seeing the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs in his place, wished to ask him, whether, when he should on Monday next lay upon the table of the house certain documents, it was his intention to enter into a general statement of the foreign policy of the government? If he were right in supposing that that was the intention of the right hon. secretary, the members on his side of the House would be placed in this embarrassing situation, that they must either combat the statement of the right hon. secretary, without having had access to the documents upon which it would be founded, or allow it to go forth to the world uncontradicted. He thought the fairest course for ministers to pursue would be, to lay the documents on the table on Monday, and to fix upon some subsequent day for the statement which the right hon. secretary had promised to make.

replied, that the hon. member was perfectly right in supposing that it was his intention, when he should on Monday next, in obedience to the commands of his majesty, lay certain documents on the table of the House, to state the general outline of the policy which the British government had pursued with respect to the late transactions on the continent. But far from thinking that he would by so doing place the house under any embarrassment, he was of opinion that he was adopting the course which would be most convenient. The present case was not one of an ordinary character. It was not a usual practice of government, to lay documents on the table of the House, upon which they did not intend to call for some proceeding; but, in the present instance, it was intended to depart from the customary usage. That, however, would not preclude any member from adopting what course he might think expedient with respect to the papers. In most cases in which documents relative to negotiations had been laid before parliament, the negotiations had terminated in a declaration of war; and, on all such occasions, government had availed itself of the opportunity of stating to parliament, what had been the course of policy which had led to the issuing of the declaration of war. The late negotiations, however, had not so terminated, and the statement which he intended to make was merely meant to supply the place of a declaration of the government. In what he should state on Monday, he should not anticipate any contested question, or call for any premature approbation of the conduct of ministers. He should deliver a plain unvarnished tale, and leave it open for any member either to contest the fidelity of his statement or to combat the policy of government. In the course which he proposed to pursue, there was a great convenience to the House, and particularly to the hon. members opposite, if they should desire to express their disapprobation of the conduct which had been pursued by the government.

