HC Deb 18 May 1836 vol 33 cc1078-84

The House went into Committee on the Tithes Commutation (England) Bill.

On Clause 70 being put,

Mr. Pryme

rose to move, that this together with the following clause be expunged from the Bill. As the law now stood, the tithe-owner had no remedy against the owner of the land: his remedy was against the occupier, and he asked what consideration there was given in this Bill, which would always give the tithe-owner the full and in many cases more than the full value of his tithe, that justified the putting into his hands the additional remedy, provided by these two clauses, against the owner of the land. He (Mr. Pryme) had taken the trouble of looking into several Enclosure bills for commuting the tithes of different parishes into a corn-rent—Bills passed with the consent of the Incumbent, and he had invariably found that the clause of distress gave the tithe-owner only the right to come upon the occupier for his corn-rent; so that if the occupier became bankrupt he lost his tithe, as the landlord did his rent. He had never known any one of those Bills in which any other remedy was given; and it did appear to him, that throughout this Bill as well as on this particular point, everything was done for the benefit of the tithe-owner, and no care was taken of the interests of the tithe-payer.

The Solicitor General

said, it appeared to him that the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge should have made his objection at the 69th Clause, which gave the tithe-owner the remedy of distress against the land, the tenant being then entitled to take credit for the amount against his landlord. The object of the Bill was simply to lay the charge upon the land in the same manner as a corn-rent.

Mr. Pryme

observed, that in all Enclosure Bills to which he had looked, when the remedy was given against the goods of the tenant, there was always a restrictive clause limiting the tithe-owner to such crops, utensils, stock, &c, as he found lying upon the premises.

The Solicitor- General

said, that allowing the tithe owner had a right to his remedy against the goods of the tenant, in respect of which the tenant was afterwards to take credit against the landlord, to restrict him to such goods as he found lying upon the land was in fact, to leave him remediless; it was arguing ad absurdum to propose such a limitation, for in that case the tithe-owner would have no control over his remedy; the tenant having merely to remove his goods off the premises, and set him at defiance. He (Mr. Solicitor General) could not sit down without referring to the remark which the hon. Member for Cambridge had made, and which was often heard from some Gentlemen in the House: namely, that the Bill was in fact calculated to produce a unilateral kind of benefit only to the tithe-owner. The Bill should be looked at not in particular and isolated portions, but as a whole, and the inquiry should be not whether they or that part of it were more beneficial to one party or the other, but whether, taking all its parts together, it provided for a fair and equitable commutation. Taking that view of it he did not think it would be considered unfair to give the owner of the rent-charge the remedy which these clauses provided, ousting as they did all remedy against the person.

Sir Henry Verney

considered, that as this Bill would render tithes greatly more valuable than they were at present, the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Town), was one of great importance and well worthy of the noble Lord's attention. The noble Lord (John Russell) would by carrying this Bill confer a benefit on the country only equal in extent to that which he had already conferred upon it by the Reform Bills and the Poor-law Bill; but he (Sir H. Verney) did think, that in giving the remedy to the tithe-owner which these clauses provided he would be doing injustice.

Lord John Russell

The question in my opinion is' not whether the amount of benefit conferred by this Bill on the tithe-owner or the tithe-payer be the greater. The object of this Bill is, that whatever the amount of the rent-charge which it gives the tithe- owner, whether one-third or a-half, or one-quarter more or less than the present amount of his tithe, the tithe-owner should have a sufficient remedy for its recovery. Now I conceive these clauses to provide no more than the sufficient remedy; however, should the House think otherwise, I shall propose another, which I have now in my hand, giving him the power of bringing an action for his rent charge. Some remedy he must have, or the Bill will be inoperative.

It was formally agreed that the hon. Member for Cambridge should bring forward his objection at a future stage of the Bill and the clauses were postponed.

On the 76th Clause being proposed,

Mr. T. Duncombe moved to leave out the following words—"or the tithes of fish, or of fishing, or to the tithes of mills, or any personal tithes, or to any mixed tithes not arising upon land;" and to add these words, by way of proviso, at the end of such section—"that from and after the passing of this Act, all tithes of fish or of fishing, or of personal tithes, shall cease and determine. The hon. Member said, that his reason for proposing this amendment was, that nothing could be more barbarous and cruel than to take tithe from poor fishermen, who were not only risking their little property, but also their lives, in catching the fish upon which the tithe was collected. In illustration of the barbarity of this practice he read an extract from Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons, and to show the hardship of personal tithes he mentioned a case which occurred in the East Riding of Yorkshire in 1833, wherein two clerical magistrates had committed a poor labouring man to prison for three months for non-payment of a tithe of 3s. 4d. upon the amount of his wages.

