exactly upon the point in dispute, in that | cision of the King v. Joddrell was conof the King v. Joddrell, it was declared firmed, how was it proposed to deal with that the occupier ought not to be rated as cases where the occupier derived no profits, to the profits; and though both cases were from the fact of his possessing a bad farm, tried by the same judge, the judgment pro- or from other circumstances of that nanounced in the latter case did not bear out ture? The effect of allowing the law to that of the former. Unless the House in- remain in its present state would be terfered, there would be appeals to the unsettle all fixed engagements connected special Sessions from every parish in with land, and he trusted, therefore, that England, requiring that the law of rating the House would consent to read this bill profits should be speedily set aside. He a second time. was fully aware, that he had to encounter Mr. Goulburn said, that the hon. the opposition of the clerical tithe owners, Gentleman in this bill very ingeniously and he was quite ready to acknowledge concealed the object which he professed to that he had a powerful opponent to meet have in view. He had no wish on the in a rev. gentleman who propounded his part of the clergy to avoid any burden views on this subject not only in a that could be justly cast upon them by pamphlet which was in the hands of almost law. There was no desire on their part all the hon. Members of that House, but that they should not pay their full share also through the ordinary vehicles of public of the burdens which Parliament imposed, information, which came within every whether for the general welfare of the body's reach. The only thing of which country or for the maintenance of the he (Mr. S. Lefevre) complained in that poor within their parishes. All he claimed rev. gentleman's advocacy of his opinions on their behalf was, that when they called was, that he accused him of want of faith upon all classes to contribute their proin not adhering to the proviso introduced portion, the clergy should not be called into the Parochial Assessment Acts. He upon to contribute more than fairly fell was not himself consulted when that upon them. All he wished was, that the proviso was under consideration, but he assessment should fall equally upon all had communicated with those who were, classes. But how stood the present quesand they stated their distinct understand- tion? Two years since they had passed an ing to be, that the proviso was inserted with- act for the commutation of tithes in Engout the smallest prejudice to the landowner, land and Wales, an act by which the and that it was quite open to bring the clergy were called upon to forego any insubject before Parliament in the Session crease of property which should arise from subsequent to that in which the bill an improvement of the agriculture of the passed. The argument for excluding the country; and the clergy accepted in lieu tithe-owner's charge on the land from the of this an annual sum, founded upon the operation of the decision in the case of basis of what they had received during a the King v. Joddrell was this-that the certain antecedent period. This was in duties annexed to this impost converted it the nature of a bargain; for they called into a species of salary, which, as personal upon all parties to enter into a voluntary property, ought to be exempt from rate. arrangement upon the principles laid down But was not a rent-charge for tithes one in the act? The 69th clause of that of the most available and secure properties act enacted, that every rent-charge payin the kingdom? Was it not infinitely able instead of tithe should be subject better paid than landed property, and to all Parliamentary, parochial and ought it not to be subject to the same other assessments, in like manner as the burdens? One of the principal objects of tithes were heretofore subject. the Tithe Commutation Act-to do away said, therefore, that if they now prowith the dissatisfaction which prevailed posed to introduce a law which should from the relative positions of the tithe- make a difference with respect to the mode owner and the landed proprietor-must be in which the rent-charges of the clergy frustrated if the titheowner were now placed should be rated to the poor-rates, leaving in a better position than the holder of land. the charges themselves on the same footing If the Legislature did not interfere, the an- they would most materially alter the connouncement that it would not, would be the ditions which they originally held out as an signal for litigation in every parish in inducement to the clergy to agree to a England. Even supposing, that the de- general commutation. eneral commutation He thought upon

He

a principle of good faith that the House | the law, was this, that it could never be ought to be cautious how they passed a practically carried into effect as it stood. measure which, whether more or less, im He did not deny, that by the original act posed upon the rent-charges of the clergy, of the 43rd of Elizabeth they might rate a burden which by law they were not here- profits and stock in trade, but it was tofore liable to pay. If, indeed, they found, that so much mischief arose from wished to alter the mode of rating, let it it, that it gave such inquisitorial power to be done openly and without disguise. Let the overseers of the poor, and worked the subject be brought forward in the such detriment to the country, that by beginning of the Session, let it be fully general consent it was never attempted to and fairly discussed, and let the opinion rate stock in trade or profits. If they alof the House and the country be taken lowed the matter to remain in its present upon it. What would be the consequence state after the discussions that had taken of this bill? Why, that throughout the place, they would have in every parish, country every clergyman would be taxed contests between the tithe-owner and the to a considerable amount more than in the landed interest. great majority of cases they had ever been subject to. He must say, then, that this was a measure of extreme injustice and hardship. Unless they applied to tithe property, and all property similarly situated, a different proportion of rating tithe of land rated at a rack-rent, they would not be doing justice to the tithe-owner. He begged to remind the House that this bill was not merely a declaratory measure: it was also an enacting measure, for it repealed that part of the 43rd of Elizabeth which enacted that all property should be rated. He was sure that there was a sufficient sense of justice in the House to induce them to reject the bill. He would conclude by moving, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Sir R. H. Inglis said, he looked upon the question not as one regarding the clergy only, but as a question between the tithe-owner on the one hand, and the land-owner on the other; and which ought to be decided simply according to the law which regulated tithes, as well as every other description of hereditament. He held, that it would be very unbecoming in an assembly consisting in great measure of landowners, to take from the titheowners, who, in this case were the weaker party, that which the existing law did not take from them; for this bill, which pretended to be a declaratory law, was actually an enacting bill, altering the state of the law as to these particular individuals. He trusted, that the House would not pass such a bill.

Sir E. Sugden said, that upon mature reflection he was much inclined to think, that the principle of this bill was right. There were two grounds, however, upon which he was disinclined to vote in fa

Mr. E. Buller said, that the state of the law was such as to render legislation absolutely necessary. By the act of Parliament all property, whether capital or profit, was liable to be rated; and no custom, of however long standing, could set aside the clear intent of an act of Par-vour of the present bill. The first was, liament. The decisions of judges were only valuable as interpreting acts of Parliament, but they could not alter them. He could not altogether support the present bill. He thought it was just and desirable as far as it was declaratory, but he objected to its enacting part, for it was an enacting bill, inasmuch as it declared, that certain property should not be liable to be rated. With this qualification, he would support the second reading of the bill, although at that late period of the Session, and considering the difficulties involved in it, there could not be much chance of its passing. Mr. Aglionby called upon the House, as it valued the Church itself, to pass this bill into law. The ground upon which he supported the proposed alteration of

that the case of "The King v. Joddrell," having been decided, though he (Sir E, Sugden) was sure correctly so, in favour of the clergyman, and the Tithe Commutation Act having declared, that the rent charges in lieu of tithes should be treated in the same way as tithes, and Mr. Scrope's act having preserved all the rights of the clergyman then existing, he could not now take upon him to usurp the power of the court of law and reverse a decision, which, until it was reversed, was favourable to the claims of the clergy. The second reason why he could not vote for the present bill was, that its recital was not correct, for there was no doubt existing as to the construction of Mr. Scrope's act. For these reasons he should