HC Deb 12 May 1836 vol 33 cc881-98

Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Commutation of Tithes (England)Bill.

Mr. Edward Buller

proposed several amendments in Clause 34.

Lord John Russell

opposed the amendments, as tending to disturb the agreement entered into, which was this, that where the average amount of tithe received for the last seven years was from 60l. to 75l. inclusive, all such cases should remain undisturbed by this Bill; where it was from 80l. to 90l. it should be reduced to 75l.; and where it was under 60l. it might be raised, if it should appear to the Commissioners that it was fit to do so. He did not understand upon what principle the hon. Member proposed his amendment. It was not the principle of this Bill which took the gross, and not the net amount.

Mr. Edward Buller

proposed a reduction of 10l.. per cent., where the full value of the tithe had been received for the last seven years. His proposition amounted to this:—If the tithe-pavers were not satisfied with the average of the last seven years, they would be at liberty to demand a new-valuation of the gross tithe. If upon the average it was found to amount to any sum from 90l. to 100l., then from such amount a deduction of 10l. per cent. should be made. Where the amount was between 75l. and 80l. he would make no reduction, and if it was under 75l. he would raise it to 75l. The effect of his proposal would be, to allow all proprietors of tithes throughout the country to retain the advantages they at present possessed, at the same time that it would allow of the raising to the 75l. percent. such tithes as were now, from the expenses of collection, below that rate. If the noble Lord proposed to take off 25 per cent. from the gross amount in certain cases, why might not 10l. per cent. be deducted from the net amount in the others?

Lord John Russell

thought, now that he understood the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, that it was not founded on the same principle of justice as his own. He could not see the ground for acceding to a proposition which might practically have the effect of giving a tithe-owner in one case 80 per cent. and another tithe-owner in another 35 per cent. only, thus leaving a difference of 45 per cent. He thought that a proposition which established one equalised rate to apply to all cases was a more just one, and one which must have a more beneficial effect than a plan liable in operation to such inequalities.

Mr. Benett

said, there was no question that the gross demand of the tithe-owner was for 100 per cent; the difference lay in the expenses of collection. That was the argument for commutation, because by commutation all that expense of collection, now lost to both parties, were saved.

Sir Robert Inglis

said, that, although his objections to the system of commutation were as strong as ever, he would have an opportunity, on another occasion, of addressing himself to the general principle of the measure. The question now in dispute was the amount to be given to the tithe-owner under the proposed commutation. It had been said, that the principle proposed to be acted upon would have the effect of raising the value of some tithes, and of depressing that of others. Now, he could not see why a principle which should have the effect of depressing should be admitted at all. He thought, that where, on an average of the seven preceding years, the tithe-owner had received the whole of his right, that right ought to be preserved to him under the measure of commutation.

