HC Deb 01 August 1836 vol 35 cc743-4

Lord J. Russell moved the consideration of the Lords' Amendments on the Tithes Commutation Bill.

Mr. Lennard

objected to the first amendment. He thought it most unjust for the Church to have a power of appointing one of the three arbitrators, whilst it controlled and influenced the others. He trusted that the House would reject this amendment.

Lord J. Russell

did not think this an amendment of any great importance or so objectionable, or that any unfair advantage had been taken. The Bill originally stood as the Lords had amended it.

Mr. Lennard

would not press his objection.

Amendment agreed to.

On the clause providing the form of a declaration to be made under the Bill being proposed,

Mr. Curteis

complained of an alteration having been made, by inserting an oath instead of a declaration. The clause had originally been agreed to in this House, and after the determination to which it had come with respect to oaths, he thought this alteration ought not to be agreed to merely to please persons in another place.

Mr. Hume

concurred with the hon. Member for Sussex, and hoped he would take the sense of the House upon it.

Lord J. Russell

thought the alteration not of such consequence as to call for a division. He owned, however, he very much preferred a declaration to an oath.

Mr. Hume

hoped they should have the noble Lord's vote.

The Attorney-General

thought the objection was quite unfounded. The oath was merely a promissory one for the proper performance of certain duties.

The House divided on the question that the Lords' amendment be agreed to:— Ayes 82; Noes 30: Majority 52.

On the amendment to Clause 41, omitting a proviso relative to hop-gardens,

Mr. Curteis

moved that the amendment be rejected.

The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 67; Noes 19: Majority 48.

Lords' amendment agreed to.

On the amendment to Clause 84, which gave a tithe on cows fed in stalls or sheds,

Mr. Thomas Duncombe

objected to the amendment of the Lords. This tithe, he observed, would fall chiefly on the poor; and he thought that the clergy, having got so great a benefit by the Bill as that of a certain fixed sum for what was before uncertain, they ought not to claim a tithe of this kind.

Lord John Russell

admitted that the amendment of the Lords made in this respect a vexatious charge, but the difficulty he had was this—that the stable or shed in which the cows were kept would have rent-charge placed on it if the tithe on the cows was not admitted.

Mr. Benett

said, that the tithe on cows thus kept would be most unjust, as they were fed on articles which had already paid tithe. He remembered a claim of the kind having been made about thirty years ago, in Hertford, and brought to a trial, and the jury gave it against the claim, on the ground that the cows were fed on articles which had already paid tithe.

Amendment disagreed to.

Some other amendments of the Lords were agreed to, and a Committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing with some of the Lords' amendments.