HC Deb 21 December 1830 vol 2 cc29-48

Mr. Hume, in presenting a petition, concerning litigation on Tithe questions, at Havering-atte-Bower, in the County of Essex, said, he was extremely unwilling to occupy the time of the House when so few Members were present; but feeling that there was very little chance of being able to find an opportunity for presenting the petition on Thursday, he was compelled, however reluctant, then to call the attention of the House to the matter contained in it. He must say, in the first instance, that he had been much surprised at the facts set forth in this petition. Since he had called upon the House to consider the abuses of the Tithe system in Ireland, in the year 1821 or 1822, he had heard of no case so striking. He was not aware, indeed, that any such cases existed in England, as the details connected with this petition had brought to his knowledge; and he could scarcely have believed it possible that such abuses and vexations prevailed in the collection of this most unpopular and most impolitic tax. He had first to state to the House, that the liberty or hundred of Havering-atte-Bower contains 7,000 inhabitants; the tithes of which are held as lay tithes, by the New College of Oxford. The Warden and Fellows of that Ecclesiastical Corporation leased the tithes to several individuals; the Rev. Mr. Bearblock and his sons, and a Mr. Morgan being the lessees of the Hornchurch division, and the Rev. Mr. Rawbone the lessee of the small tithes of Romford. The Hornchurch division pays upwards of 3,500l. per annum, and the Romford division pays 2,400l. in tithes; so that this liberty pays altogether very near 6,000l. He did not state, that the inhabitants of the district had not adequate religious instruction; for although that had been stated to him, it might arise from peculiar circumstances; but when the sum was so large, and the manner of collecting it so open to abuse and multiplied vexations, it was high time for the country to rouse itself and to obtain reform. From all that he had seen and heard, he was satisfied, that tithes were a fertile source of vexation, and that, particularly in the southern and eastern counties, they were amongst the chief causes of discontent and disturbance. In Norfolk and Essex they were particularly odious; and there was scarcely any part of the kingdom where the payment of tithes was not a source of great dissatisfaction. Every Gentleman who attended to the petitions presented to the House must be aware of that fact. Every petition now presented, coupled a prayer for the reform of the tithe-system, with a prayer for the reduction of taxation, or for some other species of reform. The petition which he had to present to the House was founded on resolutions agreed to at a public meeting, held at the Court-house, Homford; at which nearly all the landholders in the neighbourhood attended. The statements in the petition had been corroborated by Sir Thomas Neave, and other gentlemen with whom he was acquainted. He had also been informed of the resolutions agreed to, and of the discussion which took place, and he could not help expressing his surprise, that a College, or any body of men, should have sanctioned a system of collecting tithes, so vexatious, oppressive, and annoying-, as almost to have driven the occupiers from the land. Such, however, was the case in the district of Havering-atte-Bower. The petition stated, that the liberty is a Peculiar, exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, the tithes being held in lay fee by the New College at Oxford;—that by the records of the College and of the hundred, it appears that the lands in this liberty had ever been subject to pay a modus in lieu of rendering-tithe of hay in kind, and another modus in lieu of lambs in kind; but yet, that the individuals in possession of the tithe, under lease from New College, compelled them to pay tithes of hay and lambs in kind; and when the occupiers resorted to a Court of Law for redress, the lessees called upon them to prove an uninter- rupted payment of the moduses from the year 1180. The occupiers were able to prove the payment of the modus from 1641, for they produced a document drawn up by the person then entitled to receive the tithes, which had been in the possession of the College, and was in these words:— Tithe.—Corn I receive in kinde, that is, every tenth shock. Tithe—Hay I receive some in kinde, but for every acre of river, meadow, or ground which was never plowed yearly, after the rate of four-pence; and for every acre of upland which hath been plowed yearly, after the rate of three-pence, according to the ancient custom. 1641." And Signed "THOS. JERMYN.

