Lords Sitting of 27 February 1833

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Derby and Midhurst; by Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE, from Bodmin and St. Columb; and by the Earl of GosFORD, from Beccles,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of RODEN, from the Island of Runy, Parish of Small Isles, and the Presbytery of Skyr, against the present System of Church Patronage in Scot land.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from three Congrega-

1171
lions in Perth; by the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from seventeen Places in England and Ireland; by Lord SOF FIELD, from Street and Watton; and from South Ferriby; and by Lord KING, from Kilbirnie,—for the Abolition of Slavery.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
The Marquess of Westminster, in presenting a Petition from Chester, praying for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day, said, that as far as strengthening the existing laws on the subject went, he would have no objection to do so; but he should certainly object to the mixing up of anything like a puritanical spirit with the laws of the country in reference to this important matter. He was not aware of the nature of the measure on this subject, of which notice had been given in the other House, but judging from the number of petitions that were presented, calling for some measure of the kind, he supposed that it would be passed by the other House, and he should, therefore, previous to its coming up to their Lordships, move for a Copy of the Report of the Commons' Committee of last Session on this matter, in order that their Lordships might be put in possession of the information which it contained. Some years ago in conjunction with Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Wilberforce, he brought forward a measure in reference to the publication of the Sunday newspapers, which, if it had been passed at the time, might have checked the evil in question; but it was not passed into a law, and the evil, for the cure of which it was intended, had gone on increasing ever since. It appeared to them at the time that the very name of a Sunday newspaper was objectionable; and it was still more objectionable, that the persons engaged in getting them up should be all employed in working on the Sabbath Day. True it was, that it was stated by the advocates of those Sunday papers, that they were all printed on the Saturday evening, although they did not come out until the Sunday morning; but he recollected well, that several petitions were presented from the printers and others engaged in working them, praying for relief, and for the liberty of taking recreation and repose upon the Sunday. It was alleged at the time in defence of those Sunday journals, that they would contain pious articles, suitable for Sunday reading, and homilies that would rival those of the Church itself. He must say, that subsequent experience did not prove that such had been the case.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
On the Question that the Petition do lie on the Table,
Lord Teynhamrose and said, that he thought it due to their Lordships, as well as to himself, to take that opportunity to complain of a most atrocious attack which was made in the Standard newspaper of that evening, upon him and upon the noble Baron behind him (Lord King). In the article to which he alluded, the noble Lord and himself were called "the devil's advocates," "the Church-hating gemini," and were, in fact, represented to be "scoundrels," because they had presented petitions, complaining of abuses connected with the tithe system, and praying for relief. Now he would solemnly declare, that in presenting such petitions as had been intrusted to him upon that subject, and which he considered it his duty to present, he had never been wanting in that respect towards the Church of England which it was his duty as well as his inclination to feel, and which, indeed, it would be a most reprehensible thing on his part not to entertain. He had, certainly, always advocated a proper settlement of the tithe question, conceiving that such a settlement was absolutely required, not only for the peace of the country, but for the preservation of the Church. He had felt it his duty to urge, especially at the present moment, the necessity of such a settlement; and he had no doubt, that the measure which would be brought forward on the subject by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, would be calculated to effect such a desirable end. He trusted, however, that, in nothing he had done, he had in any way merited the description applied to him by the Standard newspaper. Indeed, if such a description would apply to him, he should be unworthy to sit any longer in that House. The noble Baron who was also attacked in the article in question, had not seen it until he had drawn that noble Lord's attention to it. That noble Lord was well able to defend himself and, therefore, he would say nothing in reference to the attack upon the noble Baron. He really thought that the honour and dignity of the House required that a stop should be put to such slanderous and calumnious attacks upon Members of it, and with that view he begged to give notice, that he would to-morrow move, that the editor and printer of that paper be called to their Lordships' Bar to answer for their conduct.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to remind the noble Lord, in the first place, that the question to be now put was, that the petition that was presented by the noble Marquess

