My Lord, this is really the period, which alone can be fixed upon for the origin of moduses in general. But when I so express myself, I beg that my Clerical brethren will not imagine that they have only to institute Tithe-suits, and succeed. On the contrary, such latitude is taken in the way of presumption— such is the weight given by Courts of Equity to for mer decisionsand such, especially, is the want of evidence on the side of the Church, that, as I have already said, moduses will be sustained in nine cases out of ten. I am speaking, at present, of a Legisla tive measure,-concerning which, any one may be allowed to reason historically and fairly-and I do maintain, that the period before the reign of Eliza. beth was unfavorable to the beginning of fixed payments for Tithes-that, in point of fact, comparatively few moduses had then any existence-that they be gan, in general, during the Commonwealth, and were matured afterwards-that circumstances were then peculiarly favorable to their establishment-that their amount generally corresponds with the then real va, lues-and that evidence generally points to the same period of the Commonwealth, and not to one more ancient, as the time of their commencement. As one case seems to be sufficient, by way of authority, for certain opinions contained in the Appendix, I presume that I ought to give a case, in illustration and support of what I have just said. The Incumbent who was appointed, in 1662, to the Living which I now hold, continued to receive the payments which had been made in respect of Tithes, during the last years of the Commonwealth, and was Vicar twenty.

seven years. He was succeeded by his son, who held the Living twenty-eight years, and likewise allowed the same payments to be continued. This latter In- cumbent also left a son, who wanted only a year of the proper age. A friend was presented, held the Living for a single year, and then resigned it, when this third person in regular descent was presented—at the end of whose incumbency, the payments had continued undisturbed for sixty-eight years. Now all this happened, not in a case of private patronage, but by the presentations of a Clerical Body; and your Lordship may judge of the extent, to which encroachments are likely to have been made during the same period, and in similar ways, where circumstances were more favorable for such proceedings.

I will now take another view of this subject; and grant, for a moment, that the greatest number of existing moduses are immemorially ancient. Even on this supposition, my Lord, I do not perceive the justice of any recommendation, which should have led to the proposed measure. It is universally acknowledged, that all ancient payments, in lieu of Tithes, must have been for the benefit of the Church -they were not the effects of agreements, in which the proprietors were endeavouring to make the best possible prospective bargains for themselvesthey were not intended for the present advantage of the Church, and the future advantage of landowners; but it was meant that the Church, and it alone, should gain. From the very nature of things, therefore, no modus should have been suffered to continue when it ceased to be equal to the real value.

of the Tithes which it covered. I am well aware, however, that Courts of Equity have decided otherwise, although they have allowed the first intention; and that modern Judges are bound down by precedents and practice. But I have always understood that when the Legislature interposed, it did so for the uniform purpose of relieving Judges from the fetters, which time had imposed; and of rectifying the laws and practices which had introduced and promoted error. It is in your quality of Legislator that I now address your Lordship-and relying, as I do, upon your historical knowledge, your legal expe. rience, and your desire of adhering to the principles of strict justice, I think I may, even at this point, ask your Lordship whether it be safe to effect hastily so great a change, as that which is now in contemplation? or, if the rights of one of two parties, the Clergy and the Proprietors, must be sacrificed, whether it be more equitable that all the payments in lieu of Tithes should be established, or that they should all be set aside? These payments are unquestionably not so ancient as they are pretended to be; and they have only attained to their present age, in the faith that the two Houses of Parliament (consisting of men who belong to the class of proprietors) would never turn round upon succeeding Incumbents, and pass an Act for the destruction of their rights-in order that proprietors might derive a benefit, to which they were never justly entitled.

The gentlemen who have returned answers to the Commissioners, will probably not altogether approve of the light, in which I have now placed the question

D

-they will affirm that no new right is to be given to the owners of land; but, on the contrary, that the rights of the Church will be rendered more secure. Is it nothing, then, my Lord, that payments, which might perhaps be set aside, on account of their modern origin, are to be for ever established? Is it nothing, that moduses, now existing, or hereafter to arise, which are essentially bad in law, are to be rendered good? And is it nothing, if the primâ-facie title of the Church to all Tithes be taken away, and a primâ-facie title given to lands of a total exemption ? The two former of these questions appear to be of trifling importance in the eyes of those, whose opinions are recorded in the Appendix-but yet they are of some real consequence, in respect of the property which the Bill proposes to alienate-and the last unquestionably requires more consideration than the legal respondents, in general, have bestowed upon it. Some of them coolly propose that the onus probandi should be thrown upon the Church; and others regard that point as a matter of no consequence. Now, I should like to put a case to gentlemen, holding such opinions,-Would it be a matter of any importance, or would it not, if the primâ-facie title to all the lands in England, were, by an Act of Parliament, taken from the land-owners, and given to the Church? I have no doubt, my Lord, that these same gentlemen would be horror-struck with the proposal -it would completely "alter the case"-a primâfacie title would be worth something-it might open a door to encroachment-and we should hear presently of nothing but the boundless ambition of the

Church, which had led her to watch with complacency the progress of the Bill, or the reckless selfishness, which could induce her to accept it.

2nd. Class of Reasons for the proposed Bill.

A limitation of the Claims of the Church to sixty years will, it is said, be attended with a benefit to the Church.

My Lord, this sounds exceedingly well: but I am afraid that I must be compelled to differ with those who hold out the plausible inducement. I firmly believe that they are sincere in the opinions they entertain-but I exceedingly doubt their competence to pronounce a safe judgment on some of the matters which this head comprises. I give them full credit also for being the most discriminating class of educated men, in all things which come fully within their proper sphere of knowledge; but it is impossible that they, or any set of men, should completely understand the bearings of practical questions, with which their personal experience has not rendered them familiar. If we may judge from the questions which the Commissioners put to Mr. Tyrrell, during his examination, the benefit, to be conferred on the Church by the new measure, must have appeared to them a little problematical; and I cannot withhold the expression of my surprise that his answers, unsupported as many of them are by satisfactory reasons, should have produced the effect which seems to have attended them. Mr. Tyrrell's opinion (in which almost all the others agree) is that a limitation of the Claims of the Church to sixty years will prevent litigation,