Mr. Blamire

said, he must object both to the proposition of the noble Lord, and that of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, inasmuch as he did not think either the one of the other would place all parties concerned in that position in which they ought to stand in reference to each other. He was perfectly satisfied that no rule could be laid down which would entirely meet all cases. He would with great submission beg to state to the House and to the noble Lord how he thought the difficulty might be remedied. He was aware, that the subject was a very difficult one to deal with, especially the compulsory part of the arrangement. The House ought to bear in mind, that if it were not possible to do what they wished and what was desirable, it was their duty to steer clear of doing a positive injustice to anybody. He begged to say, that he thought it would be an infinitely better plan in every case to ascertain the expense of the collection of tithe in that particular place, and fix the deduction according to that standard, and at no more. He had always considered, that tithes were but a contingent, and not a positive property; for the landowner had it always in his power to fence with the tithe-owner, and make an advantageous bargain with him, unless the tithe-owner's demands were according to his estimation of the matter, reasonable and moderate. Cases were constantly occurring where the tithes of the tithe-owner were evaded by the land-owner, and where he was fenced with by the landowner, and obliged to put up with a bargain very advantageous to the latter. In his part of the country the mode was this; for he could say for himself, as well as for those he had the honour of representing, that while they did not wish to give the clergyman one farthing less than he ought in justice to receive, they were not desirous of paying him more. In his particular part of the country, then, the state of the case was this: the lands were greatly subdivided, and there was a great variety of tenure and admixture of tithe able and tithe-free lands. The consequence was, that before a man agreed to take a farm, he endeavoured to ascertain from the tithe-owner what was the amount of his demand for the tithe able land proposed to be rented, and then tried to make the best bargain he could with him. If the bargain were altogether dissatisfactory to the farmer, the probabilities were, that he either did not take the farm at all, or if he did take it, that he grew tithe crops, as much as he could on the land which was tithe free, and upon that part of the farm which was tithe-able, he took care to grow only untitheable crops. Thus, if the demand of the tithe-owner were excessive, the result might be, that he would get little or nothing. It was also the practice of making a bargain for the tithe before the farmer ventured upon renting such farms as would require a large outlay of capital, and the use of much adventitious manure, and tithe was evaded by turning lands down to grass, or, of occasionally planting lands that had paid tithe. Various other schemes were had recourse to, and in some extreme cases the proprietor for a time, totally abandoned all interest in the property. What he said, might not meet the views of many Gentlemen, but he felt so strongly that tithe was a contingent property and not a positive one, that he thought they had a right to demand from the tithe-owner some consideration—he was not prepared to say how much—for the been which would be conferred upon him by changing the nature of his property into a positive, and not, as now, into a contingent property. In reference to the lay impropriator, he thought there would be no great difficulty in calling upon him to give some moderate consideration for the advantage which he would derive from the change. His was a marketable estate, and would be greatly benefitted by the change, though this observation did not apply to the great body of the owners of tithe, the clergy. He thought it would be a great improvement in their case, if the onus or responsibility of the collection of their tithe rested with the parish. It was a plan adopted in many parishes, and a very beneficial one, to collect the tithes for the clergyman and pay them over to him, and for this service the House would fairly be entitled to call upon him for a certain deduction. He was not prepared to point out what that amount should be, but it was a very fair principle, that some consideration should be allowed by the clergyman to the parties who effected for him an improved mode of collecting his revenue and improved security. He thought it would be better, instead of having recourse to either the plan proposed by the noble Lord or the Member for Staffordshire, at once to give a large discretionary power to the Commissioners in the compulsory part of the arrangement. In the plan of the noble Lord there was an appeal from the decision of the valuer; but he could not regard that appeal as being of the slightest value, for it was merely an appeal from the valuer to the Commissioners; in fact, an appeal to the individual valuer himself. It was not very reasonable to expect, that after a Commissioner had given a decided opinion as to the value of certain tithes, that he would be willing to depart from his statement. He did conceive, that not in one out of 100 cases would there be obtained by any such appeal the slightest alteration in the original award. In many of the local Bills for the commutation of tithe, which had passed, and indeed in some of the Bills which had been laid upon the Table of the House, among others in that of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, it had been proposed, that there should be an appeal to the Quarter Sessions of the county; but he could not but look upon this as a very objectionable proposition. He should conceive, that an infinitely better and wiser plan would be, to constitute local boards for the express purpose of hearing and determining upon all these matters. He should therefore propose, that those boards should be thus constituted: that the Commissioners should appoint as assistant commissioners two barristers of a certain standing, and two practical men from among farmers and surveyors, who should not have any direct interest in the settlement of the question; that this court should go from place to place where the matters in question were to be settled, and have power to hear evidence in proof of the facts; and that, having done so, they should make their report to the Commissioners, who should have power to enforce their determinations, subject to certain prescribed limits as to the extent of the reduction or increase. If this were not thought a sufficient check, it might be further provided, that in the schedule they should be compelled to assign their reasons for any deviation they might make from the regular plan. He was aware, that perhaps some objection might be made to his proposition on the supposed score of expense; but his opinion was, that the establishment of local boards, such as he had suggested, would not be productive of much expense. At all events, he thought it would be a more satisfactory plan to the country generally than the one proposed. He might observe here, that a most erroneous notion had gone abroad as to the nature of this Bill. In a great many parts of the country the people said they were satisfied with the Bill as it stood, because they thought that by it one-fourth of the clear value of tithe was to be taken from the tithe-owners and given to them—a most lamentable misconception. He should be very glad, if possible, to avoid compulsion, but he feared, that in the present state of the case it might be found difficult, if possible, to avoid it. He thought it would be better, that no commutation should take place at all, than that the Bill should pass as it stood; but at the same time he fully saw the necessity that some Bill should be passed on the subject, or else he feared the country would be placed in a state of the greatest excitement, productive of the most mischievous results. He therefore hoped the noble Lord would take into consideration the suggestion he had ventured to throw out.

