TITHES—STAY OF SUITS. (Hansard, 26 August 1833)

§ Lord Western
presented Petitions from Cumberland and Yorkshire, in favour of this Bill.

The Bishop of London
availed himself of the opportunity offered by the presentation of these petitions to say a few words on the subject of this Bill. This was a Bill avowedly intended to stay certain tithe suits till the next Session of Parliament, but which, besides, contained a direct censure on all the clerical owners of tithes in the kingdom. If it should pass into a law, it would put most of them to considerable expense, and the claims of some it might defeat altogether. With respect to the principle of the Bill, he must say, that, in his opinion, a more unjust measure had never been sent up to their Lordships from the other House of Parliament, and he could not but feel some surprise at the commendations it had received from one of the Law Officers of the Crown. It had been stated that Lord Tenterden had been compelled to introduce into his Bill the clause under which the actions now attempted to be stayed had been brought. That was not the case. He could assert, from his own personal knowledge, that a longer term than three years having been mentioned. Lord Tenterden said, that he was willing to grant the clergy a longer term, but that he did not think the House of Commons would assent to it. He had in his hand the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on referring to the clause in question. The noble and learned Lord said—"The first proviso in that Bill 880 was, that it should not affect the right of the clergy to institute suits for the space of three years under the provisions of the old law. He doubted not but that that period would be found satisfactory, except in some cases, perhaps, of tithes belonging to the clergy. He did not think that the door ought at once to be closed upon claims of this sort, or great injustice might be done." These were the sentiments of Lord Tenterden The noble and learned Lord who now occupied the Woolsack had said on the same occasion, that—"It was fitting that clerical incumbents should have ample notice and time given them to claim what they considered justly their due." The Bishops and others in that House had asked for longer time, but their request was refused, and they acquiesced in the refusal. That having been done, it was too much now to introduce this Bill to deprive the owners of tithes of those means of enforcing their rights which, after so much consideration, had been accorded them. He wished now to make a few observations with regard to the particular case on which this Bill was specially founded. They related chiefly to a body to whom he was deeply indebted, for whom he felt the most lasting gratitude, and on whose behalf it was his duty to stand up in that House. The greatest number of suits in Kendal were said to have been brought by that body—he meant the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge. He mentioned these cases in order to call the attention of their Lordships to circumstances which showed most strongly the injustice of this Bill. The rectory of Kendal had been granted by Queen Elizabeth to Trinity College, and that body had been in the habit of granting leases of the tithes to some of the neighbouring landholders. These various leases had recently been united in the hands of one person. Great confusion had occurred in settling the claims of the various parties interested in so large a parish. Some years ago the College filed a bill against a few of the parishioners for the purpose of ascertaining what were the claims of exemption existing in the parish. The cause came on for hearing before the Vice-Chancellor, who made a decree in favour of the College. An appeal was brought against that decree, and the cause was carried before the Lord Chancellor. It did not come on for hearing till after the present noble and learned Lord had taken his seat upon the Woolsack, and his Lordship had only varied the decree in some slight manner, and directed certain 881 issues of fact to be tried before a Jury. All these proceedings took place before Lord Tenterden's Bill was introduced. The cause came on at the last Spring Assizes, and the Jury found the issues in favour of the College. The solicitor for the College had proposed to the inhabitants, that there should be an arrangement entered into by which all parties should bind themselves to abide the event of the suits then pending. No answer was at first given, but, after the verdict on the issues had been returned in favour of the College, there was a meeting of the parishioners, and they came to a determination not to bind themselves to abide by the result of the suits then pending. Looking at this Bill, and supposing that the judgment of the Lord Chancellor upon the issues should be the same as it had been before, what would be the situation of the College? The solicitor had, by virtue of this clause in Lord Tenterden's Bill, been compelled to issue subpœnas against those who were not parties to the original suits, and who would not enter into the agreement proposed by him. Then came this Bill, sanctioned by the Law Officer of the Crown. The defendants, in the original suits, would have to pay their tithes in kind, but the greater portion of the parish would be enabled to retain their tithes, which properly belonged to Trinity College, unless that House would allow all tithe owners to vindicate their rights according to the law as it now stood. He thought this was a complete justification of the conduct of the College in this matter, and he trusted that their Lordships would not sanction a Bill which went, as this did, to work a heavy injustice on parties who had been guilty of no offence but that of attempting to enforce their rights according to law.

§ Lord Western
rose to move that the Bill to which the right reverend Prelate had objected should be read a second time. He was convinced that it would be useful in putting an end to the litigation which had commenced between the clergy and their parishioners, and in suspending the progress of that excitement against the Church, which, if continued, must be pregnant with danger not only to the interests of the Church, but also to the interests of religion itself. He understood that suits had been instituted already against 9,000 persons, and to put a stop to their further progress, this Bill ought to receive their Lordships approbation.

