Sep 27 1833 Mr. James Brougham & Lord Lonsdale's Tithes #2 - Cumberland and Westmorland Newspaper Transcriptions

Sep 27 1833 Mr. James Brougham & Lord Lonsdale's Tithes #2

The Times, Friday, Sep 27, 1833; pg. 3; Issue 15281; col C

          MR. JAMES BROUGHAM and LORD LONSDALE'S TITHES.
                                  ---------------------------


     "TO THE EDITOR OF THE CARLISLE PATRIOT.
                                                      "Brougham, Sept. 19.
"Sir, - I feel myself obliged to reply to a continuation of misstatements of
facts in your last paper, and from which you draw conclusions that will, of
course, fall to the ground when the real facts are stated. I state these on the
authority of documents in the possession of the late rector, to whom I refer
you, as well as to the present rector, and to his solicitors.

"Hornby-hall (the farm belonging to Lord LONSDALE, of which I have a right to
the tithes as lessee) is the only one in the parish of Brougham on which any
question as to the tithe could by possibility arise. The whole parish is tithe
free, except this farm and four small tenements at Woodside, of which the rector
has uniformly granted a lease to one of the four who arranged it with the
others, so that each had his own tithe for a fixed sum, the whole rent payable
being 36L. The lease included all tithe except hay, which was covered by a
prescription. No suit could, therefore, be brought against these four unless the
occupants had filed bills against themselves.

"As to Hornby-hall, you are pleased to assert that the tithes were always let to
the farmer. How stands the fact? Out of the last 50 years they have been only
let to the farmer for 7 years, and drawn in kind for the remainder. Mr. John
HEELIS, the late rector, let the tithes to Messrs. PEARSON, his own farmers of
the glebe, from the year 1787 to 1814, during which period they were drawn in
kind. In 1814 John NELSON, father of the present farmer, took a lease of them at
the same rent which I afterwards agreed for; this expired in 1821, and the
rector drew the tithes till I took the lease. In the mean time John NELSON paid
tithe of agistment yearly to the rector. You say the 'present farmer' never paid
tithe of agistment. He has only been farmer since his father's death in 1828,
and though he has repeatedly promised to pay me tithe of agistment, he has never
done it. I have this day seen an acknowledgment signed by his father, John
NELSON, in 1823, admitting his liability to payment of agistment, and which was
accompanied by a payment for the same.

"You say I took the lease after Lord LONSDALE had purchased the property; this
is equally unfounded. My lease is dated 1824. Lord LONSDALE did not make the
purchase for some years afterwards - I think not before 1828; it is not easy for
me to prove this, but I feel confident Lord LONSDALE or his lawyers will confirm
my statement. The estate was bought in 1823, by a Mr. HAMLET (of
Coventry-street, London, I believe), who continued the owner, subject, as is
supposed, to certain annuities to a number of colliers in Whitehaven, until 1828
or 1829, when it was sold to Lord LONSDALE.

"You have chosen to insinuate that I took the tithes of this farm only, when I
might have had the tithes of others in the parish also, and that I became lessee
after Lord LONSDALE's purchase, for the purpose of annoying his Lordship - both
of which suggestions I have shown to be utterly inconsistent with the facts.
However, as the insinuation is made, I shall only say, that if I had done so, I
should have been fully justified by the example of those you profess to serve. I
throw no blame on them, and they have only your indiscreet zeal to thank for my
having even so generally alluded to them.

"I may also mention that Hornby-hall claims exemption from hay tithe by an
annual payment of 10s. prescription. I know both the late and the present rector
were advised by lawyers of eminence that this prescription could not stand, yet
they never brought any suit to set it aside.

"You recur to the subject of the offices held by me for a year, but evidently in
so feeble a manner that it is scarce worth noticing; however, I will put you
right in that also. They were not sinecures, but offices executed by deputy, and
offices of great labour and responsibility, (I refer you to Lord ELDON's speech
in July, 1832,) and which could not be abolished without providing for the
performance of the duties. In order to secure their abolition, with others of
the same sort, an act was brought in by the Lord Chancellor, and passed in
August, 1832, to abolish them from and after August, 1833. It was impossible to
abolish them until an act should be passed to provide for the discharge of the
duties, which were of daily necessity, and to make such provision required much
time and inquiry. Accordingly, the Houses of Lords and Commons, after a
laborious investigation in committees of both houses, passed two acts, but only
so late as August, 1833, for putting the whole under new regulations. I am
blamed for having held for one year (it being absolutely necessary that some one
should hold it) what was my clear and undoubted right to hold for life; but I
gave it up, and so you are pleased to attack me. What do you think of the Rev.
Mr. THURLOW, nephew to Lord THURLOW, who ceased to be Chancellor 40 years ago,
who holds two sinecure offices amounting to 10,000L. a-year? Of Lord
ELLENBOROUGH, who holds a sinecure office of above 7,000L. a-year; or Lord
BATHURST, and many others, relatives and connexions of Lord Chancellors and
Chief Justices, including the late Lord Chancellor LYNDHURST? The present Lord
Chancellor is the first who ever dreamed of giving up these sinecure places.

"Another error I must notice: you say the Chancellor's retiring pension is
raised from 3,000L. to 5,000L. a-year. I thought that every one knew it was
always 4,000L.; why you should call it 3,000L. one can't imagine. The Chief
Justice's is 4,000L.; the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas is 3,750L.
Parliament thought that for the Chancellor, whose office is much higher and more
expensive than the others, and not for life, the retiring pension of 5,000L. was
little enough, and so settled it. But it was not given as a compensation for the
places, worth near 3,000L. a-year, actually vacant and given up, but in lieu of
the whole loss of 12 or 13 sinecures in the Chancellor's gift, abolished by the
bills alluded to. To illustrate this, if Lord LYNDHURST or Lord ELDON were
Chancellors again to-morrow, they would retire with 5,000L. instead of 4,000L.,
even if they had held the great seal but a day, and although they have had all
the benefit of the sinecures which the present Lord Chancellor voluntarily
resigned.

"Though this letter is necessarily long, I cannot conclude it without noticing
another very extraordinary paragraph in your paper of Saturday, signed 'John
BULL,' which states 'that the Lord Chancellor, in order to allay pain of a
distressing nature, is obliged to have recourse to laudanum.' I have great
satisfaction in telling you that the Lord Chancellor has no pain or complaint of
any kind whatever - that he never took laudanum or opium in any shape in the
whole course of his life - that he is enjoying the very best health - and that
there is no man of his age, not even amongst the mountaineers of these counties,
more likely to live 80 years than the Lord Chancellor; and as for the story of
his sleeping 50 hours, which the same letter gives, I was with him the whole
way, and I don't think he slept five hours in the carriage, contrary to his
usual habit, and probably because he came in an open carriage.

"I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
                            "JAMES BROUGHAM."