Lords Sitting of 28 February 1831

MINUTES.
The London Approaches Bill was read a second time.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, and of Vote by Ballot, by the Karl of RADNOR, from Bridgewater, Gisborough, Kilbynce, and Marlborough:—By Karl SPENCER, from Leicester and Lincoln:—By Lord SALTOUN, from Inverary:— By Lord DURHAM, from Northam, Gateshead Hill, Durham, and from Sunderland:—By Earl MORLEY, from Plymouth:—By the Duke of DEVON-SHIRE, from a Parish in the County of Waterford:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Wells, and other places: — By the Karl of GLENGALL, from a Parish in the County of Limerick:—By Earl CAWDOR, from Cacrmarthen:— By Karl GREY, from Uxbridge, Leith, and Lanark:—By Lord KING, from the County Palatine of Lancaster, Great and Little Bolton, Christchurch, Caithness, Selkirk, Bannockburn, Northampton, Radford, Leslie, Fife, Barn-staple, and from Brighton:—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from Banff, Londonderry, Dumfries, Kircudbright, and other places. Against Slavery, by the Archbishop of YORK, from several places in Yorkshire:—By Lord KENYON, from Carmarthen:—By Lord DACRE, from Ashton-under-Lyne, and other places. By the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, from Galway, for an extension of the Franchise. By the Earl of GLENGALL, from parishes in Kilkenny, for a Repeal of the Union.

NEW POLICE.
Lord Wharncliffepresented a Petition from the Parish of St. George, Hanover-square, complaining of the expense of the New Police. The petitioners did not complain of the nature of the force, nor of the manner in which it was conducted, but they thought it very hard that they should have to pay so very largely for a security, it costing them 10,000 l. per annum, from which others derived as much benefit as they did; under the old watch system, these expenses were 6,500 l., and now they were 17,500 l.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he was glad to find that there was no objection to the nature or conduct of the police force. It was evident that an efficient force could not be procured at the same expense which an inefficient one cost, and it could never, he hoped, be considered a wise economy to starve a service which so effectually preserved domestic peace and the security of property. The police must of necessity be more burthen some in the rich parishes than in the poor; but the question in reality was, did it or did it not benefit those on whom the expense fell? At the same time he assured the noble Lord that every care would be taken to keep down the charges, and to make the service as effective as possible at the least expense.
Lord Wharncliffedid not see why the parish of St. George should have to pay for the wants of others; it was quite sufficient that it should be chargeable for the maintenance of its own security. The expense of the watch did not exceed 3½d. in the pound, while that of the police was 11½d.
Earl Rosslynwished to know, how 11 d. in the pound could be charged, while the
1000
Act of Parliament only gave a right to levy 8d.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, the charge was not made on the parish rate, but on the full value of the property; and it was levied, not by the valuation of the parishioners, but according to a demand made on the parish by the Commissioners of Police. The Act of Parliament determined the whole sum should be charged on the poor-rates, and by that contrivance property was compelled to pay the sum imposed; and, in fact, those who could pay were obliged to pay for those who could not.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the parish of St. George had no right to complain. Before the establishment of the police force there was security only in particular places, but at present there was a general security, and those who benefitted by it must pay for it.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
Lord Dacrepresented a Petition from Erris, in the County Mayo, setting forth the great Distress which prevailed in that part of the County, and calling for immediate relief.
Lord Teynhamcalled the attention of Government to the state of misery, and of almost starvation, which prevailed in a part of Mayo and Galway; and said, that it was the duty of the Government to afford some immediate relief.
Earl Greysaid, the Irish Government was already informed on the subject, and had given notice of its intention to afford relief, and no doubt could be entertained of its anxiety to do so.
Lord Teynhamrepeated, that immediate attention was necessary; for, though the noblemen and gentlemen of Mayo had exerted themselves as much as possible, all they could do was insufficient without the aid of the Government.
The Marquis of Lansdownassured the noble Lord, that the distress of the part of the country alluded to had not escaped the attention of the Irish Government; and those who knew the character of the noble Marquis at the head of it, could rely on the promptitude and benevolence of his exertions. He had only further to say, that it would be well if public attention was less forcibly drawn to the means which Government was disposed to employ to afford relief in cases like the present, for it was evident that, if expectations were

