HL Deb 25 March 1831 vol 3 cc925-6
Lord Wharncliffe

gave notice, that he should on Monday next move for the returns which a noble kinsman of his had yesterday given notice for him of his intention to move for. He should at an earlier period have taken this means of bringing under the notice of their Lordships the Reform measure, if he had not been prevented by indisposition.

Earl Grey

asked, if the noble Lord meant to move for the same Returns which were contained in his former notice; because, if so, it might be convenient to the noble Lord to know that there would be no objection to the Motion.

Lord Wharncliffe

said, he should move for the same returns as had been before named, and that he had anticipated there would be no objection to his motion. He had now to present to their Lordships a Petition, which he called their attention to with great pain. It was on the subject of tithes, and came from the owners and occupiers of lands of the parish of Cadoxton-juxta-Neath, in the county of Glamorgan. It appeaed from the statement of the petitioners, that a modus had existed for a long period in the parish; that this modus was contested by the Vicar, in the reign of William and Mary, when the Vicar's bill was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, and himself fixed with the costs of the suit; and that, about twenty years ago, another suit was instituted, when the modus was again confirmed by Sir W. Grant. The petitioners complained that the present Vicar had contested the modus again, and had succeeded in setting it aside as against one person, and the rest of the parish apprehended renewed litigation. Now, he was sure that no one would accuse him of any inclination to infringe the rights of the Church; but when they had cases like the present forced upon their notice, he thought they must all agree that some measure should be introduced on the subject, in order to prevent constant litigation of the worst character. He trusted, therefore, that the bill of the Chief Justice would prove successful. If that bill did not meet the case of the petitioners, he would again bring it under the notice of the House when that bill came into Committee.

The Bishop of Gloucester

did not, he was sure, need to remind their Lordships, that the petition was an ex-parte statement, and he had no doubt that many of the assertions it contained could be answered or explained.

Petition to lie on the Table.