1173
do lie upon the Table; and, in the next place, that even were that disposed of, he did not conceive that the mode of proceeding adopted by the noble Lord was the usual one in such cases. He apprehended that it was not usual to give notice of a proceeding touching the privileges of that House. The noble Lord must be aware, that a motion of that kind took precedence of all other business whatever; and, therefore, if the House was to take up a matter of this description, their Lordships should, not only in justice to the paper itself, but to the House, proceed to its consideration instanter. Their doing so would not deprive the parties in question of the means of getting full notice to prepare their defence when called on; and, therefore, he would repeat, that if the House should decide—a decision that he for one should deeply lament—to call the printer of this paper to the Bar for such a trumpery article, their Lordships should decide to do so at once. He was sure that his noble friend (Lord King), who, it appeared, had been also attacked in this article, would not join with the noble Baron in demanding to have the printer called to their Lordships' Bar, and, indeed, he hoped that the noble Baron (Lord Teynham) would himself see that the more dignified course would be not to notice such a matter. If, however, the noble Baron should persist in his Motion, the question as to calling those persons to the Bar should be decided at once, for abundant notice would be thus given to them, and abundant time afforded to them to prepare for their defence.
Lord Kingsaid, that he did not at all coincide in what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Teynham) on this subject. The noble Lord had shown him what he termed a most atrocious attack in a newspaper upon both of them, in which they were called "the devil's advocates." Now, the only person that he (Lord King) had ever heard of as being so denominated was an extremely honest and respectable personage. The "devil's advocate" in the Court of Rome, was an individual who took care ex officio that the Holy Father should not admit an improper saint into heaven; and as the individual who bore that title had always acted in a most excellent, honest, and impartial manner, he (Lord King), instead of objecting to, was extremely proud at, being called "the devil's advocate."
Lord Teynhamsaid, that if other noble Lords did not care about such attacks, he
1174
should not mind them either. If noble Lords did not care about being called" devil's advocates "and "Church-haters," and if they did not think it necessary, for the preservation of their own dignity, to put an end to such attacks, he would only say, that he should be as ready as any one of them to take his share of the abuse thus cast upon them. After what had occurred, he would not persevere with his intended motion on this subject.

THE CLERGY.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, that he wished to take that opportunity to address a few observations to their Lordships, in consequence of an attack which had been last evening made by the noble Baron (Lord King) upon a most excellent and deserving clergyman of his diocess. The noble Lord had stated, that the clergyman in question had been guilty of exacting tithes beyond what were his due, and of demanding tithe upon fish. Now, to show that such had not been the case, he (the Bishop of Bath and Wells) would just read to their Lordships a letter which he had received from that reverend gentleman. The reverend Prelate here read the letter, in which the reverend writer stated that he had been absent from his parish for a few weeks, being at Birmingham assisting in the restoration of St. Peter's Church there—that on his return, he was astonished to find that Lord King's agent had been going about the parish getting signatures to a petition reflecting upon his (the clergyman's) character and conduct—that he understood that that petition stated that he had raised his tithes—that be had endeavoured to exact tithe upon fish, and, in short, that he had acted in a most cruel way towards his parishioners. The writer proceeded to state, that in no instance since he had come to the parish had he raised the tithes there—that in many instances he had lowered them—and that, at the last tithe-day, there had not been a single complaint on the part of the tithe-payers. He further stated, that as to the fish, he had never threatened that he would tithe them; that so far from falling out with his parishioners, he had done all he could to promote peace and harmony amongst them, and that he had established three schools in the parish, towards which no assistance was afforded him by Lord King, though his Lordship had a large property there. He added that he had written to his Lord" ship on the subject, but that he had never condescended to answer his application,