Similar documents were brought forward, bearing date in 1648 and 1662, by means of what is called a cross bill in Chancery, but they were held to be not sufficient, as the petitioners could not prove so far back as the year 1180. The occupiers, tired out by prosecution after prosecution, were compelled to submit to the exactions of the lessees. The principal points which the petitioners complained of were the change which had been made in the amount of payments demanded for tithes, and the principle laid down by the Court of Chancery, denying them legal redress against those increased impositions. They stated that the rule laid down by the Court, namely, that the defendant was bound to prove the uninterrupted payment of a certain modus from the commencement of legal memory, is not authorized by any Statute or Act of Parliament. The petitioners did not dispute the commands of the Legislature, but after incurring expenses to the amount of above 3,000l. the Judge dismissed their cause upon a technicality, wholly unworthy of a suit of this kind, and wholly unconnected with the real merits of the case. This was one evil which the House should remedy without delay. It should take away the power from the tithe-proctor of ruining the tithe-payer by legal expenses, and should provide a better mode of deciding tithe questions than was to be found in the Court of Chancery. An Act of William 3rd provided, that all claims, for tithes under 10l. should be taken before a Magistrate, and decided at an expense not exceeding 10s.. In these cases, however, a claim for 6l. had been carried into the Court of Chancery, at an expense of 100l. or 200l. to each of the defendants. The number of suits now pending arising from this small district was very considerable. The Rev. Mr. Bearblock— who was, he understood, well known by his writings on tithes,—set an unusually high value on the tithes he leased, and levied them in a most vexatious manner. By the modus which was proved by the occupiers to have existed for nearly 300 years, though they could not carry up the proof to the year 1180, they only paid about one-fifth of the sum Mr. Bearblock called upon them to pay. The amount of the modus on seven acres of old pasture land, mowed fourteen years at 4d. per acre per annum, would have been 1l. 12s. 8d.. The amount actually demanded and paid for the tithe of the same seven acres of land, for the same number of years, was now 66l. 3s., being an actual overcharge of 64l. 10s.. 4d. on seven acres of land. Again, the amount of the modus on ninety-seven acres of old pasture for fourteen years, at 4s. per acre, would be 22l. 12s..8d.. The amount actually paid for the tithe of those ninety-seven acres, at the rate for which the occupier compounded for six of the fourteen years, was 741l. 4s. 10d. being a positive exaction of 718l. 12s. 2d.. The grievance was not confined to the tithe on hay, however. The mode of collecting the small tithes in this district was most extraordinary, vexatious, and annoying-. As to the modus on lambs, the average value of the lambs reared in this liberty, all of which were fatted for the London market, was stated to be 1l. 8s. The modus was 1d.. each on ten lambs, making the sum paid for the tithe lamb 10d.., but as the tithe-owner now took the lamb, the difference in his favour was 1l. 7s.. 2d.. on each tithe lamb; and the total difference in the tithe of lambs reared annually in this district, the number being about 1,500 was above 200l., or by taking tithe in kind the clergyman received 200l. more than he would under the old established modus. This was only one instance amongst many; and the petitioners desired to have an Act passed to save them from the continuance of such grievous overcharges. They were anxious that a short bill should be passed to limit the rights of the Church, as to time, agreeably to the recommendations of the Law Commissioners, that there should be the same law for the Church as for the Crown. Certainly, it would be very desirable to limit the rights of the Church to possession or custom, as in the case of freehold property. With respect to the vexatious modes followed, in demanding that the tithes should be set out in kind, for the purpose of extorting high compositions, he would illustrate them by stating a few facts. A fanner who had a cow and calf, was not allowed to take them to market until the calf was tithe able; that is, until it could live without its mother. The poor farmer might want to send his cow and calf to market, to pay a debt; but no, the tithe-man stepped in and told him he must defer selling his property until the tithe-owner was satisfied. The very possibility of such a thing occurring was bad enough; and a system which admitted such vexatious proceedings, ought not to be allowed to continue for another year. Individuals had even been prosecuted in this liberty for selling their ewes and lambs when they had not sufficient provender for them: the tithe-collector contending, that they should not be sold until the lambs could do without the ewes The farmer was obliged, therefore, to keep his lambs and ewes until they were starved, to suit the purposes of the tithe-collector. He did not believe, that in a country like England, such a state of the law could exist. He had heard of such vexatious proceedings in Ireland, but did not suppose they took place in England. The farmers in this district, who were in the practice of fattening calves for the London market, were also subject to great inconvenience and loss by the practice of taking the tenth day's milk. If the tithe-receiver took a tenth of the milk every day it would not be so injurious, but he took the tenth day's milk, and then the calves had to go without, or they had only stale milk, which was extremely prejudicial to them. The inhabitants of this district also, grow large quantities of potatoes for the London market, and the petitioners stated, that the practice was, to put out every tenth row or ridge of potatoes for tithe. Instead of allowing the fanner, however, to dig up his own nine rows, leaving the tenth row for the tithe-man, the latter demanded that the potatoes should be measured over at the end of each day's work, by which the farmer was prevented getting the potatoes sorted and washed in time for the early market next day: he was obliged to wait until the whole