Lords Sitting of 21 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent by Commission:—Tea Duties'; Postage; Court of Bankruptcy Fund; Public Roads' (Ireland); Assizes' Removal (Ireland); Sinecure Church Preferment; Irish Linen Trade; Sheriffs' Declaration; Seamen's Enlistment; Lunatic Act Continuance; Registrar's Office Improvement s Certiorari; Loan Societies; London Small Debts; and several Private Bills.—Read a third time:—Militia Staff Reduction; Slave's Compensation.—Read a second time:—Illegal Securities; Weights and Measures; Tonnage Admeasurement; Turnpike Roads' Act Continuance; and Hull Merchant Seamen's Fund.
Petitions presented. By Lord FORRESTER, from three Places, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By Lord FARNHAM, from Dublin, against the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord FOLEY, from Worcester, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath; from Daventry and Kidderminster, in favour of;—and by Lords DYNEVOR and FARNHAM, from several Places, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, the Earl of MANSFIELD, and Lord FARNHAM, from several Places, against the Irish Church Bill.

TITHES ON TURNIPS.
The Duke of Richmondmoved that their Lordships be summoned on Monday, when he should propose the second reading of this Bill.
Lord Ashburtonwished to suggest to the noble Duke that at this late period of the Session a Bill upon a part of a subject ought not to be pressed, when it was clearly understood that in the beginning of next Session the whole subject was to betaken into consideration.
The Duke of Richmondcould not possibly adopt the suggestion thus thrown out, and he must beg to state the reasons why he declined. This Bill was brought into Parliament in consequence of a claim made for tithes on turnips pulled from the ground but left in the fields as food for sheep penned there. It had never before been considered that such turnips were titheable. A Clergyman had, however, set up a claim of this kind, and that claim had been sanctioned by the decision of a Court of Law. Now these turnips were merely hoed up by the farmer to assist the sheep in getting at them, but they were not carried off the field, and therefore had never been considered to be tilheable, because tithes were payable on the sheep and by agistmenton the land, andturnipsso consumed had therefore always before been treated as grass. This new claim of tithes was a great grievance on the agriculturist, and one which was likely to produce a most serious effect. As it was the wish of all their Lordships that the question of tithes should be fairly considered next year, he thought that they would agree with him that it would be as well at once to get rid of an acknowledged grievance of this sort, and not allow it to be mixed up with the general question.
The Earl of Rosslynconfessed that he had great jealousy of any legislative proceeding being thus founded upon any one case. The decision referred to was only a holding at Nisi Prius, and might therefore be questioned in the Court. [The Duke of Richmond: It was a decision of Lord Lyndhurst.] That might be, and yet, with all his respect for the noble and learned Lord, he did not think it quite impossible that he might have been mistaken in a case thus for the first time brought before him.
The Earl of Devonwas inclined to believe that the noble and learned Lord's decision stood unquestioned, it being quite coincident with the principle of the law,

803
He thought as this claim of tithes was perfectly new, and must be founded on a new application of the law, one which had perhaps never been intended, the Parliament might meet an evil of that kind, though in an individual case, by an act of legislation.
The Duke of Richmondrepeated, that this claim was a case of great hardship to the farmer, and likely to excite a strong prejudice on the Question of Tithes, and he should persevere with the Bill. He was willing to put off the day from Monday to Wednesday; but that was all he could do.
Lord Ashburtonremarked, that this was a Question of property between the man who had property subject to tithe, and the man who claimed a right to take tithe on that property. On that ground he objected to the Legislature interfering on an individual case. They could not always legislate on individual cases of hardship.
The Earl of Stradbrokethought it was more than an individual case of hardship. A new construction had been put upon the tithe laws creating a demand for tithes, where it was not possible that it could ever before have been heard of. The practice of partly hoeing up the turnips to assist the sheep in getting at them had not existed more than twenty or thirty years. He thought that the Bill ought not to be postponed.
The Bill to be read a second time on Wednesday.