Mr. Edward Buller

withdrew his Amendment.

Mr. Charles Buller

remarked, that a great portion of the House seemed to object to the clause, and yet the opposition to it did not appear to be seriously maintained. The hon. Member was proceeding to move an Amendment, which he explained, when.

Lord John Russell

suggested, that this was not the proper time for entering on the question involved in it.

Mr. Goulburn

wished to ask the noble Lord opposite, upon what grounds the limits of seventy-five and sixty per cent had been assumed. He quite understood the difficulties with which the noble Lord had had to contend; but the more he heard on the subject, the more was he convinced, that a system of compulsory commutation must be in individual cases attended with great injustice. The noble Lord had, in effect, admitted this, because, having adopted the compulsory principle, he now found it necessary to introduce a clause, in order to correct some part of the evils to which a compulsory system must inevitably lead. The noble Lord made a proposition which appeared to him scarcely reconcileable with justice upon the information he had received; though perhaps the noble Lord was in possession of facts which would enable him to prove the fitness and expediency of the limits the noble Lord had assigned. It was consistent with his knowledge, that there was frequently great inequality in the cost of collecting tithes, even in the same parish. The collection of the small tithes was often much more difficult than that of the large tithes, and although it might be right, that in the case of the small tithes an individual should receive only sixty per cent, in confederation of the difficulty with which they were collected, yet seventy-five per cent might be too little in the case of large tithes, which were collected with much facility. He knew instances where the collection of the large tithes was effected at an expense of seven, eight, ten, and thirteen per cent of deduction from the value of the sum, and therefore he thought it would be desirable that the noble Lord should state to the House the basis upon which he had been induced to adopt the maximum and minimum proposed.

Sir John Wrottesley

, after having made inquiries in several parts of the country, and particularly in his own county, was bound to say, that the maximum and minimum proposed, though in some few cases they might impose hardship, were on the whole considering the difficulties and facilities of levying tithes in different places, suitable to the circumstances. Fixing limits in the way proposed would save time and trouble and prevent much litigation; he therefore, thought that this part of the Bill was highly desirable.

Lord John Russell

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman asked him to explain on what principle he had appointed the limits to the deduction, he supposed the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to ask why he made it seventy-five rather than seventy-six or seventy-seven, and sixty, rather than sixty-one, but why he had taken those limits as a fair average between the lowest and highest amount of tithes collected. It appeared to him fair, as he had repeatedly stated, in making any general commutation of tithes, to look not to particular cases, but as nearly as possible to the general average of the country, so as to include the greatest number of cases. With respect to the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Staffordshire he would admit that there might be cases where the tithe might be collected at 10 per cent., but such cases were very rare, and therefore, not to be taken into account in a question of legislation. There were also cases where the expenses amount to 50 per cent., but these being almost equally rare he had not allowed them to interfere with the adjustment of the measure. It might be asked, why not make some one and fixed sum the standard; and, indeed, a most intelligent and respectable gentleman. Mr. Jacob, when examined before the agricultural committee, selected seventy-five per cent., as the general average all over the country, but that exact limit would not give a sufficient representation of the real value of tithe, because the charge of collection and many other circumstances differed widely in different parts of the country. There were cases in which tithe was collected at a cost of not more than ten per cent, and this was true, not only of large, but in some cases of small tithes. All the accounts he had received tended to show that on further inquiry into these cases, if the first amount of the produce were taken into account, the deduction would not fall short of twenty or twenty-five per cent. He thought, also, that in any general commutation, a considerable deduction should be made from the gross sum of 100l. (taking that sum) on the value of the tithe. Nobody had ever advocated a commutation without maintaining that there should be a large deduction; and in estimating this, not only the expense of collection, but many other circumstances, should be taken into account. The higher limit having been fixed at seventy-five per cent., all contained between that standard and sixty he presumed to be compounded for by the different parties interested, who would consider all the circumstances of the case, the cost of collection, and the agreement entered into, which he held it to be advisable not to disturb. With regard to the other limit of sixty per cent, although there might be cases where the expense of collecting would lower the net amount below that sum, he did not think them of sufficient force to induce him to admit of so total a disparity, as respected the tithe-owner and the tithe-payer. Besides, it was but fair where, through the lenity of the tithe-owner the sum collected had fallen too short of the real value of the past tithe—to provide, in such instances, that leniency should not operate as future punishment. His doubt upon this point was not whether the sum should be 50l. or 60l., but rather whether he should fix it as low as 60l. However, on consideration, the best he could give the subject, he found that by adhering to 60l. he should provide a fairer average and a nearer equalization. He thought the mode he had adopted would tend to obviate the evil consequences which too frequently resulted from composition in Ireland, where the differences were so great that neighbouring parishes, when they came to compare the different amounts paid, might feel great dissatisfaction. He had, therefore, chosen those limits between which there was only a difference of fifteen per cent, as being likely to afford more general satisfaction, or at least to occasion less complaint than if the difference were doubled, by fixing the minimum at 50l. and the maximum at 80l.

