HL Deb 14 December 1830 vol 1 cc1109-15
Lord King

having to present a Petition from the inhabitants of Southampton, complaining of the grievances under which the country at present suffered, would make a few observations, which he would be unwilling to make, if he did not see in their places noble Lords to whom some allegations of the petitioners had reference. The complaints concerning the Tithes were now as general and as earnest as were formerly those complaints of taxation, which were said by a noble Lord, now no more, to originate in "an ignorant impatience." However light that noble Lord then made of those complaints, their frequency and vehemence at last effected a reduction of taxes, to the amount of more than seventeen millions. He believed that the prevailing spirit of complaint, which might, perhaps, be said to arise from "an ignorant impatience" of desolation, could not fail to bring about a similar reduction of the tithes. It was known that the farmers generally had not made much exertion to prevent the recent outrages, and it was also known, that their disinclination to interfere was occasioned by the pressure of their own burthens, of which the tithes constitute a principal part. Aware of the extent of such dissatisfaction, a reverend Prelate had last year brought before their Lordships a bill for the commutation of tithes. There was a time when such a measure might have removed the discontent, but now it would be ineffectual. Twenty years ago Mr. Pitt had devised a plan for the permanent commutation of tithes into three per cent stock; and now some measure, equally comprehensive and effectual, must be adopted. All lovers of abuses could find out something of good to be attributed to every abuse, however gross, except to tithes. They said that the Corn-laws worked well—that Colonial Slavery worked well—and that corrupt Parliaments and heavy Taxation worked well—but none of them would go so far as to pretend that tithes worked well. The ingenuity of all the Divines that ever existed, whether Jews, Catholics, or Protestants, could not prove that the tithes in any age worked well, no not the Sanhedrim, nor their successors the Conclave, nor their successors the bench of Bishops, could make out the proposition. That the tithes were injurious to the country was indisputable; but the manner of collecting them was still more so. The defenders of tithes said, indeed, that they being a tax upon the gross produce, were paid by the consumer as completely as if the tithe-receiver had his servants stationed at the baker's door, to collect the tax from the purchasers of bread as they carried it away. For his part, he (Lord King) considered it a tax upon the labour and capital of the cultivator: but as the ablest writers on political economy had not been able to settle the question, he would leave it to the reverend conservators of Church property, to the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Wynford) who so much derided the political economists, to explain the way in which the tithe impost operated. It was their interest to discover the means by which their property in that tax might be saved from the hungry jaws of the consumer, upon whom they supposed its payment ultimately devolved. For his part, he thought that impost a public nuisance. It was injurious to the landlord, for it made a positive deduction from his rent; it was oppressive to the cultivator, for it rendered the gains of his labour variable and uncertain; it was injurious to the capitalist, for it prevented the employment of capital upon land, at a time when it could find but few fields for profitable employment; and, lastly, it was impoverishing to the nation at large, inasmuch as it seriously diminished production. One effect had been, to drive land from agriculture to grass—as, with the tithe upon it, it would not pay the expense of cultivation. How stood the case with land at 10s. an acre? It should yield under corn, five rents, or produce 50s.; while under grass, it produced but 25s.; yet, as it paid no tithe, the landlord got two-fifths instead of one, and was as well off with the gross produce equal to 25s., as he would be if it equalled 50s., paying tithes. To the influence of the tithe-system he attributed the well known fact, that less inferior land in proportion was under cultivation in England than in France, although the Former country had a greater population to support, in proportion to her surface, and more abundant capital ready to be employed in cultivation. Their Lordships knew, that before the Revolution, the full tithe was never exacted there, and their Lordships knew, that since that period, tithes were altogether abolished. He was satisfied that, not even in Spain nor in Italy, where the power of the Church was excessive, were tithesexacted with half the rigour they were collected with in England. The pernicious practice of paying the wages of labourers out of the poor-rates was wholly to be attributed to the tithe - system. The farmer, through his aversion to that system, contrived to have the labourer paid in that way, in order to throw part of the burthen of wages upon the tithe-receiver, because the tithes of the parish were included in the assessment for the poor-rates. That custom had caused more mischief to the country than all the other pernicious customs that prevailed; and to this system it could clearly be traced. He did not think that any mode of commutation for a number of years would effect much good. The Act would be no better than a dead letter, for who would make an agreement for sixteen years, or lay out a large capital, subject to the sleeping partner coming in at last to share the profits. In the time of King William, 140 years ago, Scotland had acted with the usual good sense which had distinguished that country, and made a permanent and fixed Church settlement, by which capital was encouraged and agriculture improved. He wished that England would imitate the excellent example of Scotland—get rid of the tithes altogether, and make some distinct and permanent provision for the clergy. To her exemption from that system he believed Scotland owed a great part of her present excellent cultivation. Although he did not wish to speak on the subject with any appearance of bad feeling, yet he must say that, as the upholders of tithes would not be prevailed upon by such reasons as had hitherto been offered to them, they would ultimately, and before long, be compelled to yield to such arguments as last Session were so successful in obtaining another long-denied concession. He wished to see some arrangement adopted by which the lands of the Deans and Chapters, who were utterly useless as ministers of religion, should be made available for the support of the working part of the clergy. He hoped to see entirely cleared away from the Church all the cumbrous lumber of golden and of brazen Prebends, together with the Deans and Chapters. He wished that, as formerly was the case, the prelacy should be composed of men chosen from among the working clergy for their merit, by their brethren. But since the days of prœmunire, the Prelates were no more the representatives of the clergy, than the gentlemen sitting in another place, as members for Gatton and Old Sarum, were Representatives of the people. He believed that Henry 8th was the first who used the phrase, of which their Lordships had heard so much a few evenings since, that he "would do as he liked with his own." As he (Lord King) should take another opportunity of adverting to matters alluded to in the petition, he should then conclude by presenting to their Lordships the humble petition of certain inhabitants of Southampton, praying for the redress of grievances, and for the removal of burthens, especially of the tithes.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