Lord John Russell

admitted, that there was great hardship in these personal tithes; and said, that for his own part, he should be glad to abolish them. At the same time he must observe, that it did not appear to him to be just to abolish in this way, by a single clause, the established claims of the clergy. He thought, that the Commissioners of tithes should be instructed to collect all the information they could as to the nature and amount of the species of tithe which the hon. Member for Finsbury proposed to abolish. They ought to be instructed to ascertain the number of cases in which the clergy had a right to this species of tithes, and then it would be for Parliament to determine what compensation the clergy were entitled to receive before this right was abolished. It was a question which, for the sake of the labourers and fishermen of the country, Parliament ought at no very distant day to take into its serious consideration. It ought not, however, to be forgotten that a great friend of the church—he meant the Bishop of Exeter—had declared in his place in Parliament that the church had of late generally abandoned its right to personal tithe. Still there was some clergymen who were disposed to stand upon their strict right. That being the case, he thought the House ought not to abolish the right without inquiry and without compensation, by a proviso introduced into a clause at the end of an Act of Parliament.

The Attorney-General

observed, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to have forgotten that this was a Bill for the commutation of tithe. Now, to propose the abolition of tithe under a Bill of which the object was the commutation of tithe, was about as preposterous as to propose to abolish municipal institutions under a Bill of which the object was to amend and reform such institutions. For such a proposition as that made by the hon. Member for Fins-bury he could find no precedent, nor indeed anything analogous, save the proposition to which he had just alluded. Having said thus much, he would only, add, that if the hon. Member would bring in a distinct Bill for the abolition of "all tithe of fish, or of fishing, or of personal tithe," he (the Attorney-General) would pledge himself to support it. But he must oppose any proposition which was likely to clog the present Bill with a clause which was inconsistent both with its title and its spirit.

Lord John Russell

said, if the House should be of opinion that personal tithes should be abolished, he should be ready to bring in a Bill on the subject, but he did not think it should make part of the present measure.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe

With reference to the observation of the Attorney-General what he proposed with respect to tithes was as preposterous as the project for getting rid altogether of corporations when proposed as an amendment to the Bill for their regulation, expressed a hope that should any such Bill be brought down to that House, that the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be forgotten.

Lord John Russell

said, though he should be ready to introduce a Bill to abolish personal tithes, he could not include the tithe on fish; but he should propose to submit to the Commissioners that they should make an inquiry into the circumstances as regarded the coasts of Norfolk, Cornwall, and other places, with a view to some measure being framed on the subject.

The Committee divided on the original question: Ayes96; Noes 50—Majority 46.

Clauses to 81 agreed to.

Mr. Gally Knight

rose to move an additional clause, but was very indistinctly heard. He was understood to say, that there was not enough of land to bear the amount of tithe with which it was proposed to burden it by those who sought to put an end to tithe on personal labour, and he decidedly objected to money payments, on account of the fluctuations to which the value of money was at all times subject. He therefore would move a clause to the effect, that "it be enacted, that at any time, and from time to time, after the tithes of any lands shall have been commuted under the hands and seals of the Commissioners, it shall be lawful for the owner of the tithes or rent-charge, or apportioned rent in lieu of the tithes of any such lands respectively, to agree with the owner of the same lands for the sale and extinguishment of any such rent-charge or apportioned rent-charge, either in commutation of any messuages, lands, or other hereditaments, of competent value, or of a gross sum or sums of money of competent amount, such value, of land or amount of money to be, by the means hereafter mentioned, ascertained to be a full and proper consideration or price for such purchase, and the title to the messuages, lands or hereditaments proposed as such consideration, being approved of as hereafter is provided." The clause was brought up.

After a short conversation, the clause was withdrawn, the hon. Member intimating that he would take another opportunity of bringing it before the House.

The House resumed: the Report to be received.