were dug up, and then to measure them; by which he was prevented from housing them and securing them against the weather or theft. This case had been found so oppressive and injurious, that it had been carried into the Court of King's Bench; but after much trouble and expense, it had gone over to the Court of Arches, where it was likely to be decided after the usual manner of Ecclesiastical Courts. It was impossible not to perceive that cases of this description gave rise to feelings utterly inconsistent, with the peace, of the country. Would it be believed that on poultry the tithe-man demanded the tenth egg, and an agistment tithe of the young from the time they were hatched. If a farmer had forty hens, he had to keep an account of the number of eggs laid—of the number of chickens hatched—of the number which the fox carried away—and of all casualties in his poultry-yard until they were killed or sold. He must keep a regular account, therefore, of every brood until the tithe-man came to make his charge. He would read one letter from a tithe-agent as a specimen of the manner in which these things were managed. Sir;—I understand from the tithing-man of the Rev. Mr. Rawbone, that, from the 23rd of December, to the present time, he has received only four eggs as the tithe of the produce of nine hens; and I am credibly informed that a much greater quantity than forty have been produced. I have, therefore', to beg. that you will, forthwith, render me an account of such eggs as have been produced, to save the necessity of legal proceedings, which will immediately follow your default. (Signed; "THOMAS TOWN-SEND, Romford. [Mr. Hughes Hughes suggested to the hon. Member the propriety of not reading the names of the parties, some of whom, being clergymen, it would place invidiously before the public] He would not read the names, though they were all mentioned at the meeting from which the petition emanated. In this case, however, the farmer said to the titheman— Mr.— I have sent you the tithe of all the eggs I had, but if you are not satisfied, come when the hens are hunted up of a morning, and you shall have an account. The tithing-man, however, required a distinct account. Another letter ran thus:— Sir;—Mr.—'s tithing-man having now, pursuant to your notice, attended at your house upwards of thirty times, without receiving any tithes, I beg to inform you, that he will not attend pursuant to that notice any more, and you are required to give a distinct and fresh notice every day on which you intend setting out any tithe—[the tithe of a dozen of eggs for instance]—and I beg_ of you most distinctly to understand, that in con- sequence of this vexatious and ridiculous conduct on your part, Mr.—will feel justified in pursuing the utmost severity of the law against you, for any omission, however trifling, and I give you this notice, in order that you may not feel hardly used by Mr.— taking proceedings against you; and as you have since last Michaelmas persevered in the practice which I told you was illegal, viz. depasturing cattle without giving the tithing-man notice when they were taken into your fields, I am directed immediately to commence a suit in the Exchequer against you for such default. There was one circumstance alluded to in this letter to which he would direct attention. A farmer, who keeps an inn, has also a field to receive the cattle of the dealers who frequent, the neighbouring fairs and markets; and the tithing-man requires from this person a notice when cattle come in, which it is impossible for him to give, as the cattle come and go at uncertain periods of the day and night, without the farmer himself previously knowing when they are to come. What the tithe-receiver required, therefore, could not be done. Nevertheless, the individual had had a hill filed against him in the Court of Exchequer, the expense of which would be three times more than the whole property of the individual against whom the suit was brought. The man was carried to the Court of Exchequer, which was thus made an instrument of extortion for the purpose of compelling him to pay a large sum for composition. Was it to be borne that a man could not take a head of celery out of his garden, or put a cabbage into his pot, without sending notice to the tithing-man, or subjecting himself to an Exchequer process. He understood, that a suit was lately tried before the Lord Chief Baron Alexander, which was actually instituted to recover the tithe of five cabbages and three heads of celery. The Chief Baron then made the observation —"that it was very easy to lay down the principle upon which the tithe of vegetables should be set out, but that he could not imagine how it could be carried into effect, the difficulty was so great." Was it then a fair or a reasonable thing that a man should not be able to use the produce of his own garden, without running the risk of a prosecution? He was assured that he should be able to prove every one of the facts he had stated, if, after the recess, the House should be of opinion that a Select Committee ought to inquire into the subject. It was necessary that the House should adopt some proceeding, though an investigation need not be of very great length to prove that the system was most pernicious by a few particular instances of vexatious oppression. He had mentioned only a few cases, but he had been told, that there were numerous cases in the same neighbourhood, quite as gross; and that individuals were ready to establish them. The system of annoyance and exaction had gone on, until at last the people were at a loss to know how to rid themselves of the annoyance. The tithe-receivers continually increased their demands. One person informed him, that he hired a farm in 1828, and the sum then demanded of him for tithes was in the proportion of 80l. to every 100l. of rent. He would just ask the House, what must be the feelings of the people? Was it not evident, that with impending prosecutions daily, they must wish to rid themselves of such an odious and ruinous system on any terms? Was it not enough to make every man discontented. No doubt, many persons would submit because the law gave them no protection, and would yield until they were compelled to pay two or three times the amount of what the tithe-owner had a right to claim. For him there was no redress; he might be taken to