1175
and he concluded by stating, that he had no doubt that this petition, which he understood was about being forwarded to their Lordships, had originated with Lord King himself. The right reverend Prelate proceeded to remark, that it would have been only an act of befitting courtesy on the part of the noble Lord when he had a petition to present against a clergyman resident in his (the Bishop of Bath and Wells') diocess, to have given him notice of it. Clergymen, when thus attacked, could only answer through the medium of their diocesan, and therefore he should have had notice of this petition. The rector of Porlock, against whose character this petition was directed, was a most excellent individual. He thought that the noble Lord would be now ashamed at having brought forward such charges against that reverend gentleman, especially as, instead of being proved, they had been disproved upon the best possible authority. He hoped that the noble Lord would not go on in this, he must say, sort of aberration of mind and mental hallucination, endeavouring to bring forward everything that he could against the clergy. He would entreat that noble Lord not to persevere in unfounded attacks upon their character; knowing, as that noble Lord must, that by inflicting an injury on the character of the clergy, he would do an injury to religion itself. He trusted that the noble Lord would now rise in his place and acknowledge, that the charges which he had made against a most excellent clergyman had been made under mistake, and that finding they were not founded in fact, he was ready to withdraw them.
Lord Kingcould assure the reverend Prelate that he had no intention of stating that which the reverend Prelate had just called upon him to state. The reverend Prelate had contradicted his statement upon what he termed the best possible authority, which authority was no less than that of the very party against whom the charges had been made. Now, with regard to the person described as his (Lord King's) agent, he was a lessee of land in the parish, and was, therefore, as much interested as any other person in this matter, and it was in that character he had interfered in it. He (Lord King) understood that every one of the farmers in the parish except two had signed the petition. With regard to the property which he held in the parish, it was exceedingly small; his principal property was in the adjoining
1176
county. The petition was not signed principally by his tenants; in fact, not one out of five of those who had signed the petition were his tenants; they were persons over whom he had no influence whatever. His agent as an owner and lessee of land in the parish, and in no other capacity, had been concerned in getting up the petition. It was perfectly true, that the reverend gentleman had made an application to him (Lord King) for support for the schools in the parish. He (Lord King) wrote accordingly to his steward, stating that he was ready to contribute towards their support. It was true that he afterwards declined to do so, and his reason for so declining was, that he was informed that the reverend gentleman had involved himself in such a war with his parishioners, by demanding tithes upon potatoes, fish, &c., that very little good could be expected to come from him. They were told, that the reverend Gentleman had not raised the tithe since his residence in the parish, but that on the contrary, he had lowered it. If he had lowered it, it was because corn had become lower. The facts which he had stated as to the tempests which had been raised in this parish by the rector's conduct, and as to the burning of the proctor in effigy, had not been denied. Could the right reverend Prelate controvert the statement which had been forwarded to him, and which he had previously referred to—namely, that the parish was converted into "a little Ireland" by such proceeding? But the answer was, that the Clergyman was a most excellent character. Now he (Lord King) did not mean to say that such was not the case; but for that very reason he would appeal to that as an instance of the evil working of the tithe system. The moment any case of hardship happened to be mentioned, arising out of tithes, one of the right reverend Prelates was sure to start up and to declare that the clergyman to whom it referred was, most exemplary and excellent character, which only proved to him (Lord King) that the tithe system was so bad that even the best men were not proof against the effects of it. He denied, that he had made any attack upon the character of this reverend Gentleman. His attack was levelled against the system, and not against the individual.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, that as the authority of the letter which he had read had been questioned by the noble Lord he would make it a point to make particular inquiries on the subject from the most

1177
respectable clergymen in his diocess, and if he had been in any point misled he would be ready to come down to the House and state so. He could not help repeating, that the noble Lord was ready, upon all occasions, to come forward and malign the clergy of the Established Church.
Lord King: I never malign any man if he does not deserve it.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellswould only add, that he thought such charges as those that were generally brought forward by the noble Lord should be treated with silent contempt.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that as the noble Lord had stated that he maligned no man that did not deserve it, he was anxious on the part of a reverend friend, the Dean of Exeter, whom the noble Lord had upon a former evening attacked in that House, to make a few observations in his defence. The noble Lord had stated, upon the occasion to which he referred, that the Dean of Exeter employed only one officiating clergyman, at a very small salary, in the living of Swimbridge, which belonged to him; the consequence of which was, that duty was only performed once upon the Sunday in the two parishes of which the living consisted; and he had further stated, that while the Dean continued the salary to the officiating clergyman at the lowest possible amount, he had screwed up the fines that he received for renewals to the highest point. In consequence of that statement, he (the Bishop of Exeter) had felt it his duty to write to the Dean on the subject. He had received from him a letter by return of post, telling him that he had been Dean of Exeter for twenty years, that during that time he had been the impropriator of the tithes of the parish of Swimbridge, and that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge of the noble Lord with regard to the fines, for that he had not received a single sixpence for fines since he had come into that living. The noble Lord should bear in mind, that though there was some, there was not a very great difference between saying that which he was not certain was true, but which carried the appearance of truth to his hearers, and the stating that which he knew himself to be false.
Lord Kingsaid, that all he had said upon this subject was that the officiating clergyman in this and in the other living he had mentioned, that of Silverton, were most inadequately remunerated, for, in fact, the remuneration was only the same as that which was given two centuries ago. He
1178
had made the charge, not against the Dean of Exeter, but against the collegiate body to which he belonged, and he would again repeat that the officiating clergymen in parishes of this description were most inadequately remunerated. Their salaries frequently amounted only to 50 l. or 60 l. a-year. If the Dean of Exeter had not increased the fines, it was only because he had not an opportunity of doing so.
The Bishop of Exeterremarked, that the noble Lord (Lord King) had asserted that no increase of stipend had been made in consequence of the increase of fines on the renewal of leases. What became of that assertion when it turned out that there had been no fines? Thus the noble Lord had, upon the authority of others thought proper to throw obloquy upon a respectable man, and inflicted pain upon him at a time when, he was sorry to say, he was labouring under ill health. He was suffering from the gout.
Lord Kingdenied that he meant to attack the Dean of Exeter except in his corporate capacity.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, he could state, on this part of the subject, from his own personal knowledge, that many stipends of the description to which allusion had been made, had been increased.