§ Captain Pechellrose pursuant to notice to present a Petition most numerously signed from certain owners and occupiers of land in the vicinity of Chichester, Arundel, and Worthing, expressing 257 their alarm at the recent decree of the Court of Exchequer in the tithe cause, Kemp v. Pechell, and praying for a speedy Commutation of Tithes. He wished to observe, that this petition had been put into his hands partly with a view of contradicting the observations made by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford as well by other hon. Gentlemen who impugned the truth of the petition which he presented on the 19th of last month, which observations were certainly as unfounded as they were uncalled-for. The hon. Member for the University (Mr. Est-court) declared his belief that something must have been kept behind that petition, as the vicar complained of, never would have risked so expensive a suit in the Court of Exchequer, but for some great provocation on the part of the petitioner, thereby insinuating that he (Captain Pechell) had lent himself to the concealment of certain facts which would have materially altered the case; but he was sure the House would join with him in expressing its surprise when he stated that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford, had at his own request, received from him some few days before the petition was presented, the most complete and unreserved explanation of the whole case of the petitioner, which the hon. Member absolutely acknowledged to be one of very great hardship as well as one of a perfectly novel character. He confessed, indeed, that this was a great admission for the hon. Gentleman to make; but he was not prepared certainly to find the hon. Gentleman afterwards standing up in his place, doubting the facts stated and opposing the petition as if he had been in perfect ignorance of its existence,—and declaring his belief that something must have been kept behind. He certainly dared hardly to express himself in terms sufficiently strong to vindicate himself from such unwarrantable insinuations as to suppose that the petitioner, an officer of unblemished honour could have descended to the unworthy practice imputed to him. At the same time, he was bound to state that in strict fact there were circumstances which were kept behind the petition, which he would take upon himself to say, none of the hon. Gentlemen who took part against the petitioner would have wished to be brought forward; and he should advise them to be careful lest he should now take this opportunity of letting the cat out of the hag; for in that case it would be seen that what was kept back was as discreditable to 258 the character of the vicar as it redounded to the honour and high reputation of the petitioner. He should, therefore, at present, state one fact only, which he trusted would induce those hon. Gentlemen at once to acknowledge the injustice with which they viewed that petition, and which he should demand at their hands on the part of his relative. The House should know that when the disputes arose in the parish on account of the claim made by the vicar for the tithe of turnips, a vestry meeting was convened by the parishioners with the view to resist so novel a demand. The petitioner, as the principal landowner and occupier, when applied to, absolutely refused to join it, because he would not countenance any semblance even of a combination against the vicar. He wished at once to be understood that this petition was by no means intended as an appeal from the Court of Exchequer; but it was true, that it impugned the decree of the Chief Baron as being a case decided wholly without a concurrent decision; and being entirely of a novel character, it might have been decreed without costs, according to the principles of justice and equity. A captain of the navy might form as good and as correct an opinion of this, notwithstanding the observation of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as the Lord Chancellor himself, or even a representative for a school of grown-up-boys. He could assure the House that the farmers never could be brought to understand why they were to pay the tithe in kind of the green food given to their flock, which already paid tithe of agistment, for any sheep sold before shearing time, as well as the tithe of lambs and wool. The farmers could not comprehend the justice of preventing them from pecking up their turnips outside the fold or hurdles, because the flock was divided, and the whole of it had not access nor the range of the field at the time of pecking. They could not understand why they were obliged to risk giving their flock turnip-greens at improper periods, when the custom of the country and common sense indicated the necessity of pecking the turnip, in order to let it wither or die, or prevent it too soon running to seed. The decree of the Chief Baron declared that unless the whole flock had access at the time of pecking, the turnip tithe was due in kind. In this case, part of the flock had such access, the remainder being parted off by hurdles; consequently the sheep by treading and nibbling soiled the turnips 259 and rendered them unfit for the market. He apprehended that no difference of opinion existed as to the right of tithe of agistment for sheep sold before shearing time; but he denied that there was any right in equity for lithe in kind of such turnips as should he pecked up, and left on the same ground for the only purpose of better feeding the sheep. He asserted, that it was impossible to set out the tithes of turnips so pecked in process of depasturage. The Chief Baron said, there was no difficulty; but that opinion did no show how it was to be done. Even the vicar himself had very recently declared, that it was impossible to do it, and he demanded a money payment in consequence, which was paid to him for fear of another suit in the Court of Exchequer. Allowing every tenth turnip to be thrown aside, the vicar could have no dues unless they were heaped, because they had not reached a titheable form,—and there was no tenth heap, because the turnips when pecked remained in their places; and it had been decided that the occupier is not bound to do more for the parson than he does for himself. The analogous case of grasses of all kinds successively strengthened this case of turnips, as they might be carried away for feeding cattle and horses, because they were only in swathe and not cocked; and the green meat was necessary for the cattle, and difficulty existed in setting out grasses for tithes which had not yet reached a titheable form. Thus grasses were exempt from tithe on account of the difficulty of setting out; and why should not turnips be equally exempt? No one could dispute the difficulty or the impolicy of taking the tithe of turnips in the process of eatage and depasturage by sheep; and he defied the Barons of the Exchequer and all the hon. Members to show how it could be done. The decree in this case, was given as bearing on those cases cited where turnips were actually removed from the land, either for sale or feeding cattle, cows, or hogs. It was clear, that if the turnips had been pulled and carried off the land, the parson would have been entitled to his tenth, for such turnips could be heaped; and being carried away, the land lost the benefit of the manure made by the sheep. Such turnips, therefore, were carried out of sight of the tithe-owner, and he would be defrauded if