Lords Sitting of 29 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bill. The Colonial Trade, went through a Committee.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Viscount GODERICH, Copies of the several Reports of the Commissioners appointed by his Majesty's Warrant of the 21st of June, 1850, to inquire into the Receipt and Expenditure of the Revenue in the Colonies and Foreign Possessions.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Merchants and other Inhabitants of Bristol connected with the West Indies, for a proper inquiry into the condition of the Negro Population. From the Beer sellers of Manchester, for an alteration in the Beer Laws. For

1129
Reform, by the Earl of GOSFORD, from Newry, and from Beccles:—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Magistrates, Town Council, and Inhabitants of Peterhead:— By Lord KING, from Canterbury and its vicinity, and from Gravesend and Milton, in Kent; from a Parish in the County of Kilkenny, in Ireland, praying for a better appropriation of the Funds granted by Parliament to the Kildare-street Society. By Lord FARNHAM, from Independents of Usher's Quay Meeting House, Dublin, and from Drumcliffe and Calry for the abolition of Slavery. By the Marquis of BUTE, from the Merchants and Shipowners of Greenock, against the East India Company's monopoly, and from the Merchants of Greenock connected with the West Indies complaining of the publications of the Anti-Slavery Society. By Lord CARBERY, from the President of the Committee of Merchants in Cork trading to the West Indies, for protection. By the Earl of GLENGALL, from the Magistrates of Tipperary, against the introduction of the system of Poor-laws into Ireland, and praying for an assessment in the shape of a Property-tax, for the relief of the poor there.

TITHES.—LAY IMPROPRIATIONS.
Lord Kingpresented a Petition from the parish of Woodbury, in Devonshire, complaining that while 600 l. a year was levied in that parish, and appropriated to the Choral Fund of the cathedral of Exeter, only 50 l. a year was paid to the Curate, who performed all the ecclesiastical duties in that parish.
The Bishop of Exeterstated, that he had no jurisdiction in that parish. That statement, he hoped, was sufficient to relieve him from the charge of not giving a larger salary to the Curate of that important parish. It was one of those cases in which the tithes were all in the hands of lay impropriators.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that this formed one of those peculiar cases of impropriation, where Bishops had not the power to interfere. Cases of this peculiar kind of jurisdiction were at present under the consideration of a Committee, of which he had the honour to be a member, with a view to remedy such abuses. It was one proof of the use of Bishops, that where Bishops had jurisdiction such instances as this did not occur.
The Archbishop of Canterburyconcurred in the statement of the noble and learned Lord, that no such instances of inadequate compensation were to be found where Bishops had jurisdiction. He would take that opportunity to inform the House, that it was his intention, immediately after the recess, to bring in a bill to give Corporations possessing impropriations of this description, the means of remedying evils of this kind, and wiping off the disgrace which thereby accrued to the Church. At present it was extremely difficult for such Corporations, as the law stood, to increase the stipends of the clergymen in parishes
1130
situated like this. It was also his intention, immediately after the holidays, to bring in a bill for the restriction of pluralities,—not for their abolition, but for their restriction,— by which they would be placed under such regulations as would prevent many of the abuses which at present arose from them. There was also another bill which he had often mentioned it was his intention to bring forward, and for the delay in the introduction of which he must apologize to their Lordships, by stating that it had arisen from circumstances not under his control; he alluded to the Bill for the composition of tithes. That bill had undergone a great deal of alteration, and, as he trusted, considerable improvement, and he hoped to be able, shortly after the recess to present it to their Lordships.
Petition laid on the Table.

ADJOURNMENT FOR EASTER.
Lord Kenyoninquired of Earl Grey what arrangement he proposed to make for the Easter Holidays?
Earl Greysaid, that he should propose to-morrow that the House should adjourn from that day till Tuesday, the 12th of April, then to re-assemble for public business. At the suggestion of his learned friend on the Woolsack, he would propose that the House should continue to sit for private business until Monday next.
Lord Kenyonwished to know what reason there would be for the House sitting, even for private business, on Easter-eve and Easter Monday?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should most willingly state the reason why it was proposed that the House should not adjourn, except for public business, until Monday next. Undoubtedly, the usual course had been, to commence the adjournment, both for private and public business before Good Friday; but he did not see any thing improper in the House continuing to sit for the discharge of its judicial functions until Easter Monday. The reason why he proposed that the House should continue to sit for that purpose was, in order, if possible, to get rid of the arrear of appeals. His great object, ever since he had come into his present office, had been to get rid of that arrear, and he hoped to be able to boast at the end of the Session, that he had disposed of not only all the appeals lying over from the former Session, but of all the appeals which had

1131
been entered previous to Easter. That was the reason why he intended to sit until Easter Monday, and the mention of that arrangement would in itself be calculated to prevent new appeals from coming in. He had no objection to sacrifice his holidays, and instead of going out of town, as he might do (for the Court of Chancery had risen that day), to sit hearing appeals till Easter Monday. He should hear only Scotch appeals in that period. With regard to a precedent for Courts of Justice sitting on Easter-eve and Easter Monday, the thing was constantly done on circuit in the country, where the Courts sat upon Easter-eve and upon Easter Monday, and on Good Friday also, with the exception of the two hours spent in church. There was, therefore, nothing contrary to precedent, nor against decorum, in the arrangement which he proposed.