§ Lord Wynford
said, that there was a wide difference between this Bill and Lord Tenterden's Bill, of which it professed to be an improvement. That Bill was a Bill for the regulation of a certain species of property; this Bill was a Bill which singled out one species of property, and prevented the owners of it from exercising that control over it, which they could exercise over every other species of property to which they were entitled. The objections to passing this Bill were much stronger than he had imagined them to be when it was first submitted to his consideration, for if so many suits were commenced as his noble friend alleged there was a chance that the plaintiffs in many of them would die before the suspension of these suits terminated. The suits would then abate, and to recover the tithes due, the suits would have to be commenced de novo by their heirs or executors, who, in all probability, would know nothing at all about the matter. Considering that there were upwards of 10,000 benefices in. England, he really thought it strange that the number of suits commenced was not greater than the number stated by the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of London). He contended that their Lordships had no right to single out individuals of a certain class, and to say to them, "The suits which you have instituted for the recovery of what you consider your just rights you shall not be permitted to proceed further with." As an argument for passing this measure, their Lordships had been told, that it had been carried through the other House of Parliament by a large majority. Whether it had been so carried or not, was not the point to which their Lordships ought to attend, but to the intrinsic merits of the Bill itself. Admitting, that the majority in its favour was so large as had been represented, how did it happen that that large majority had not brought in a Bill of this importance at an earlier period of the Session, when their Lordships might have had time to consider it in all its details? As it was framed at present, it appeared to him to be inefficient for the object which it was intended to accomplish; but, independently of that objection, it appeared to him to inflict upon the clergy various hardships from which it was the duty of the Legislature to protect them. For instance, some of them had gone to all the expense of getting their causes ready for trial, and now they were informed that the decisions on those causes were to be indefinitely 883 postponed. He felt himself bound, out of gratitude to the clergy for the benefits which they had conferred upon the country, to protect their interests to the utmost of his ability, and with that view, he should now move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

The Lord Chancellor
admitted that this was an extraordinary Bill, and liable to many of the objections which had been urged against it by the noble and learned Lord, and more particularly to the objection which had been taken to it by the right reverend Prelate. It was impossible, on the other hand, to deny, if the accounts were not strangely exaggerated, that there bad been a great amount of Bills filed (or of proceedings taken preliminary to the filing of Bills), and a great number of suits commenced, to escape the operation of Lord Tenterden's Act. By that Act a year had been given for the commencement of proceedings in these lithe cases; but suppose that, in every case of modus, throughout the kingdom, proceedings had been instituted, not to set aside the modus but to save the time mentioned in Lord Tenterden's Act, and to give the parties the option of continuing those proceedings at a future period, if they thought it advisable; it was clear, that in that case. Lord Tenterden's Act would become inoperative, and that its object would be altogether defeated. Now, that would be a grievous injury both to the Church and to the State—for the Bill was intended to be a Bill of quiet to the State, and a Bill of goodwill and security to the Church; whereas, if it were to be converted to the purposes to which some persons imagined that it was converted, it would be neither the one nor the other. He was far from saying that it was easy to see the way through the difficulties of this question, supposing that their Lordships acted with a strict regard to justice. It appeared to him, that the House was comparatively in a state of ignorance as to the circumstances which were urged as the reason for passing this measure. If the number of suits did not amount to more than the number stated by the right reverend Prelate, then he should say, that there were no grounds for passing this Bill; but if the number extended to the enormous amount mentioned by his noble friend, then he should say some legislative measure must be resorted to. But would there be any great mischief in allowing the matter to stand as it was at present? Having brought in the 884 Bill, would any harm result from postponing any further proceeding with respect to it until the next Session of Parliament? Those who were apprehensive that in the five or six intervening months the suits in question might be brought to a close, knew very little of the nature of our laws, or of the cumbrous proceedings which must be necessary. Nothing could be done before Michaelmas Term (the 2nd of November,) and between that and the probable opening of the next Session, very slender progress could be made in any suit; so that, although he by no means regretted that the subject had attracted the attention of Parliament, he thought it might perhaps be as well to wait, in order to see whether any legislative interference was advisable; and, if advisable, what course it would be most expedient to pursue.

The Bishop of London
observed, that the number of clergymen who had instituted suits was not as great as the number of suits instituted; for a large proportion of the suits had been brought by lay-impropriators. He did not believe, that the number of suits brought by clergymen was a tenth of what had been represented.