the Ecclesiastical Court. A person was taken before Sir John Nichol, into the Arches Court; 6l. was the amount of the claim against him, and his expenses were 180l. It was a case in which tithes to the value of 6l. were taken away. Then there was the case of Fanshaw v. Brittan, in which the subject in dispute, as he had already staled, was the tithe on five cabbages and three heads of celery. The petitioners prayed, that tithe-owners should not be allowed to remove their claims for tithes to those Courts where a decision was obtained at so enormous an expense; and they also prayed the House to devise some means of putting a limit to claims for tithes. No claim ought to be taken to the Court of Exchequer for tithes, which did not amount at least to 20l. and all claims for smaller sums should be settled by the nearest Magistrate, according to the Act of William 3rd, to which he had already referred. There were some other circumstances referred to by these petitioners, extremely well deserving the attention of hon. Members anxious to build churches and places of religious worship. It appeared that there were certain religious duties to be performed within this liberty, for which the New College at Ox- ford was bound to provide, but which it seemed to neglect, and even a Curate who preached two sermons instead of one on the Sunday, was forbid to continue doing so, lest it might grow into a practice; and the parishioners were obliged to subscribe amongst themselves for an evening lecture at the Curate's own house. He considered this subject of vital importance to the peace of the country, and when such cases of oppression and vexation occurred, it was no wonder that exasperation should be felt and violence ensue. Such feelings prevailing throughout the country, and such violence having taken place, it was necessary that Government should take up the subject of tithes, and propose some plan to put an end to the present vexatious system.

Mr. Long Wellesley

regretted the presentation of the petition in the existing state of the House, for never, perhaps, was one of greater importance offered to its notice. He had been asked by many of those who signed it to support its prayer. He knew the parties, and knew that many of the facts stated were strictly correct. He was perfectly acquainted with the district referred to in the petition, for his property was surrounded by a part of it. It was not his wish at that time to enter into all the circumstances connected with this case, which was, he hoped and believed, an extreme one, and that no other case of equal hardship and oppression could be found in any part of the country. Let the House mark what the petitioners stated, and look at the situation of the Established Church and of the law, with such causes of dissatisfaction in existence; and mark too the situation of the petitioners, driven to seek the expensive aid of Chancery, as a protection against the already too onerous impost of tithes. He knew the place and the people, and knew that they had no political feeling adverse to the Government. There was not. in the whole country, for a series of years, a body of men so strictly loyal, such rigid Tories, so proud of the Constitution under which they lived, and (though the: hon. member for Middlesex would not think the better of them for this) so ready at paying war taxes. There were no men who adhered more pertinaciously lo the Government—the Tory Government—than the people of Havering-atte-Bower and its neighbourhood. Only that very day, however, a person stated to him, that there wore very unpleasant demonstrations of feeling in that neighbourhood; and when a reference was made to the means adopted elsewhere for the prevention of tumults and breaches of the law, his observation was, "Sir, the conduct of the parson is such, that I dare not. swear in those proper persons who would otherwise be sworn in as special constables." The consequence, therefore, of the proceedings referred to in the petition, was disaffection amongst the great body of the people of that district. He deeply regretted, that it. should have been necessary to present such a petition, and should have been glad if any mode had been suggested, by which it might have been avoided, but the case having been brought forward, in the face of the country, it ought to undergo a thorough investigation for the sake of the Church itself. He wished well to the Church, and therefore he was anxious that, in such a case as this, a proper remedy should be devised. It was because he wished well to the Church that he was desirous of such a modification of the law as would prevent the recurrence of such monstrous evils. He wished to restore the Church to its primitive excellence, and he hoped that clergymen would not continue to be placed in their present invidious situations. There were circumstances connected with this case which the hon. member for Middlesex had not referred to. The amount of the tithes levied in the district was 6,000l. a year—an enormous sum in proportion to the rental. He knew a farm within this district, the rent of which was 100l. and it paid 80l. for tithes. This sum of 6,000l. was exacted, not by an individual resident in the place, but by the New College, Oxford, which was said to apply it in this way:— It paid 1,300l. to the rector of Romford, a non-resident Rector, who never performed any fluty, and never went near that town. That Rector, receiving 1,300l. a year himself, paid 100l. a year to a Curate, who performed divine service once a week. This was the situation of the inhabitants of Romford; a large and populous town; and the adjoining hamlet of Hornchurch was precisely in the same situation; could there be a greater grievance? The parties who paid this large amount for tithes never saw the Rector, he paid his Curate 100l. a year out of 1,300l. and the remainder of the 6,000l. went to the funds of New College, so that the district actually paid 6,000l. for services that were requited by the sixtieth part of that sum. But it was not the amount of the tithe only; the mode of collecting it was exceedingly onerous; which satisfied him of the expediency of a commutation of tithes, even if the commutation should ensure an amount as high as that to which the clergyman was entitled by the most rigorous mode of exaction. A great grievance arose from the manner