1001
too highly raised, its views might, in some degree, be counteracted, and the suffering of the people extended.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a Petition from the County of Devon, in favour of Reform, the tenor of which, he said, was moderate, as it only prayed for a correction of the Representative system of the country. He trusted, that there was no person prepared to oppose a petition of this nature, as, however reasonable the objections to the other demands of Reform might be, he that could say, that the Representation of the country was perfection, and could not be improved, was fitter for a museum or a menagerie than to be a Member of the Legislature. He had, also, to present a Petition, numerously and respectably signed, from Liverpool, which contained a recommendation of a nature more questionable than that suggested in the last, and in which he could not state that he was disposed to acquiesce. The petitioners recommended the adoption of the Vote by Ballot, but, though he could not agree with them, he was far from doing what he had been misrepresented to have done; namely, treating the feeling of the people on this subject with contempt. He was aware that the public opinion in favour of the Ballot was growing stronger every day, and he treated those who held it with the deference they were entitled to. He was still unconvinced on the subject, and he believed that a Ballot would be nothing like the effectual remedy which the proposers of it expected.—Petitions to be laid on the Table.

TITHES, EXPENSES, AND LITIGATION.
Lord Kingpresented a Petition from Grey-stock, praying for an Amendment of the Tithe-system. The petitioners complained, that they had been for thirty years involved in litigation with their Rector, and that they had lost many thousand pounds in endeavouring to support their ancient customs and moduses; that they had been dragged into all the Courts at Westminster, and into the Ecclesiastical Courts at York and Carlisle; that at one time forty or fifty suits were pending against different persons; and that, although the Earl of Eldon and Lord Lyndhurst had decided in favour of the petitioners on the subject of moduses, still the Rector persevered in opposition to their decisions.
1002
He would, with their Lordships' permission, read an extract from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the laws relating to real property. The Commissioners say—
"On the still more important subject of tithes, we propose at present to consider of a limitation for them in the hands of the laity only. We hope to suggest some improvements in law, by which tithes, in the hands of the ecclesiastics, may remain equally valuable to them, and be rendered less productive of vexation to the laity. We are deeply impressed with the conviction that the property of the Church should be held sacred, and that the clergy should be protected in the enjoyment of their possessions and rights; but we conceive that the clergy might derive benefit from regulations that might lessen the litigation to which the claim to tithes now too frequently gives rise, and might rescue this species of property from the odium which, on this account, is sometimes unjustly cast upon it. We should venture to bring forward any propositions on this subject only after the most mature consideration, and after an ample opportunity had been afforded to those most immediately interested to give an opinion as to their probable tendency. With this view we have submitted certain questions respecting tithes and other ecclesiastical property to the right reverend the Bishops, and we delay proposing any alteration in the law upon this subject, until we shall have been favoured with the answers of such of them as may be pleased to communicate their opinions to us. We feel reluctance to propose any new rule affecting the property of the Church without their previous sanction.
"We are fully prepared to say, that in our opinion, the right to impropriate tithes in the hands of the laity ought to be regulated by the same principles as the right to any other species of lay property. For this purpose, they are not to be distinguished from common of pasture, estovers, rent-charges, or any other profit issuing out of land. They are in commerce, and they ought to be subject to the same rules of limitation and prescription by which other property is governed. The law has been settled otherwise. There is no statute of limitations applicable to the right to appropriate tithes; and, contrary to the general principles of jurisprudence, by the practice of the Courts, every thing has been presumed to disturb enjoyment and to stir up controversy. In a parish where the rectory is impropriate, it can be proved, that no tithes have been paid for a certain portion of land, and no claim has been made for them during two hundred years: the lay rector may have conveyed the tithes to the owner of the land. The presumption of a court of justice under these circumstances might be expected to be

