Lord Kingpresented a Petition from several landowners and others, of a district in the Queen's County, praying for an alteration in the Tithe System. Some observations had been made, about the payment of costs, and the proceedings of the courts; but these petitioners stated, that when the assistant Barrister had decided in their favour, he had been forced by the Ecclesiastical Court to reverse that decision. There was no great justice in that, nor could the payers of tithes well expect justice when the clergymen were judges in their own cause. Tithes constituted a tax of the worst description, and it was a tax which ought to be abolished.
§ Lord Wynfordthought, that little reliance could be placed on the statements of facts made by these petitioners, for they were most clearly mistaken as to the law. The Ecclesiastical Courts had no jurisdiction, either in Ireland or England, to meddle with the decisions of the Common Law Judges.
Lord Kingrepeated, that tithes were manifestly a most oppressive tax, and one of the worst kind, since a great deal more was paid by the occupier of land than came into the pockets of the clergy. The proctor intervened, and had an interest in en- 1367 forcing the payment of tithes in the most oppressive manner.
The Marquess of Salisburycould not understand the object of the noble Baron in making these never-ending attacks upon the Church and its endowments. Whatever that object was, the noble Lord's conduct neither conduced to support the dignity of the House, nor was it creditable to the noble Lord. He would tell the noble Lord that the tithe was not a tax. It was property, and the property of the Church, to which the clergy had as much right, as the noble Lord to his rents. Whenever the time came that this was not the case, if tithes fell rents would soon follow, and those who exacted high rents would be the first to fall. How would the noble Lord like his tenants to petition that House against the noble Lord's exaction of rent? The cases as to petitions respecting rent and tithes were exactly similar.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the clergy seldom exacted above two-thirds of what they were justly entitled to. The noble Lord (King) made complaints of the interference and cost of tithe proctors in Ireland. But he would ask what occasioned the interference but the refusal of the party to pay what was legally due?
Lord Kinghad but one observation to make upon what had fallen from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marq. of Salisbury). He (Lord King) should have no objection to any visitation upon those who exacted high rents from their tenants. He should not suffer by that, and he hoped it would be the same with the noble Marquess.
The Marquess of Salisburydid not mean to reproach the noble Lord on the score of high rents; neither had he to reproach himself upon any such ground. At all events he was confident, that he never exacted from his tenants payment in gold when the guinea was worth 28s.
§ Petition laid on the Table.
Lord Kingsaid, fortunately he had other petitions to present, which would afford him an opportunity of answering the observations of the noble Marquess. In the first place he maintained that tithe was a tax, and one of the worst sort, because it was levied on gross produce. Next, he did not deny, that tithe was property; but then it was public property, the property of the individual for the time being, but after his death to be dealt with as all other public property was liable to be dealt with. As to the allusion made by the noble Marquess to his having demanded gold in pay- 1368 ment of his rent, he could easily explain that. He had not brought his action against a poor tenant, but against a Bank Director, whom he had the good fortune to have for a tenant at the time that an individual in the other House, who probably was at that moment in their Lordships' House, had thought fit to get a resolution passed, that a Bank note and a shilling were equal in value to a guinea in gold. He was determined to prove the fallacy of that resolution of the minister of the day; and therefore, and therefore only, had he taken the course remarked upon by the noble Marquess. To that fatal mistake of borrowing largely in a depreciated paper currency, and paying in metal, he attributed all the evils the country was labouring under. The nation was then drunk with its supposed wealth; but it was now paying dearly for the folly, or rather the knavery, with which the affairs of the country were then governed.
The Bishop of Londoncould not permit the noble Lord's assertion, that the tithes were public property, to pass uncontradicted. He denied that they ought to be so viewed, or that the public had the power to resume property devoted to the Church. The public were entitled to see that the property of the Church was properly applied, but that was all. He should like to ask the noble Lord whether he was of opinion that if he made a testamentary disposition of his property for the purpose of founding and supporting an institution for the relief of decayed clergymen, it would be legal or equitable in the Legislature, at the end of a century, to divert that property from its purpose?
§ Lord Bexleyhoped that the noble Lord paid his debts in gold, as he exacted the payments made to him in that metal. The resolution of the other House to which he bad referred, had been affirmed by a Jury, which, he thought, proved it was not so absurd as the noble Lord seemed disposed to represent it.
Lord Kingsaid, he always paid in ready money, and therefore he paid the market price at the time of making the contract whatever it was. He had several other petitions respecting tithes to present, and would be ready to meet the right reverend Prelate in discussion upon the nature of Church property whenever he pleased. The noble Lord concluded by presenting several petitions from different places in Ireland, which were laid upon the Table.