in which the tithe on potatoes was collected. Honourable Members were perhaps aware, that after land had been a long time in cultivation, the farmer was obliged to go to a considerable expense before a crop could be got; potatoes, therefore, in this description of land, might be called an expensive article of manufacture. Formerly the clergyman took the tenth ridge of potatoes for his tithe; but now, the potatoes were dug and measured and the tithe was taken according to the quantity. By this method the farmer had the expense of digging up the ten ridges of potatoes, and the tithe-owner took the potatoes as they were ready for market. This was not the only grievance, however. There were certain seasons of the year when the potatoes, after they were taken from the ground, should not be exposed, but sent to London for sale immediately. He knew these facts; for he was the largest proprietor, perhaps, of this species of land in the county of Essex. At the particular seasons to which he referred, the potatoes were dug up usually in the evening; and, after being sorted, ought to be sent away at night, to be in London for the early market. This was prevented, however, by the manner in which the tithe was collected; and he had known the farmers say to the tithe-collector, "If you will come every other day, when we are sorting the potatoes, and take your tithe, well and good; but if you come in the middle of every day, you oblige me to sell the produce for less than its value, by keeping it from the market." Such representations, reasonable as they appeared had not been attended to. He believed this was an extreme case; but that such a case should exist, under the sanction of the law, shewed the necessity for commuting tithes. Great dissatisfaction was felt on this subject, and therefore he said some reform was necessary. Though anxious for reform, however, no man was more resolved than he was, to guard and maintain inviolate the old and constitutional rights and just interests of the Church. He trusted, that he understood the value of them as well as any common gentleman, and he sincerely wished to preserve them in that purity which was consonant to the times. In his opinion, this would be best effected by a reform. A person who was no great reformer, (Charles 1st) however, observed, that no reform should be undertaken until the perturbation of novelty had passed away. But no one connected with rural affairs, who knew the exactions which took place, would deny that the manner in which tithes were levied was a great source of disturbance and dissatisfaction and there could be no perturbation of novelty in reforming them. Those who were not prepared to make things worse, should unite in endeavouring to remedy the evil. The dissatisfaction was not confined to any one class of the agricultural population. When the farmer remonstrated with his labourers on the outrages which were occurring throughout the country, and expressed his determination to bring the perpetrators to punishment, the peasant said to the farmer, "Why need you seek to punish us? we shall get rid of the tithe." There was a general determination therefore, more on the part of the occupier than of the landlord, to get rid of the present system of tithes. He thought it proper that the present system of tithes should be altered; that they ought to be commuted, but whether he thought so or not, when he knew that so general an opinion prevailed throughout all classes on this subject, he was certain that it would be only wise and prudent to take time by the forelock, and to concede for the sake of the Church itself. If things went on as at present, and opinions on this subject continued as strong as at present, though the landlord might get some rent, no one would get any tithe. He and other landed gentlemen might, under a course of moderation, be able to hold their own; but, as the gallant Admiral (Sir Joseph Yorke) would say, were he present, they must "hold on the slack." At the same time he thought that there was such a love of justice, and such a sense of right in the English people, that if the Legislature shewed them that it was prepared to concede what it ought, they would be satisfied. If the clergy consented to go hand in hand with the landed gentlemen they might be able to maintain the Church Establishment and themselves. If a system of concession were not adopted particularly on this subject, in his opinion not only the landed proprietors and the Church, but the State itself would be in imminent danger. He would in conclusion, quote a few lines, bearing on the subject and very applicable to the present state of the country. Lord Bacon says: So when any of the four pillars of Government are mainly shaken or weakened (which are religion, justice, counsel, and treasure), men had need to pray for fair weather. But let us pass from this part of predictions (concerning which, nevertheless, more light may be taken from that which followeth), and let us speak first of the materials of seditions, then of the motives of them, and thirdly of the remedies. Concerning the materials of seditions, it is a thing well lo be considered, for the surest way to prevent seditions (if the times do bear; is to take away the matter of them, for if there be fuel prepared, it is hard to tell whence the spark shall come that shall set it on fire. The matter of seditions is of two kinds—much poverty, and much discontentment. It is certain. so many overthrown estates, so many votes for troubles.—Lucian noteth well the state of Home before the civil war— 'Hinc usura vorax, rapidumque in tempora fœnus Hinc concussa fides et multis utile bellum. This same multis utile bellum is an assured and infallible sign of a slate disposed to sedition and troubles; and if this poverty and broken estate in the better sort, be joined with a want and necessity in the mean people, the danger is imminent and great; for the rebellions of the belly are the worst. As for discontentments, they are in the politic body, like to humours in the natural, which are apt to gather preternatural heat, and to inflame. And let no Prince measure the danger of them by this, whether they be just or unjust; for that were to imagine people to be too reasonable, who do often spurn at their own good; nor yet by this, whether the griefs whereupon they rise, be, in fact, great or small; for they are the most dangerous discontentments, where the fear is greater than the feeling. Dolendi modus, timendi non item. Besides, in great oppressions, the same things that provoke the patience, do withal make the courage; but in fears it is not so; neither let any Prince or State be secure concerning discontentments, because they have been often, or have been long, and yet no peril hath ensued; for as it is true, that every vapour or fume doth not turn into a storm, so it is nevertheless true that storms, though they blow over divers times, yet may fall at last; and as the Spanish proverb noteth well, 'the cord breaketh at the last by the weakest pull.'