rose, in pursuance of notice, to bring forward his motion for levying in a more effectual manner, the First Fruits of the Clergy of Ireland. The right hon. baronet observed, that so long ago as 1808, he had brought this subject before the attention of the House, and the importance of it was every day becoming more manifest. It was well known, that the revenue arising from the first fruits of benefices in Ireland, was in the hands of trustees for the purchasing of glebes, and the building of glebe-houses for the clergy of Ireland; but that the revenue arising from this source was so small, that large sums were annually voted to supply its deficiencies. It would be necessary for him to give a short history of the origin of this fund, and of the muse of its present inadequate amount. The Annates, or first fruits, were, the whole first year's income of each ecclesiastical benefice, and, before the Reformation, were payable in Ireland, as in other countries, to the pope. By statutes of Henry 8th, when the papal rights in Ireland were extinguished, this revenue, together with the twentieths or yearly twelve-pence in the pound, payable also to the pope from every benefice, was taken into the hands of the Crown, and remained annexed to the Crown till the year 1710. In that year queen Anne, on the advice of the duke of Ormond, or of the lord treasurer Oxford (for the supposed merit of this measure was claimed for both of them), remitted the twentieths to the clergy, and gave the first fruits to form a fund for the building of churches and glebe-houses, and the purchasing of glebes for the clergy of Ireland, and the augmentation of livings, where, from impropriations, they were too small to afford comfort to the incumbents having cure of souls. The management of this fund was given to commissioners, who were, for the most part, the higher dignitaries of the church, with power to levy the revenue, and to search out the just and true value of the benefices of which they were to levy the first year's income from each incumbent who came into possession. The valuation under which this revenue was levied at the time when it was given to this fund, was made in the time of Henry 8th and Elizabeth, and was not only, of course, very low, but did not embrace more than two thirds of the benefices of Ireland. It was, of course, the duty of the commissioners to have promoted the salutary objects of the fund, and to have remedied the inaccuracies and supplied the defects of this valuation. But this had never been done, and, up to this day, the first fruits were levied according to that defective valuation; so that this revenue, which should properly be a whole year's income of all the livings which became vacant in each year in Ireland, had only produced, in the average of the last ten years, 292l. a-year. The sums which had been granted by parliament to supply the deficiencies of this fund were by no means so trifling; for in the 11 years ending 1818, nearly half a million had been voted in aid of this fund. The sum was 498,000l. or an average of more than 45,000l. a-year. If the House adopted the proposition which he should submit to them, the necessity would be done away for any such demands on the pockets of the people. His intention was, to call on the commissioners to do what the law not only authorised but required. Why the commissioners did not make this valuation was sufficiently manifest. They were themselves the holders and expectants of large preferments, and a just valuation would be a tax upon translations. A fair valuation of the Irish benefices, making an exception in favour of livings under 150l. a-year, would produce, he calculated, from 30 to 40,000l. a-year. In consequence of the deficiency of this fund and the want of residences for the clergy, those large unions of parishes had taken place, which kept the Protestants of Ireland from the sight of a clergyman, and were a main cause of the decay of the Protestant religion. There was one of these unions of six rectories and six vicarages, of which a survey had been taken in 1731; it then contained 64 Protestants and 1,630 Catholics: in 1818 the Protestants had decreased to five, and the Catholics increased to 2,400. Could the House too soon interfere to render the funds available which might put an end to these unions? In the returns to the queries sent to the prelates of Ireland in 1807 and 1819, there was some curious information respecting these unions. They had it stated by the bishop of Ossory, that there was a union of 10 or 13 parishes; for as to three of the districts it was uncertain whether they were town lands or parishes. It was stated, as an objection to the severing of this union, that it was charged with a debt of up wards of 2,000l. advanced by the commissioners for building a glebe-house, which would be beyond the means of a separate parish to maintain; so that the very bounty of parliament was made the cause of perpetuating the unions, which it was so much for the interest of the Protestant establishment in Ireland to dissever. Respecting this union, he had a letter from a respectable gentleman, who said "We are here 17 miles distant from our parish church, and Mr.—lives in another part of the parish, just as far distant in another direction." The union was in fact 36 miles long from end to end; yet, on such a union as this, a glebe-house had been built, so as to be made an argument against dissevering it into benefices of reasonable extent. As it was the practice to attribute hostility to the church to those who made any remarks on the manner in which the revenues of the clergy were distributed, he should beg to quote the opinion of a person who could not be suspected of any such hostility—the earl of Dartmouth, secretary of state and lord privy seal, in the last years of queen Anne; from an edition of Burnet's History, with notes, by this earl of Dartmouth and others, lately published from the Clarendon press, "We hear" (said the earl) "much of the poverty of one part of the church, but we hear nothing of the great riches of the other. I know of no christian church that has a better provision for its clergy. If the revenues of the deans and chapters, which are of no more use to our church than those of abbots and monks, were divided among the poorer clergy, no other evil would arise than that the daughters of the bishops would be married with more difficulty, and would be portioned with smaller stipends. If the bishopricks, too, were brought nearer to a level in income, we should hear less of the scandal of commendams and translations. No doubt the legislature, in time, will see the necessity of putting the church, as to these particulars, upon a footing of more regularity."—The right hon. baronet concluded by moving the following resolutions:

said, he should not oppose any measure which could put the Church of Ireland on a better footing; but the question now really before the House was, whether they should levy a tax to the amount of 30 or 40,000l. a year on the clergy of Ireland for a purpose in which every lay member of the establishment had as strong an interest as the clergy. He should contend, too, that from no fair construction of the first-fruits acts could it be inferred, that it was intended that the whole of a year's income of benefices should be levied as first fruits. He could not trace the origin of the annates up to any particular period; though they must have existed very early. The pope, however, who claimed the first fruits, had never exacted more than the half of them; and on various occasions, parliament had even resisted this claim, and had laid down the rule which was at present acted on. In the reigns of Edward 3rd, of Richard 1st, and several other sovereigns, parliament had complained of the demands of the pope, and declared them illegal and destitute of authority. In the reign of Henry 8th; a statute was enacted, laying down the very principles which he (Mr. G.) was now advocating. That statute empowered the king to compound for the annates, and when this composition was once accepted, it was to remain for ever the same and inviolable. The 23rd of Henry 8th empowered the king to levy a payment for that time, which was to remain uniform. He alluded, of course, to the Irish statutes; and the 28th of Henry 8th, to which the right hon. baronet had referred, gave no more to the king than the pope had before possessed: it was a mere transfer of his power, as head of the Church, to the Crown. If the right hon. baronet looked at the statute of the 3rd of Elizabeth, he would find that there were a number of livings exempted altogether from this charge; viz. all those rated above 6l. 13s. and this exemption was not conferred for any limited period, but for ever. The right hon. baronet could not have read with much attention the patent of queen Anne, when he said, that the first fruits were casual and uncertain. They were there stated to amount to between 4 and 500l. a year; and yet the right hon. baronet would have the House believe, that the patent of Anne contemplated a sum equal to what might at present be derivable from an actual valuation of the first fruits. From this and subsequent statutes, and from the whole tenor of the law, it was evident that first fruits were to be considered as fixed at that time, and were to remain unaltered. By the second of George 1st, confirming the patent of queen Anne, the same principles were recognized. The 10th of George 1st, alluding incidentally to the subject, confirmed this principle. According to all these statutes it was not possible to augment what was formerly fixed a the amount of the first fruits. Another statute, the 9th of George 2nd, required that payment should be the same as the original sum. When Henry 8th regulated the subject, he claimed no more; and queen Anne gave no more than this average estimated value. In all subsequent statutes the same low rates were recognised as were originally paid. From these observations he trusted the House would not think the conclusions of the right hon. baronet correct, nor be disposed to adopt the course recommended by him. It was a principle of all these laws, that when the valuation was once made it should remain unchanged. There was, in fact, no instance of a benefice having been subjected to a second valuation. The commission which had been appointed was not to re-value livings formerly valued; but it was in its operations confined to livings which never had been valued. In the reign of James 1st, when a settlement took place in Ulster, a great quantity of land in addition was given to the clergy; and the commission which was then appointed was confined to estimate the value of the land which had been conferred on the clergy by the royal bounty. It took no notice of the land before possessed by the clergy. Viewing the subject under this light, it was impossible for him to accede to the motion of the right hon. baronet. His arguments were all founded in one leading error, namely, that the first fruits were to be considered as one year's revenue of the living, whatever sum that might amount to. The whole tenor of the laws contradicted this view of the matter, and therefore he should move the previous question on all the resolutions.

