of his (Lord K ngston'mi) for therelefof h&poor Protestant inhabitants of illitchelEtown. The LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the petition being e ceived, on the ground that it comiplained of a breach oftrust,I wh ycich wasi cognizable in a court of justice. A fter a -shor t con versation, i n whicli the AMarquis ofr L 1S Dsnowso, th e Bishto p o f L r m a x c x, and Lord K NGS oT o.W took part, the pe- itio was rea -an -rjeced ntiton was readt and rejecetd. -- Earl GROSVENOR gave notice of his intention to move for a return of the reduced salary of the clerk of the Pells in Ireland. The Earl of DAIRNLEY said he had intended to havepresented a petition to their lordships on the importantsubject of the tithe commutation bill, but as the noble earl at the headof the Treasury was notin his place, lie would postpone it till Monday.-Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS, THlURSDAY, i!ARCIS 25.