was sure that the House would not expect him to follow the noble Lord through all the topics which he had introduced into his attack upon Deans, Prebends, and Tithes. In reply, however, to what the noble Lord had said respecting a bill which he had had the honour of proposing to their Lordships, he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had to state, that a similar bill would be laid before their Lordships in the course of the present Session; from which he hoped more happy results would be derived than the noble Lord seemed to anticipate.

The Bishop of London

said, that the noble Lord (King) had stated, with truth, that repeated and vehement attacks had of late been made upon the system of tithes. Why that sort of property should be attacked more than other property in land, which, as well as tithes, was possessed only by virtue of the laws, he (the Bishop of London) could not explain, unless it were because the clergy, of whom they were the property, were the weaker party. No man could be more firmly convinced than he was of the claims of the country, in its present state, on the consideration of their Lordships. He knew, from many years experience as a parochial clergyman, that the agricultural labourers generally were suffering under great distress; which, however, was attributable, not to the tithe-system, but to the un- fortunate administration of the Poor-laws, concerning which great mistakes had been committed. Another important cause of the distress would be found in the years of false prosperity, during which all classes, both clergy and laity, except the lower orders, had acquired habits of luxury, from which it was very difficult to descend, when the appearance of prosperity had passed away. But all those classes were now, he hoped, prepared to make any arrangements which, after due deliberation, might seem likely to relieve the distress. He admitted that tithes had been raised in the same proportion as rents had been raised, and he thought it reasonable that both should go on pari passu. Every sound economist knew that tithes were really a second rent. If they should cease to be collected, their amount would go to increase the rent of the landlord. The clergy were entitled to their rent, not only by immemorial usage, but by tithe-deeds, as ancient and as legitimate as those by which the landlords themselves held their estates. He did not doubt that the present reverend incumbent of the parish of Oakham could produce as legal proofs of his right, as the noble Lord himself (Lord King) could produce in support of his claims to the land of that parish. He (the Bishop of London) would not assert that there were not defects in the working of the tithe-system, although he considered the principle of that system the best which could be acted upon for the support of the clergy. He could honestly repel the imputation that the tithes were collected with rigour. He knew that in most parishes the full tenth of the produce was never collected, and that in many parishes the tithe taken was not more than the one-half or one-fourth of the tenth. It had fallen to his lot to observe, that in places where, from time immemorial, tithes had been collected in kind, undisturbed harmony existed between the clergy and their parishioners; and in unfavourable weather he had known the latter frequently carry home the Rector's tenth. He by no means agreed with the noble Lord, that it would be better for the clergyman to have a fixed and invariable allowance, instead of one rising and falling with the rents. Had such a mode been adopted before the depreciation of the currency, what would since have been the condition of the clergy? Many would not have possessed an income of more than 35l. a year, and few more than 80l. So far from the truth were the shameful calumnies that had been industriously spread abroad respecting the property of the Church, that if the value of all the ecclesiastical property which remained in the hands of the clergy were collected in one fund, and divided equally amongst the whole of the clergy, it would not afford more to each than about 350l. a year. Now he was sure that, in the present habits of society, that was not an allowance too high for men of the education and the learning for which the clergy were distinguished. He would admit that Church property might be better distributed, if an arrangement for that purpose could be effected consistently with respect for property, and he would add—though he did so with hesitation, as it might be attributed to his selfishness—with respect for vested rights. Such an arrangement would preserve the Church of England, what she had hitherto ever been, the pride of Protestant Europe, and the honour and support of the British Constitution.

Lord King

denied, that he had charged the Church of England with excessive rigour in the exaction of tithes; but he had said, that the claims of the clergy were enforced frequently with more rigour than those of the landlords. He believed that the clergy of the Church of England did collect its revenues more rigorously than the clergy of any Catholic country. As to what the right rev. Prelate had said respecting the tithes going on pari passu with the rents, he must say, that rents had fallen to one-fifth from one-third of the gross produce, whilst the tithe was still one-tenth. He would ask the right rev. Lord, what he called going on pari passu? No farmer in his senses would give the full value for land when taking it upon lease, for such was the fluctuation in the value of produce, occasioned by the Corn-laws, that he dared not bind himself to the full rent. Be the fluctuation what it might, the revenue of the tithe-receiver was not affected, however the landowner might suffer.

The Marquis of Bute

thought it but justice to the clergy to declare, that in his transactions as landowner with the receivers of tithes, he had always found the ecclesiastical proprietors much less rigorous than the lay impropriators. The noble Baron was wrong in supposing that the Scotch Church was regulated in the time of King William; the particular settlement to which he alluded was carried into effect in the reign of Charles 1st. He admitted that the Scotch system, though defective, had been attended with great benefit, and he was anxious to see a permanent commutation of the tithes made in England, so arranged that the clergy might be preserved from the injurious collision of interests with their parishioners, which sometimes took place, while their rights, and the property of the Church, should be preserved.

The petition to he on the Table.

Back to