Mr. William Miles moved an amendment of which he said that the object was to give power to the Commissioners or Assistant-Commissioners, when the average sum paid, or agreed to be paid, should be more than 50l., and less than 75l., for every 100l. of such average gross value of the tithes taken in kind, to award such fair and equitable sum for the permanent commutation thereof as upon inquiry they should deem expedient, due regard being paid to the peculiar nature of the tithe in individual parishes. He, therefore, moved as an amendment that the word "fifty" be substituted in the clause for "sixty." If that were carried he should move, that all the words in line fifteen after the word "limit," be omitted, and that there be inserted in their stead a proviso accomplishing the object for which he proposed his first amendment.

Mr. Charles Buller

said, it was inconsistent in the hon. Member for East Somerset to tolerate this clause, after arguing against its principle. He was altogether opposed to the clause, because he looked upon it not as a modification of the 33rd clause, but, as wholly subversive of it. To take an average of the gross produce with certain deductions would be to perpetrate a gross injustice on the tithe-payer and the landowner. The noble Lord's fundamental error was, in not regarding the power of evasion as well as the right of tithe; for throughout the country the right of tithe had been modified, owing to the peculiar method of collection; and from that modification the power of evasion had been derived. The right of evasion was to be as much respected as the right of tithe itself, and was as old as the right of tithe. If it were found out that tithe could be collected with certain exceptions occurring in five or six years, he would not hesitate to do away with those exceptions, and to enforce the collection to the whole amount of the tithe; but when they considered the length of time that the rights of evasion had existed, indeed that, from time immemorial the right of tithe had been modified, and that that modification had been solemnly recognized by the Legislature and by the courts of law—it would be unjust to suspend it. It would be doing injustice to the tithe-owner to take from him more than was to be given up to him; but it would be equally unjust to make the tithe-payer pay more than he ought. The attention of the House had not been sufficiently directed to the expenses of collection, and the variety of the amounts collected in different parts of the country. In Wiltshire and Hampshire, the effect of this Bill would be to deprive the tithe-owner of about one-sixth or one-fourth of the value of the tithe. In the western parts of England, however, the reduction of twenty per cent. would be nothing like a sufficient reduction. The experiment of levying tithe in kind had been tried in various cases, and instances were not rare, in which the clergyman had not merely lost fifty or sixty per cent., but had actually been out of pocket by the time he had got in his tithe. He wanted to show the House how this system of modification had operated, and that it had been respected by courts of law and the Legislature. A case in point was tried in the Court of King's Bench before Lord Tenterden. It was an action against the tithe-owner for not carrying away his tithes of early potatoes grown for the London market. The potatoes were put out in baskets which held about three-quarters of a bushel each, and it was proved that the produce was spoiled by exposure to wind, rain, and sun, if not taken away in half an hour. Lord Tenterden held, that although the practice might put the tithe-owner to great inconvenience and expense, yet for the sake of the crops, the evil must be submitted to, and the- tithe-owner must be in attendance to take away the tithe, though it might cost ten times the value of the tithes to collect them under such circumstances, and the produce might be spoiled in getting it into his possession; and not only that, but if he would not go to the trouble and expense of removing the tithes, he would be liable to an action for it. Here, then, was a reduction, not of sixty per cent., but of the whole tithe. Look at the tithes of hay, eggs, milk, apples, &c.; suppose them to be levied in kind in a parish full of small farmers, and fancy a cart going about to collect every tenth haycock, every tenth egg, every tenth day's milking, and every tenth apple, why the collector would not be able merely to go over some parishes in less than two days. This was the case of the parish which he represented, as he could testify from canvassing it. He had the authority of a practical collector of tithes in Wiltshire, for saying that there, on the other hand, the expense of collection was. about ten per cent.; this Bill would make it twenty-five per cent; so that the operation of this commutation, would deprive the tithe-owner of about one-sixth of his income. It is not difficult to put ground under a different culture for the sake of evasion, and arable was often converted into pasture land, not merely to spite the parson, but because the difference of