Sir Robert Inglis

said, that a petition so important was never brought forward under circumstances so inconvenient, and so unfair. Of the 658 Members of which this House consists, there was not one, who, having heard the notice which the hon. Member gave a short while ago, could suppose, that within an hour of giving that notice, he would have brought forward such a petition, and have prefaced its presentation by remarks which might have reminded him that it was a subject on which the House was called upon to give a deliberate opinion, and on which Members must naturally be desirous of having time for some previous, consideration. The hon. Member gave notice of his intention of presenting another petition this evening—a petition, certainly, on a subject of very great importance, from the county of Middlesex; and if that petition, in his judgment, required a notice, because he had occasion to make a speech on it, it was not too much to expect that he should have given notice of his intention to make a long speech on the subject of tithes, in presenting this petition. In making these observations on the irregularity and unfairness of the manner in which the petition had been brought forward, he begged not to be understood as doing so because he had any reluctance to meet the statements of the hon. Member, or because he entertained any—the slightest doubt—that the arguments brought forward by him would have, received a triumphant answer, if any opportunity had been given for the discussion. Without entering into that discussion at this period, and with so thin a House, he would just observe, that a great deal of what had been said by the hon. member for Middlesex depended upon the assumption, that the parties whose cases he had detailed had no legal means of redress if their complaints were well founded. The hon. member for Middlesex wished, in the first instance, to turn that House into a Court of Justice, and then into a Court of Appeal from other tribunals; but whether in the case of tithes, or in any other case, he should always resist the attempt to convert that House into any such tribunal. The hon. Member referred to those cases in which there had been decisions of a Court of Law against the parties whose cases he stated. Was that House, then, to be a Court of Review from the Court of Exchequer, or any other Court? Was it to pronounce that the tithe-proctors had acted wrong, or that an ancient modus was correct, and another modus vicious, because, by so doing, it would relieve the farmers of a certain district in Essex from a payment of tithes which the law says they are bound to pay, though the payment was the subject of much complaint? In this case, however, the complaints did not apply to the clergy. No one of the cases referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex attached to the clergy. It was the exaction, as he called it, of a particular species of property in the hands of laymen. He believed, in the last case in which a petition was presented, and anything said (by an English Member at least) on the subject of tithes precisely the same thing occurred. The facts stated in that case were, that the rent of a farm was 680l.; in consequence of the depression of the times, the landlord reduced the rent to 560l.; but as regarded tithes, the charge in the one case was 140l., and in the other case, when the rent was reduced, it was also 140l. It was added, too, that when the farmer applied to the tithe-collector for a reduction of tithes, and stated that his landlord had made a reduction of rent, the answer made to him was, "You can pay your tithes so much the better as your rent has been reduced." When that petition was under discussion the tithe-proprietor was unknown, but he had since ascertained, and he had the authority of the hon. Member who presented the petition for stating it, that the tithes referred to in that petition were in the hands of a lay impropriator, although, he had no doubt, every one left the House under the impression that the tithes were the property of a clergyman. All the circumstances now stated by the hon. Member arose out of tithe property in the hands of laymen. It was of no consequence that the lessee of one portion of those tithes was a clergyman, as stated by the hon. Member: he held the tithes as a layman, and not in his clerical character. Whatever might be the value of the cases referred to by those petitioners, as supporting the views of the hon. member for Middlesex, those cases attached in no respect to the Church. The hon. Member stated, that the tithes in question belonged to New College, Oxford, which, in this instance, did not act as an ecclesiastical body The Corporation of New College, Oxford, was not an ecclesiastical body; but held its rights as the Corporation of London, or any other Corporation. Many of the Fellows of New College were laymen; and the greater part of their tithes, as in this instance was, in lay hands. These cases, therefore, did not in any respect affect the clergy. He regretted that the hon. member for Middlesex should have made such observations on a petition brought forward without notice; and that the hon. member for St. Ives should have thought it necessary to follow his example. Into some of the details brought forward he would make inquiry. He wished the hon. member for Clare (O'Gorman Mahon), who had been so forward in cheering the statements contained in this petition, and the observations made on them, to understand, that the clergy of the Established Church were not in any degree implicated in these cases. The Church was not answerable for the proceedings of New College, with respect to the management of its own property.

