Lords Sitting of 3 July 1833

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of LONDON, from several Places; and by the Earl of MEATH, from St. Luke's, Dublin,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Warrington, against the proposed Church Reform in Ireland.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Leith, in favour of the Separatists' Affirmation Bill.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from Great Brickhill, against Slavery.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from Calcutta, &c., for further Privileges on the Removal of the East-India Company's Charter.

EMPLOYMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
On the Motion of the Duke of Richmond, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Agricultural Labourers' Employment Bill.
On the 3rd Clause, which was introduced into the Bill by the Bishop of London, having been put,
Lord Suffieldexpressed his concurrence with what had fallen from the right reverend Prelate, respecting the removal of some of the defects of the Bill. He

67
had but one observation to make. Were it not for the present vicious state of society, and were the Poor-laws properly administered, he should consider the present Bill a great evil. As it was, it was an evil to correct other evils, He considered it a gross injustice that shop-keepers should be obliged to support those who were employed in agricultural labour.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the great difficulty was, that the right reverend Prelate's clause would not give sufficient protection to shop-keepers. He objected to the mode of rating proposed, and that Magistrates could never arrange it. Clergymen and tithe-owners would be liable to much vexation, unless they employed more labourers than their tithes were worth. He had to propose a clause which would exempt from the rate four classes of persons—tithe-owners, house-holders, shopkeepers, and the owners of warehouses who employed no labourers. He thought no one could object to allowing the clause to stand beside the clause of the right reverend Prelate.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that as the principle of the Bill had been already discussed more than once, he should not now enter into it. He should oppose the Amendment; and he considered that the clause of the right reverend Prelate would prevent the clergy from being oppressed by the rate. The experiment had been made last year. It had been made in 425 parishes, and it had succeeded in them all, except one; so that there were 424 to one in its favour.
The Bishop of Londondid not intend to make any observations upon the subject; but he trusted the noble Duke would allow him to set him right upon one point, upon the point that there had been no complaints from the clergy where the labour-rate had been adopted. The reason of that was, that those parishes were under composition for tithes, and if the clergy were charged, the composition would cease. Unless tithe property were protected, in six months the noble Duke would find that his calculation would be reversed; and that instead of having 424 out of 425 parishes in favour of the rate, he would have complaints from the whole number. If his own clause were acted upon, it would protect the tithe-owner from undue oppression.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that their Lordships
68
would add to the oppression the tithe-owner laboured under, if they did not adopt his clause. That clause would be a sort of by-law, and would not interfere with the right reverend Prelate's clause.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that one reason why the labour rate was not adopted in more parishes was, that the rate was too high. He saw, with much pleasure, that in the present Bill the scale of rating was reduced. Tithes should be protected as well as any other sort of property; but he still thought that the tithe-owner should be as liable as any other holder of property, to support the poor.
The Committee divided on Lord Wynford's Clause: Contents 12; Not-Contents 24—Majority 12.
The other Clauses were agreed to, the House resumed; and the Report was received.