Lords Sitting of 6 March 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of DURHAM, from the Presbytery of Northumberland, for the Grant of Regium Donum.—By the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, from the Methodists of Beaumaris; and by the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from Bath and Chester, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Duke of NORFOLK, the Marquess of LANSDOWN, the Earls of UXBRTDGE, CAWDOR, DURHAM, and Lord LYTTLETON, from a Number of Places,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Lord WYNFORD, and the Earls of UXBRIDGE and DELAWARR—for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from several Parishes, against the present System of levying the Bates on Turnpike Roads.—By Lord POLTIMORE, from Dumfries, against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.

CATHOLICS AND THE CHURCH.
The Duke of Norfolk, on presenting a petition from the Protestant Dissenters of Burnham Wood and neighbourhood, said, he would take that opportunity of stating, in a few words, his opinion upon the subject of an established religion. In his opinion it was essential to all well-ordered States, provided it did not, by its tenets, exclude others from the full enjoyment of their civil and religious rights. Upon that principle, and considering the Established

1187
Church in this country as the religion of the majority of the nation, he should give it his most cordial support, though he differed from its doctrines upon many points. As a Peer of Parliament, he considered that he had an undoubted right to give his vote upon points regarding the Establishment, such as the dispensation of benefices, bishoprics, and other matters of that nature connected with the Church. In the course of the last Session, when the Irish Church Temporalities Bill was before their Lordships, a right rev. Prelate had expressed an opinion, that Catholic peers had no right to vote on such subjects. He differed from the rev. Prelate upon that point, and he trusted that he had the sanction of the House for his opinion. With respect to any thing touching upon the doctrines of the Church of England, any thing relating to its Liturgy, he considered himself not at liberty to give any vote; but with that reservation, he having been admitted to all the civil rights of a citizen and a Peer of Parliament, he contended that he had a right to vote on the subject.
Earl Delawarepresented a petition from the lay members of the Church of England at Wisbeach, praying the House to watch over and guard the integrity of the Establishment. The signs of the times were such, that it behoved the members of the Church to look with suspicion upon those measures which they had been informed were about to be introduced containing further concessions to a body which had gone the length of demanding the total separation of the Church from the State. His Majesty's Ministers might be assured, that, if they acted upon those principles of hold, uncompromising support of the Established Church which they had announced at the opening of the Session, they would find themselves sustained by the people of England beyond even their most sanguine hopes. If, on the other hand, they were to desert their principles, and weakly make concessions to a body which rose in its demands, and increased its clamour in proportion as it was feebly resisted, his Majesty's Ministers might rest assured they would meet with the most determined opposition.

JUDGMENTS IN EXECUTION.
Lord Wynfordbrought in a Bill for assimilating the practice of the Courts in Ireland and England, and for the more effectual recovery of debts for which final judgment had already been obtained in any Court of
1188
Law. The object of the Bill was, to render the judgments of English Courts effectual in Ireland, and for rendering, in the same manner, the judgments of Irish Courts effectual in this country. As the law now stood, a man might recover a judgment in either of these countries; but for the purpose of rendering it effectual in the other, he must commence an action upon that judgment. By such a course he was exposed to certain delay and expense, and to probable loss of the fruits of the first judgment. These were great evils; and it was to get rid of them, that he proposed the present Bill. He proposed to effect this, by making it lawful to transmit to the Court in either country, a copy of the record of the judgment under the seal of the proper officer of the Court where the judgment had been first obtained; and on that copy being received, the party who had obtained the judgment should be at liberty to issue execution. This was a principle which might with great advantage be extended to foreign countries, if the Ministry could obtain the concurrence of their respective governments. Instances were now of frequent occurrence in which debtors ran away from this country—kept the money which justly belonged to their creditors in their own pockets, and evaded the payment of their just debts. He knew one instance which was very well known to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in which a judgment for thirty thousand pounds had been obtained against a party in Ireland; that party then came to this country, where the judgment was affirmed, but by that time the party was in France. A considerable expense was gone to in that country in order to enforce the judgment; but by the time that process had been gone through, the party had gone off to Italy; and so on the thing might go for an unlimited time. It was to put an end to such an abuse, that he introduced the Bill. It would also have the great object in view of putting au end to the great delay occasioned by the present system. He moved that it be read a first time.
The Lord Chancelloracknowledged that great delay and expense were caused by the law as it at present stood, and willingly admitted that some legislation was necessary upon the subject. He would take the earliest opportunity of looking into the details of the Bill, and would give it his most earnest attention.
The Bill was read a first time.