the tithe really made, very often, the difference between the profit derived from the two different kinds of produce. But this power existed to a different degree in different parts of the country. In Wiltshire, nature seemed to have so fixed to each portion of land its peculiar mode of cultivation in tillage or in pasture, that this power of conversion hardly existed at all; in Devonshire and Cornwall, the conversion was perfectly easy in almost all cases, and was often effected merely to save the tithe. This power of conversion made an immense difference in the value of tithes. Yet for all these ancient and established remedies against the exaction of the extreme tithe, no allowance was made by this Bill. The farmers in the West of England had expected that a liberal Ministry would lessen the intolerable burden of tithes. The effect of this Bill would be, to raise the tithe throughout the West of England. He would give the House an instance of the practical operation of this Bill, in a parish adjoining that of Liskeard. The tithe collected in that parish had, for some years, amounted to 3s. 3d. in the pound. On the induction of a new clergyman, the farmers demanded an abatement of 3d., the effect of which was, that the parson said he would collect his own tithes; and the consequence was, that the leading farmer having a large barn near the church, fitted it up for public service; for the farmers, as is usual in such cases, all determined that they would not go to church; and they stuck to their determination. The proprietor of the barn engaged a Dissenting minister in the neighbourhood to come over every Sunday to preach and to read the service of the Church of England. They told him he was not to give them any of his Methodistical stuff, and was never to preach longer than ten minutes, and was to be paid for his services by four or five tumblers of brandy and water. The clergyman's service in the church was attended by the clerk and the sexton; and sometimes by an old woman from the workhouse. The effect in a pecuniary point of view was this, the clergyman got rather less of his great tithe than he would have got under the composition offered to him; and he soon gave up trying to collect his small tithes at all. He was beaten, and obliged to accept the farmers' terms. The operation of the Bill would raise tithe in this parish from 3s. to 3s. 7d., and settle this dispute about 3d., by making the farmers pay 7d. The average of tithe in the east of Cornwall varied from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per pound; but the general average was about 3s., or 3s. 3d.; so that the noble Lord's Bill would generally raise tithe in that county from ten to as much as thirty per cent.; and this was intended as a measure of relief! He knew the difficulty of meeting extreme cases, but when the House was likely to doom men to the destruction of their property, and consign their families to destitution, by overlooking these cases, it was right to attend to them. He was convinced of the necessity of a compulsory commutation; he was convinced that a Bill for that purpose was demanded by the country; but a compulsory commutation ought to be a fair and just one. This Bill, however, was unjust, and it would be better not to pass it until a just system of commutation was adopted.

Viscount Ebrington

would support the amendment. The county he represented was divided into small farms, and contained a greater proportion of landlords than many other counties. He was quite sure that the effect of this clause, as proposed by his noble Friend, would seriously raise the value of tithe in that county. He had always been disposed to give to the tithe-owners their due, and was always ready to raise his voice against making those who had to pay, pay more than they ought; he should never subscribe to any plan of commutation that should give more to the tithe-owners than they at present enjoyed, or more than under the present mode of collection they could expect to receive. It might be argued, perhaps, by the hon. Member for the University for Oxford, that it would be hard on the tithe-owners to make them suffer for the leniency they had exercised; but their forbearance was not always voluntary. He must say, that he had known instances of experiments in collecting tithes in kind, in which so far from 50 per cent of the gross value being received by the tithe-owners, they had not realized so much as 20 per cent., and those cases were not confined to his own county. For proof of it he might refer to the evidence already quoted. Mr. James was asked—"You think, then, that the clergy have not got more than half their tithes?" His answer was—"No doubt, for the last seven years, they did not average one-half of their tithes." Under these circumstances, feeling in common, with his noble Friend, anxious to establish compulsory commuta- tion, and to disturb, as little as possible, the existing scale of payments, he could not vote for the clause, the effect of which would be to increase the greater part of the existing commutations, and make the tithe-payer pay more than at present.