Mr. Lennard

hoped, as the petition came from the immediate neighbourhood in which he resided, that the House would suffer him to make a few observations. He believed that his hon. friend, the member for Essex, left the House under the impression that the petition would not be presented to-night, and he was exceedingly sorry that his hon. friend was not present. He was prepared, however, most cordially to support the prayer of the petition, which points to a great and pressing evil, calling for immediate redress. He agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that the Church ought to claim its rights within a reasonable lime, or otherwise its claims should lapse, like those of individuals. The Church, and collegiate bodies, were the only corporations which now maintain this odious and invidious power,—a power so odious and unpopular, that there was no real friend of the Church who would not wish it abrogated. By the courtesy of the hon. member for Middlesex, he had had an opportunity of looking into the petition, and could bear testimony to the respectability of the petitioners. It appeared to him that the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, had entirely mistaken the view which the hon. member for Middlesex took in presenting this petition. The hon. Member did not lay this case before the House as a Court of Appeal, but as affording reasons for calling upon the House to pass a law, by which the grounds of complaint stated in the petition might be removed. The hon. Baronet stated, that the tithes of Havering- atte-Bower were to be considered as the property of lay impropriators, inasmuch as the Fellows of New College were laymen as well as clergymen; but what had that to do with the case? What difference did it make? That fact did not weaken the case of the petitioners in the least. This petition was not brought forward against the Church, but against a great abuse and evil, in which laymen as well as clergymen were concerned. There was nothing new in the complaint. The evils alleged to exist in this particular district, certainly exist in many other places, and must exist, from the state of the law. No blame was imputed to the clergyman; the fault was in the law. He had no other means of obtaining his tithes, but that which was much and justly complained of. The clergyman must submit to loss his dues on cabbages and celery, as referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex, or he must exact them in this harsh way. It was the state of the law, as regards tithes, that required revision; and for the purpose of effecting that revision, his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, had pressed the case of these petitioners into his argument, and upon that view was the petition entitled to his support. With respect to what had been stated by the hon. member for St. Ives, as to the manner in which the clerical duties were performed in the neighbourhood from whence this petition came, he was not quite correctly informed. In Mornchurch, a very large and populous village, the church-service was most properly performed. The clerical duties were performed in that village by a most excellent person, who had done the duty for several years; and he could take it upon him to state, from his knowledge of the parish, that those duties were exceedingly well performed. He agreed with the hon. member for St. Ives, that it was desirable to maintain the property of the Church establishment; but it was obviously the interest of the Church itself, that some alteration should be made in the mode of collecting tithes. Many persons connected with the Church felt this, and would be glad of some alteration in the present system. Nothing could be worse, or more painful to the clergyman, than to be obliged to quarrel with his parishioners on the subject of tithes, which he was frequently compelled to do. There ought to be a commutation of tithes, and the members of the Church, he believed, only required to be assured, that the commutation was to be founded on just and equitable principles, to ensure their concurrence; and no commutation, founded on different principles, should have his support.

