HL Deb 26 August 1835 vol 30 cc979-80
The Duke of Richmond

said, that the object of this Bill was to prevent the heavy expense of a tithe suit from being incurred in cases where Quakers, and persons who from religious scruples alone objected to pay tithes, were concerned. It was proposed that tithes under the value of 10l. should be recovered from them by summary proceedings before a magistrate, and the remedy in such a case ought not to be against the person of the party, but against his goods. He thought that the case of the tithe process which had occurred some time ago, had produced a bad effect in the country, and, for the sake of the Church itself, he should wish to see the present measure adopted.

The Earl of Rosslyn

did not rise to make any objection to the second part of the proposition, which, indeed, he thought might advantageously be adopted; nor to say any thing against the abstract justice of the case with respect to the first propo- sition: but he submitted to the noble Duke whether it was proper, at this season of the year, and at this period of the Session, to make any great alteration in the law with respect to the mode of recovering tithes. It was difficult to say how far the proposed mode of recovery ought to be allowed to extend. The sum of 10l. did not afford a satisfactory limit, for a question of the right to take tithes might be involved in a demand for more than that sum. He thought that their Lordships ought hot to legislate on this Bill without more information.

Lord Brougham

fully agreed with the noble Duke as to the second branch of the Bill, and he thought, too, that to leave an objectionable law in existence with regard to the collection of tithes, was not a matter of advantage to the Church; in fact, that this Bill was only doing what Mr. Burke had called "Taking away from the Church the power of being odious." As the first part of the Bill, however, required consideration, and, though fully agreed as to the principle of the Bill, he had not made up his mind on the details. Since they involved references to several Acts of Parliament, he should suggest that the Bill should be advanced one stage this day, and the next be taken to-morrow, when he would engage to have looked into the Acts in question.

The Marquess of Salisbury

said, that the second clause of the Bill put the Quakers in a better situation than any other of his Majesty's subjects, as it freed them from personal responsibility. He did not see why this favour should be shown to them in preference to all other persons.

Bill read a second time.