Viscount Howick

would abstain from replying to the remarks which had been made by hon. Members against this Bill, not because they were unanswerable, but because he thought this was not a favourable opportunity to go into the subject. It appeared to him, as far as there was any real ground for opposition to this measure, the clause to be introduced by his noble Friend, and which he had caused to be printed, and had announced his intention of moving, would obviate it. All those inconveniences on which hon. Members, who had preceded him had dwelt, had been anticipated by his noble Friend, who rested his proposition upon the fact, that the expenses of collection, in a great number of instances, amounted to 50 per cent on the gross produce. His noble Friend behind him (Lord Ebrington) had said, that he was willing to give the clergyman that to which he was entitled, but without burthening the land with a permanent charge beyond that which the clergyman now received. That was a principle which the whole House was prepared to admit, and he was sure if his noble Friend looked into the clause as it was printed, he would see that wherever there was a case in which, owing to the particular nature of the tithe, the expenses of collection were heavier than the amount provided for originally, there was a power given to make such modification as the justice of the case required. Whenever the expenses of collection exceeded 40l., and in other special cases, the assistant Commissioners would have the power of making that large reduction of the gross amount which might be due. He thought, then, that all just ground of complaint would be removed by the plan of modification so proposed. But if he was not mistaken, the hon. Member for Somersetshire moved this amendment on rather different grounds; he stated, if he understood him right, that it was not enough that his noble Friend had proposed a mode for providing for cases in which there might be ground for believing that the amount of expense of collection would go beyond 40 per cent.; but the main argument of the hon. Member, as he understood it was, that the assistant Commissioners ought to have a discretionary power in all cases of fixing a permanent rent-charge when the amount should be between 60 and 75 per cent. The hon. Member did not complain of the minimum which was proposed by his noble Friend., but because the plan of modification in the Bill was identical with that of the hon. Member; his object was, that in those cases in which the amount of composition might fall between 75 and 60 per cent on the gross value, the Commissioner ought to be empowered to vary the rent-charge as compared with the produce. If the question were reduced to that issue, he confessed that he thought the Bill stood considerably better as his noble Friend proposed it. He thought whenever it was possible to adhere to those compositions to which the parties had mutually agreed it was extremely desirable to do so, and that only to depart from them in cases where the amount exceeded that which ought to be permanently paid. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Liskeard, he thought the hon. Member had not stated one case that could occur in which such modification ought to take place. His noble Friend, the Member for Devonshire, said existing commutations ought not to be disturbed, and, therefore, he claimed the vote of the hon. Member against the amendment of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, for he had distinctly admitted that his object was not to alter the minimum as proposed by his noble Friend, but to give the Commissioners a discretionary power of varying the amount of composition even in those cases which fell between 75 and 60 per cent. He really did not think that adequate grounds had been shewn for adopting the amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and the House, in his opinion, would be acting more wisely in rejecting it. The hon. Member for Liskeard said, that clergymen in many instances had only realised a much smaller sum than 50 per cent upon the gross value, he was aware of that; but the truth was, the legislature had not to consider so much that which the clergyman had actually realized as the average amount which the land-owner was compelled to pay. He did not think it was at all just toward the tithe-owner, who was giving up much, to expect that he should be guided by what the land-owners said on the subject. He was aware how impossible it was in a numerous assembly like that, to discuss the minute points of such a question; but he could not forbear before he sat down, from reminding the House how exceedingly necessary it was, in a case of this sort, not to deal with extreme severity towards the tithe-owners; for, as the Bill now stood, they were making a very considerable sacrifice; and if by acting with severity, the Bill should fail after the subject had been agitated, the consequences would be of the most serious description to the land-owners of the country. They must remember, that not many nights ago, the hon. Member for Kent shewed how necessary some measure was, for he actually gave notice, in case this Bill did not pass, that he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to restrain the tithe-owners for one year from enforcing the collection of tithes. An hon. Member conceiving it necessary to give notice of this kind, was a circumstance which he thought this House ought not to forget. It seemed to him now, that the question had been agitated to render it necessary to pass this measure into a law.