1003
that he has done so, and that the deed has been lost: this is not like the presumption of a lost grant of an casement which we have ventured to censure. Upon sound principles of reasoning, the legitimate inference from the premises is, that there was a grant by which the tithes were severed from the rectory. Though the existence of an Act of Parliament has been presumed against the Crown to protect a much shorter period of enjoyment, it has been held, that such a grant cannot be presumed from non-payment against the lay-impropriator; and that, unless evidence be given of the grant having existed, tithes must still be paid to him. Long enjoyment, which strengthens all other titles, weakens this; and here the longer that the claimant has been out of possession, he has the better chance to recover."
If the Lord Chief Justice had been in his place, he should have taken the opportunity of asking that noble and learned Lord, whether he intended to bring in a bill relating to tithes, which he was understood to have in contemplation, as there was a learned Gentleman in the other House who had a measure prepared on that subject, which he had delayed only on the supposition that the Chief Justice was about to introduce a bill relating to the subject.
Earl Greysaid, that no man could be more fully convinced than he was, that great inconveniences arose from the tithe-system, and that a speedy remedy was necessary. He did not rise, however, to discuss the question, but merely to answer the question which the noble Lord was desirous to ask of the Lord Chief Justice if he had been present. That noble and learned Lord had intimated his intention to bring in a bill for the purpose to which the noble Lord alluded. As it related, in part, to Crown property, it was necessary to apply for his Majesty's consent, and as soon as that consent should have been obtained, he had no doubt that the noble and learned Lord would be prepared to introduce his measure.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

DISTRESS IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.
Lord Teynhamrose to submit a Motion which he thought necessary from the present circumstances of the country. He was happy that order was restored, but still it was to be lamented that much distress existed. That distress was necessarily attended with many deplorable circumstances, and gave rise to
1004
many crimes. Amongst the causes which deteriorated the condition of the peasantry, the malt and hop duties had hitherto a principal and injurious effect. The petitions which had been presented for the last two Sessions proved the general existence of the distress. In another House it was usual to print such petitions. The object of his present Motion was, to found upon the petitions presented to their Lordships, a proceeding which might lead to an alleviation of the misery which was too prevalent. He meant to move for a classification of the petitions which had been presented for the last two years, complaining of agricultural distress, stating the names of the counties or places from which such petitions came, the number of signatures which each contained, the prayer of the petition, and other particulars. He called for this classification with the view that Resolutions might be founded upon the petitions, such as the circumstances of the case required.
Earl Greysaid, that this Motion appeared to him a most extraordinary one; and the mode which the noble Lord had adopted for introducing it, no less extraordinary. He admitted that the distress which prevailed deserved all the attention which could be bestowed upon it; but he was glad that the condition of the people was improving. The noble Lord had referred to a practice in the House of Commons, which he (Earl Grey) should be sorry to see adopted in their Lordships' House. It was the practice in the House of Commons to print petitions, at great inconvenience and expense to the country, and he thought that that example ought rather to be avoided than followed. He knew of no similar duty being imposed upon the Officers of the House of Commons, but he was certain that no such duty devolved upon the Clerks of that House, as to classify these petitions, to which they must devote a portion of time which would be impossible, consistently with their other duties. The noble Lord could at any time refer to these petitions, in the library of the House, or he could have them produced upon the Table for any occasion for which he required them; but this Motion, if not altogether impossible to be complied with, would at least occasion such an expense and waste of time, that he was sure their Lordships would not consent to it. He believed, that in the instance of the Catholic Relief

1005
Bill a list was made out, by Order of the House, stating what petitions were for, and what against the measure. That was the only precedent, and it would not answer the purpose which the noble Lord had in view. He was not inclined to consent to the Motion.
Lord Teynhamsaid, that as it appeared the Motion was attended with greater difficulty than he had supposed, he would withdraw it, and he hoped that, in calling the attention of their Lordships to the petitions, he had done all that he ought.
Motion withdrawn.