O'Gorman Mahon, assured the House, that it had not been his intention to have obtruded himself on its notice, previous to the somewhat uncalled-for reference, which the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford University, thought proper to make to him. Deeply interested as he was, and had always avowed himself to be, on this subject; feeling an interest which induced him to remain for the presentation of a petition in which he was not in any way personally concerned, but on public grounds, the case being exclusively English; he should not have ventured to offer a single sentence, but for the personal call of the hon. Baronet. Interested as he was in this subject on public grounds, that interest was greatly increased by his anxiety to hear what answer the hon. Baronet would give to the allegations of the petition, and the observations of the hon. Member who presented it; to hear, he said, the hon. Baronet—the elect of that great ecclesiastical and erudite body, the University of Oxford, — to hear him, whom he had seen there pace along so proudly, surrounded by crowds of parsons, who, leaving their flocks, had come from all parts of the kingdom to support him, to the exclusion of one who had certainly been an able advocate and champion of the cause of the Established Church — but had then become the advocate of Christian and liberal principles; the chosen knight, was to combat, as it were, with all who should dare to venture into the lists against the abuses of the Established Church. He was anxious to hear what the hon. Baronet had to offer in refutation of the charges made by the petitioners. He had felt great anxiety, but great as was his anxiety, his disappointment had been still greater. He had no doubt, when the hon. Baronet came to speak on the subject, that the House would be placed in a state of ecstasy and delight by the charms of his eloquence. He had no doubt that the men of Oxford, whom he had seen so active in propping up, the hon. Baronet, had made a well-grounded choice,—that they had selected the most competent person to represent the Church establishment in Parliament, and one most competent to refute any calumnies if calumnies should be uttered, against the conduct of the black, cloth. He had been grievously disappointed, however, and the disappointment had had such an effect on his spirits, that he felt himself very unequal to attempt a fitting response to the call so unexpectedly made on him by the hon. Baronet. Thus unceremoniously referred to and taunted, because he nodded assent to some observations made by the hon. member for Middlesex, might he inquire why the hon. Baronet did not permit him to remain quietly, in his position, and apply himself to the allegations made, than to the mode in which he (O'Gorman Mahon) had indicated his sense of their importance? But since it had been put on him, he would not shrink from giving his opinion on the petition, and on the nature of the answer which the hon. Baronet had attempted to give to it. The cheers which excited the hon. Baronet's wrath, were caused by the force of the statements made by the hon. member for Middlesex; but those cheers ought also to have excited the hon. Baronet to some laudable efforts, in the defence of that Church establishment, of which he is the avowed and chosen champion. He only gave the usual cheer which awaits on statements that strike home. He had cried, "hear! hear!" when particular points were made, which he conceived deserving of marked attention—when evidence was referred to, which left a strong impression on the mind—or when evidence was adduced, which, if not contravened, must carry conviction to the minds of all. Now, what answer did the hon. Baronet, the member for the Oxford University, give to this petition? He occupied the House for several minutes with his reply. He complained that the hon. member for Middlesex had made a speech of an hour in presenting the petition; but what answer did the hon. Baronet give to the petition? Did he deny any one allegation contained in it? Did he combat a single observation that accompanied it? Quite the contrary He—the champion of the Church—was silent on these points, and allowed every allegation contained in the petition to stand uncontradicted. He lamented, forsooth, that the petition was brought forward in so thin a House! So did he. He lamented that all England was not within earshot, and he wished that the statements contained in this petition were within the scope and the consider- ation of every man in the community. What those hon. Members who spoke in support of this petition mildly called injurious exactions, the country would denominate most iniquitous and disgraceful proceedings. How were the arguments of these hon. Members answered by the champion of the Church? He did not deny a single fact, but, instead of argument, he attempted to substitute a wretched equivoque. He said, these deeds being done, were not done by churchmen in their clerical capacity. It was true, the tithe-receiver—he who sent to try the very hens, and put them under contribution,— was in reality a clergyman, though in doing this, he acted not in his clerical character, but by the authority and in the capacity of lay impropriator. Most miserable subterfuge! but let the House analyse the argument of the hon. Baronet, which invested the same individual with two distinct characters—those of layman and clergyman—but would seek to strip him of the latter, while he happened to be engaged in the practices now described. When these practices were enacting, he must be viewed in his lay character only, and not at all in his clerical.—What! he, a clergyman—one of the sanctified of the Lord,—whose forehead the holy oil had anointed! who—

Mr. Courtenay

rose to order. He moved that the House be counted.

O'Gonnan Mahon, thought he ought not to be interrupted in the midst of a reply forced from him by the hon. Baronet's observations. His answer ought not to be evaded by a motion of this description; besides, the petition was not disposed of.

The Speaker

explained, that when any Member noticed that forty Members were not present, and called upon him to count the House, he was bound to do so; no motion could be made, nor any business proceeded with, after it was remarked and ascertained that there were not forty Members present, for, strictly speaking, there was then no House competent to dispose of any motion. The House was accordingly counted, and forty Members not being present, was adjourned.