The Bishop of Chichesterrose to call the attention of their Lordships to a statement made elsewhere, that a large number of actions for tithes had been brought by clergymen, in anticipation of the limitation set to their claims by Lord Tenterden's Act. He had reason to believe that several of the statements made on this subject were much exaggerated. No such actions had fallen under his own personal knowledge. He had lately gone through a great part of his diocess, and he had not heard of a single instance in which such an action was brought; at the same time, he thought it very natural, when the period of limitation was approaching, and the time after which such actions could not be brought was close at hand, that those clergymen who believed their rights withheld from them should adopt this mode of preventing their claims from being precluded. As to the rumour which had prevailed that these actions 627 were brought at the recommendation of a meeting of Bishops, he look this opportunity of contradicting it. Since he had the honour of being on the Bench, he had attended every meeting of the Bishops which had taken place, and he had never at any such meeting heard any allusion to the subject. In fact, he had never attended any meeting at which all that passed might not have been proclaimed to the world.
The Bishop of Londontrusted their Lordships would excuse him if he added a few words to what had fallen from his right reverend brother. He thought there was great reason to complain of the clamour which had been raised against the clergy on this occasion. He certainly was surprised at the number of suits which were said to have been brought, amounting to many thousand; but it probably might be accounted for, if correct, that it was necessary in some parishes, in order to avoid technical objections, to raise suits against every tithe payer. It was owing to the interference of the Legislature that this had taken place. A Bill had been brought in to do away with the principle of nullum tempus occurrit ecclesiœ, the consequence of which was, that if a modus were set and proved for sixty years, the clergyman could not traverse it beyond that time, and was not allowed to impeach its validity. It was contended that it would be exceedingly unfair if such a provision were brought into operation immediately on the passing of the Act, and that a certain and more distant period ought to be fixed for that purpose. This was agreed to; and thus, in consequence of this Act of the Legislature, it was that the clergy had been all but driven into bringing these actions for establishing their own rights, or, in many instances, those of their successors or patrons. He thought it hard, therefore, that there should be such a clamour because so many actions had been brought. Had there been only fifty or sixty actions, the House would have heard nothing about it, and yet the principle was precisely the same whether few or many. As to the other and most important point referred to by the right reverend Prelate, the rumour that the clergy had been recommended to adopt this course at a meeting of the Bishops, he had no hesitation in saying it was totally groundless. Nay, he would go further, and say, the 628 subject had never even been introduced at any such meeting. There had not been a meeting of the Bishops since Lord Tenterden's Bill, at which he had not been present. They met and discussed that measure with good faith, and agreed not to oppose the Bill further than seeking an extension of time beyond that fixed by that noble and lamented Lord. Since then the subject had not been stirred. Whether individual Bishops had recommended any clergymen in their dioceses to commence these actions, he could not presume to say; but he did not hesitate to say, that if any clergyman had applied to him for advice in a case where the rights of the Church had lain dormant, where a modus had been set up, and the tithes foregone for a time on account of poverty or other temporary circumstances—in a case, for instance, where there was a very large parish, and where the clergyman had a very inadequate income—in such cases, he should have felt it his duty to advise the applicant not to suffer the opportunity granted by the Act to pass away. No doubt the majority of these actions arose from a desire to maintain the interests of the Church, or at the recommendation of patrons, for the purpose of preserving the rights and interests vested in them.