Mr. Childers

said, the noble Lord who had just sat down, had stated a principle of a different nature from any he had heard. The noble Lord said, that they were not to take what was now paid as the basis of a rent-charge, but that they were to take into consideration the sum lost, or which might be lost, on the part of the tithe-payer or tithe-owner, and to divide it between them. Now, that was a principle which he thought had been repudiated throughout the whole of this Bill. The noble Lord did not allude at all to another and a very important point, which was contained in the observations of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, and which that noble Lord stated upon the testimony of Mr. James—namely, that not only when the tithe was taken as a dividend, but in composition, the clergyman had not received one-half what he was entitled to. That witness stated, that he had no doubt on his mind that the majority of compositions entered into during the last seven years did not average one-half the value of the tithe. He then went on to say, that on certain arable land the tithe is 13s. 6d., but that it is compounded for 6s. or 7s., and that on an average, it was less than one-half. Supposing that to be the case, it was quite clear that the clergy did not receive more than 400l. or 500l. out of every 1,000l. Then if the House did what the noble Lord said, divide the sum lost on the gross value between the tithe-payer and receiver, it would leave the tithe-payer in a worse condition than at present and instead of his paying 400l. oblige him to pay 600l. That was the state of the case as he viewed it, and to that he should always be opposed.

Viscount Howick

wished to explain. The hon. Member had supposed him to say, that what was now paid ought not to be taken as the basis of the future rent-charge; but, on the contrary, that we should divide between the parties what was lost or gained by the composition. That was not his statement. What he distinctly stated was this, that in all cases in which it was possible to be done, they should take the existing arrangement between the parties as the future rent-charge; but that in those particular cases in which the parties had not been able to come to an arrangement by themselves,—in those cases of dispute referred to by the hon. Members, in which the clergymen had claimed more than the tithe-payer had chosen to pay; and in those cases where the clergyman had been driven, under the circumstances, to raise the tithe in kind—in all these cases, he said, we were not to take for our basis either the small receipt of the clergyman, on the one hand, or the severe loss, perhaps of one hundred per cent., to the landlord on the other. But that in those cases only they should consider what ought to be divided between the two parties, thereby affording a gain to both, by producing an arrangement between them.

Colonel Thompson

could not assent to the principle which, with the exception of a few words from the Secretary-at-War, if he had rightly understood them, had been assumed through the whole of this debate—that the tithe-owner was to have nothing but the barest amount of his net receipts, and that all the advantages of the proposed legislative improvement were to go to the land-owners. Suppose the tithe-owners were to set up the plea, that the landowners ought to have nothing but their present receipts—that they ought to have none of the profit arising from removing the pressure of the present law on the cultivation of land—and that all the advantages of the commutation of tithes were to go to the tithe-owners. Would there be the smallest chance of such an arrangement being agreed to; and was not the proposed arrangement equally unjust? The truth was, that a great saving to both parties ought to arise out of the commutation of tithes; to the land-owners, that of being able to improve their culti- vation without being checked by an increase of tithe; and to the tithe-owners, that of escaping the expense and uncertainty of the present mode of collection. But neither the land-owner nor the tithe-owner had a right to say he would take both these savings to himself;—there should be a division. It might not be easy to say with precision what this division should be; but one thing it was easy to see, which was, that the tithe-owner had a right to be very liberally treated, and that there was no foundation for the present principle of screwing him down to his lowest net receipts. He claimed the attention of the Members for the Universities to this, and hoped they would support him.

Mr. Hume

had no hesitation in voting for the word fifty instead of sixty. It seemed again to have been forgotten in the discussion, that tithe-property was only contingent property, and some deduction might reasonably be made in amount for rendering it secure and certain.

Mr. Bennett

said, that the amendment would give the Commissioners greater powers than would be given them by the clause of the noble Lords. In some cases they would be enabled to raise the composition from 61l. to 75l. To that he would never consent; and, therefore, he would oppose the amendment.

Mr. Parrott

was also opposed to giving the Commissioners so much discretionary power.

Mr. Blamire

would give the Commissioners all the discretionary power proposed. To place limits was, in fact, only erecting a screen, behind which they might concert injustice or partiality. It would be better to place no limits on their discretion, but make them responsible for its exercise.

The Committee divided on the original clause—Ayes 95; Noes 71—Majority 24.

The House resumed.

The Committee to sit again.