Lords Sitting of 22 September 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent; the Auditors of Irish Accounts'; the Public Works'; the Administration of Justice in Ireland; the Hackney Coaches; the Land Tax Assessment; the Canadian Revenue; Turnpike Tolls Regulation; and Clare County Presentments.
Petition presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Freemen of Sandwich, resident at Margate, praying to retain their right of Suffrage.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—BROUGHT UP FROM THE COMMONS.
It being understood that the Reform Bill would be brought up from the House of Commons there was a numerous attendance of Peers. A few Peeresses were accommodated with seats at the bar, and the space allotted to strangers was thronged to an overflow.
The Lord Chancellor had no sooner taken his seat on the Woolsack, than Mr. Pulman, the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod, appeared at the bar, and announced "a Message from the Commons." The Peers took their seats and perfect stillness prevailed. The Lord Chancellor put the next question, "that the messenger be called in," and answering it himself, gave the order to call in the messenger. The doors by which the messengers from the Commons enter, and towards which every eye was turned were thrown open, and upwards of 100 of the Members of the House of Commons, supporters of the Bill, with Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell at their head, the latter bearing the Bill in his hand, rushed through the narrow entrance, and made their appearance at the bar. The effect was striking.
The Lord Chancellor came to the bar with the usual formalities, and received "The Bill" from the hands of Lord John Russell.
Lord John Russell in delivering the Bill to the Lord Chancellor, said, in a firm and audible voice, "My Lords the House of Commons have passed an Act to amend the Representation of England and Wales, to which they desire your Lordships' concurrence."
Some Members of the House of Commons cried "Hear, hear;" but the call to "Order" was general among the Peers; and the cry of "Hear" was not repeated.
Instead of retiring from the bar, as is usual in such cases, the Members of the House of Commons preserved their position.
The Lord Chancellor holding the Bill
480
in his hand, retraced his steps to the Woolsack, and communicated to the House the nature of the Message of the Commons, with unusual solemnity of tone and manner, and these words of mere form and ceremony, which no one perhaps ever thought of listening to before, were on this occasion, heard with breathless silence.
The Bill having been laid upon the Table, after a pause, in consequence of the absence of—
Earl Grey (the noble Earl who had come into the House)said—My Lords, I was not present when the Bill for effecting a Reform in the Representation of the people was brought from the Commons. I beg, however, now to move that the Bill be read a first time. Having made this motion, it will be necessary to fix a day for the second reading of the Bill; and in doing this, I have no other wish than to consult the convenience of your Lordships, I think the second reading should not be taken sooner than Friday se'nnight, nor later than Monday se'nnight. It will perhaps suit the convenience of all parties if I fix the second reading for Monday se'nnight.
Bill read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday se'nnight.
Earl Grey: If the second reading should be carried—as I have every reason to hope it will be—I trust that there will be no objection to take the Committee with as little delay as possible.
The Members of the House of Commons retired from the bar.

PRESCRIPTION BILL.
On the Motion of Lord Tenterden, the House went into a Committee on the Prescription Bill.
The Bishop of Bristolsaid, agreeably to an intimation on a former evening, he wished to suggest an alteration in this Bill, under a strong conviction of its expediency. Having already called the attention of the noble and learned Lord by whom the Bill was introduced, and of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to the subject, he hoped that the amendment which he had to propose would be approved by their Lordships. He trusted, that it was sufficiently evident that the learned and right reverend Prelates, among whom he had the honour to sit in that House, had done all in their power to remove any subject of just complaint against the Establishment, and to render it as unexceptionable as it could be made. He was equally anxious

481
with the noble and learned Lord to see some limitation put to the period which had been hitherto allowed for invalidating fictitious claims to prescriptive payments in lieu of tithes. He should be one of the last persons in that House, as well from consideration of the clergy themselves, as from regard to the interest of the landholders, to encourage precarious litigation for the setting aside of any modus; and it must be admitted that the clergy were not eager to come forward in such contests. A noble Baron, lately obtained an order for a return of the number of suits which had been instituted with a view to subvert unfounded claims; and as the result of the inquiry had not been brought forward, he had a right to presume that not many of the causes had been found to be vexatious or frivolous. He should not have objected to the period of sixty years, and the three incumbencies, if it were not obvious that these might already have had their retrospective operation, and that, in consequence, a very large proportion, of the whole body of incumbents, who had submitted to alleged prescriptions without any apprehension of injuring the property of the Church, would, were the Bill to pass in its present form, be precluded from any power of asserting their rights, however capable of being sustained. It had appeared that the intelligent and practical men, who were consulted by the Commissioners of Real Property upon this subject, in general contemplated prospective arrangements. He begged leave, therefore, to propose, that no prescription should be deemed valid and indefeasible, in lieu of tithes, where the sixty years should have expired, till after three years of a third incumbency, in the appointment of some person, to take place after the passing of this Act.
The Earl of Eldoncordially supported the amendment, which he thought was not only just, but necessary, to render the measure unobjectionable.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that in framing the Bill, it seemed to have been forgotten that the clergy were in a very different situation from the lay holder of tithes, whose property was in fee simple, and descendible to his heirs, and who therefore would take care not to let any modus or collusive payment be established; whereas the clergy, having only a life interest, and depending upon the nullum tempus principle, which made it practice-
482
able for any of their successors to assert their rights, had suffered many of these rights to fall into disuse—some from inattention, some from poverty, some from a love of peace, and some from a fraudulent agreement with their patrons. The effect of the Bill, with respect to the clergy, would be to extinguish almost all doubtful claims; for no person would think of setting up a modus, which could not be proved to have been paid for more than sixty years; and it was not probable that one half of the clergy, who were prepared to prove the invalidity of moduses, would undertake to institute suits within three years from the passing of the Bill, after which time all claims would be foreclosed. The effect of limiting the institution of suits to so short a period would be peculiarly hard on the clergy. It would compel them to bring a vast number of causes into the Exchequer, at a time of all others most unfavourable to the assertion of their rights, and would load them with an obloquy which the lay impropriator might fearlessly defy, or they must be content to see their just claims for ever extinguished. For these reasons, satisfied as he was that putting an end to the nullum tempus principle would be not less advantageous to the interests of the Church, than due to the just rights of landed proprietors, he thought that a longer period than three years, after the passing of the Bill, ought to be allowed to the clergy for the institution of suits.
Amendment agreed to, Bill ordered to be reported.