TITHES,—ST. BOTOLPH BISHOPSGATE.
The Earl of Durhampresented a petition from the parish of St. Botolph, Bishops-gate, agreed to at a meeting of the vestry, and signed by three hundred and sixty inhabitants, all of whom inhabited houses above 20 l. The petitioners stated, that they were zealously attached to the Church, yet they felt it a great grievance to be so severely taxed for the support of the hierarchy; that they were oppressed by the union of the Church and State, and the heavy burthen of tithes, especially by a local Act of 1823, which gave the rector the power of levying upon thirty of the parishioners for the full sum of 2,500 l., which had been fixed upon as his income from the parish. They prayed the House would grant them relief in all those matters, but more especially by the repeal of the local Act.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that he must call this petition a proceeding of an extraordinary nature. He should mention some circumstances which he thought would show something of the animus that actuated those who had promoted the getting up of this petition. The petitioners desired to be relieved from the burthens which they said were cast upon them for the support of the hierarchy. He hoped he should not offend his former parishioners of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, if be said, that from the use of the word hierarchy, in this petition, they did not seem to understand the word, or its meaning. They did not pay one farthing in support of the hierarchy. In former times the citizens of London were liable to a payment of 3s. 6d. in the pound on the rack-rent of all houses for the support of their clergy. That payment was found to be very burthensome, and it became the subject of much discussion. The continuance of the burthen produced some tumults, and the King appointed a Commission, consisting of the great officers of State, to inquire into the matter, and to form some arrangement that should put an end to these disputes, and should be conclusive. After carefully examining into the subject, an arrangement was made by which the citizens were declared liable to pay 2s. 9d. in the pound. That arrangement was made the subject of an Act of Parliament, which Act was in force generally in the parishes of London at this day. Some question, however, had arisen as to the enrolment of the decree; and it had been three times decreed to be enrolled. In the year 1820, on the appointment of a new rector, he proposed to the
1190
inhabitants a commutation of the sum, to the payment of which they were liable; and his commutation did not exceed ten-pence or one shilling in the pound, instead of being to the full amount of the two shillings and nine-pence in the pound. The inhabitants resisted his proposal, and presented a petition on the subject, in which they were indiscreet enough to say that they were liable by law to a payment amounting to 7,000 l. a year. That was the fact; they were by law liable to a payment to that amount; but their then rector, who now filled the see of Down and Connor, never thought of taking more from them than a sum of about one shilling in the pound. He (the Bishop of London) had afterwards become the rector of this parish, and upon his obtaining the incumbency, the inhabitant parishioners of Bishopsgate proposed that the income of the living should be for ever settled by Act of Parliament. He was then in the receipt of a sum amounting to 2,300 l. a year, calculated upon the arrangement made by his predecessor. He agreed to the proposition of the inhabitants, and the result was, that it was agreed that the rector should receive 2,500 l. a-year, out of which a sum of 300 l. a-year was to be paid to a curate. This arrangement he consented to, after receiving the full consent of his diocesan. The Act of Parliament to carry this arrangement into effect—that Act of which they now complained—was drawn up by themselves—it was prepared by their own solicitor, and even the remedy of distress secured by the Act was their own proposition, and yet now this Act of their own, by which they paid only 2,500 l. a year, instead of 7,000 l., was the subject of their complaints, and they wished to get it repealed. This desire for the repeal of the Act came from the very persons who had had the benefit of the arrangement entered into by themselves, but who now, taking advantage of what they conceived to be the spirit of the times, wanted to cut down the rector's income, though they did not say to what sum. The petitioners complained, too, of the building of a second church, and they complained of the burthen of building this church. He congratulated himself on having been instrumental in procuring the building of a second church in a parish containing 9,000 inhabitants; the old parish church not being able to contain more than 1200 persons. But whatever was the expense of building this church, the inhabitants had suffered nothing

1191
from it—not one farthing had been contributed by the parish, not one farthing had been asked from them. The expense of the building of the church was defrayed out of the funds at the disposal of the commissioners for building new churches—the expense of fitting it up and rendering it lit for the performance of divine service, had been borne by himself. He mentioned this only to show, that so far from their having any ground of complaint, any right to impute to the hierarchy the exercise of a grinding rapacity, and a power of extorting from the people of London more than was due from them, they were, in fact, secured from a larger legal demand, and a concession of nearly 5,000 l. a-year was made to them. The arrangement he had entered into was made with the free consent of his diocesan, the present most rev. Prelate. This arrangement was made at their own desire; and to secure them from what might be considered an injustice, it was agreed, that, at the end of ten years, a re-valuation should take place, so as to keep the income the same in value, though not in amount. That re-valuation would take place in about two years from this time, and the rector's income would perhaps then be reduced 300 l. or 400 l. in amount. He was happy to be able to inform their lordships, that whatever might be the sentiments of the persons who had signed the present petition, there were many others in the parish who entirely differed from them, and that a petition would shortly be presented to their Lordships from 270 of the inhabitants of St. Botolph, who paid a much larger sum towards the rates than did these petitioners, expressing their attachment to the Church, and their determination to resist any attempts to injure its property.
The Earl of Durhamobserved, that it was quite impossible for him to be prepared to answer the statements made by the right rev. Prelate. He bad felt himself bound to present the petition, and to lay the complaints of the petitioners before their Lordships; but, of course, he was not responsible for their statements. He was not inclined to dispute with the right rev. Prelate as to the use or the meaning of the word hierarchy, as employed by the petitioners, or of any other word, especially if derived from the Greek, but, on the other part of the right rev. Prelate's observations as to the arrangement entered into with the parish, the merit seemed to be, that the legal claim of 2s. 9d. in the
1192
pound had not been strictly enforced. In truth, it never appeared to have been enforced by the right rev. Prelate's predecessors. He did not agree with the petitioners as to the desire they expressed for a separation between the Church and the State. In his opinion, the Church and the State, or rather religion and the State, ought to be united. He thought that the government of every state was bound to give to the inhabitants of that state instruction, moral and religious. He did not identify himself with the abuses of a Church Establishment, nor did he think that other men ought, because of the existence of such an Establishment, to suffer any diminution of their civil and religious rights; but he thought, that, in the first instance, the State was bound to tender religious instruction to its inhabitants.
Petition laid on the Table.