he had not his tenth, though they might be pulled for feeding cattle belonging to the same farm, yet it might be in another parish. But 260 there was no case on record where tithes of turnips had been claimed that were severed for the use of sheep on the same ground for the purpose of manure, and ameliorating the land for the ensuing crop. Mr. Eagle, who might be said to have lived in compiling tithe causes, had said in a recent work,—"That turnips are a prædial small tithe, and where pulled and carried off the land, are titheable in kind; but when eaten on the ground by unprofitable cattle or sheep not producing tithe of lamb or wool in the same parish, they are to be paid for as agistment tithes." The cases cited by the Chief Baron, were those of Echard and Brown, 1697; Humphreys and Stopher, 1705; Ringstead and Young, 1708. Blaney and Whittaker were also referred to, 1783. Now he ventured to say, that not one of these cases made mention of sheep or of pecking up the turnips. They all alluded to turnips pulled and carried off the land for feeding cattle and hogs; and it must be observed that in those early days turnips were only raised on the richer soils and were pulled and carried away from the land. No one ever thought of feeding them off by sheep for the purpose of ameliorating the land for a succeeding crop. This system had only of late years been introduced; and consequently the old cases cited by the Chief Baron wholly failed in establishing a precedent. He, on the part of the petitioners, thought that this case should not have been decided against the farmer with costs as well as with all arrears for any turnips pecked up within the period of six years. The petitioners had therefore strong reasons for viewing such a decision with alarm, seeing that a line had been drawn beyond which they were forbidden to peck up their turnips, which to those acquainted with sheep cultivation must appear most extraordinary. Captain Pechell then adverted to the course pursued on a former occasion by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and declared that it would depend upon them now, whether he should bring to light some stronger facts which would strengthen the case of the petitioners. The defendant, had shown the most honourable intention throughout, and his conduct afforded a perfect contrast to that of the plaintiff, who was his vicar. The only remedy now left to the petitioners was for this House to pass some law which would set at rest this most vexatious question to the agricultural interest. He therefore moved, that this petition be now brought up.
Mr. Parrott, though he did not trouble 261 the House very often, could not lose this opportunity of approving every word expressed by the hon. Member for Brighton. The case of the petitioners appeared to him quite of a novel character, and highly injurious to the agriculturists, for whom he should always he found a zealous advocate. He considered it a great hardship even to pay what was claimed for tithes generally, which was the tenth of the produce; but he considered the case of the petitioners to bemonstrous; and some remedy should be speedily applied. What justice was there in this claim for tithe of turnips in kind whilst in the process of depasturage of sheep? He trusted the hon. Member for Brighton would not quit this subject till the grievances of the petitioners and of the country were remedied.
§ Lord Sandon,as one of the Members alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton, having taken part in the debate on the presentation of a former petition, wished to correct any opinion that might have gone forth as to his wish or intention of casting any reflection on the statement made by that hon. Member as to the facts contained in the petition. He did not intend to express any doubt as to the authenticity of the petition; but he certainly had seen many petitions against the clergy which stated facts not afterwards borne out. He considered this not a party question, but one that required immediate attention; he hoped Ministers would speedily apply some remedy to prevent the recurrence of such vexatious proceedings as appeared in the petition.
§ Captain Pechell,in reply, said, after the satisfactory explanation of the noble Lord, he should wholly refrain from bringing before the House those facts which were discreditable to the clergyman, and which he kept in reserve unless provoked by hon. Members. He had received notice that other petitions were coming to him on the same subject, and it would depend on hon. Members whether he should remain quiet or not. The Hampshire clergymen certainly appeared to mark out the unfortunate naval officers for their prey and plunder, for he held in his hand a decree of Chancery in a suit just decided, "Richards versus Hulbert," where the parson actually claimed the tithe of grass after the tithe of hay had been paid for the same land. The parson wished to squeeze twenty-four months out of the year, as he claimed tithe for the grass between the two crops, viz., from Michaelmas to Lady-day, 262 but the Lords Commissioners decided, "that the same land which had paid the tithe of hay was not to be charged with any tithe in respect of agishment in the period between the two crops." This decision showed that the exemption extended over the whole year, however reckoned; and that it was not to be regulated by the calendar year or the historical year, as the clergyman intended it should be. This case was in fact more vexatious, if possible, than the case now before the House. He trusted the Session would not pass away without a remedy being applied to these annoyances to which the farmer was subject.
Lord Stanleysaid, that though he was not perhaps perfectly justisfied in declaring what course he meant to take with regard to the Irish Tithe Bill, which the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had obtained leave to bring in, yet as he had taken an active part in all the discussions on the question to which the Bill referred, the House would, he hoped, excuse him if he stated a word or two how he meant to act with regard to this measure. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Morpeth) had prepared the Bill, at least so far as could be collected from his speech on introducing it, in such a way as that it involved two questions—two points of principle totally distinct from each other. One of these he (Lord Stanley") considered very desirable, the other so objectionable that no persuasion—no consideration whatever, could induce him to support a Bill embracing such a principle. He was placed, therefore, in this difficulty—that he could not oppose or support the Bill on its second reading without approving or condemning both the principles included in it. He would then offer the Bill no opposition on its second reading, with this distinct understanding, that he would take the earliest opportunity of objecting, when the one of the two principles to which he had alluded could be considered separately, to that by which the property of the Church was intended to be appropriated to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. With this reservation he would give the second reading of the Bill no opposition, but he hoped some time would be allowed after the Bill was printed for the consideration of the details, and for the purpose of seeing how far individual cases alluded to in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, would be affected by it.