shortly replied, observing particularly upon the reluctance of the Church, not only to contribute their share to the support of the general burthens, but even to the maintenance of their own poorer clergy.

rose to move for two returns connected with Crown priso- ners: the first, a return of the number of persons now confined as Crown debtors, distinguishing the amounts of their debts, and the terms during which they had been imprisoned; the second, a return of the number of persons confined in the Fleet prison for contempt of Court; specifying whether for offence against the Court of Chancery, and Exchequer, or against any and what civil or ecclesiastical court; and an account of all persons who had died in prison under confinement for contempt of Court, between July, 1820, and the present time. In moving for these papers the hon. member said, he only moved for the continuation of documents which, up to the years 1819 and 1820, were already before the House. By the return of crown debtors, furnished in 1819, it appeared, that at that time, more than 200 persons were confined for debts due to the Crown, principally upon claims on the part of the board of Excise. By the return of prisoners for contempt produced in the year 1820, it would be found that at that period, 31 individuals were in confinement; some of them having been seven, fourteen, and one so long as thirty-one years in prison. He could not but consider the whole law regarding crown prisoners as most harsh and unequitable. He saw no reason why a man, indebted upon a claim from the Excise, or upon any claim arising with the government, should not have the same relief open to him which he might resort to against a private debtor. As the law stood, men were subject to, and endured, imprisonment for years, under penalties or security bonds as low as 25l. The punishment so inflicted upon a man for being poor was unreasonably severe, and the source to which he must look for any remission of that punishment was the last in which, fairly, that power of remission ought to be vested. At present, the degree of imprisonment which a crown debtor had to endure depended upon the degree of favour which, in the proper quarter, he could command. It would be infinitely better if the liberation of crown debtors was to rest solely within the will of government, that the scale of punishment should be definitely declared, and that it should be fully understood, when a man was sentenced to a fine, for how much imprisonment that fine (in case of inability to pay it) might be commuted.—After urging the policy of putting debtors to the Crown, as to all points of advantages, upon the ssme footing with private debtors, the hon. member proceeded to the point of imprisonments for contempt of court. The power of committal for contempt, as it stood at the present day, was a power unfit to be held by the lord chancellor, or by any judge in England. Instances would be found, upon papers already before the House, of no less than twenty persons having died within a few years, under sentence for contempt, after fourteen, twenty, and, some, thirty years' imprisonment. One individual had died in 1820, who had been in prison ever since 1789, for refusing to pay a sum of 400l. No doubt offences against the authority of a court, or failures in the respect due to it, ought to be punished; but not by imprisonment for thirty years, or for life. The power of committal, too, ought not to rest solely with the judge. For every other offence which a man might be guilty of, he was entitled to have the question of his innocence or guilt, tried by a jury of his country; and why should it not be so in cases of alleged contempt? Why was a man who happened to displease the lord chancellor to be put out of the pale of those laws and principles to which, under any other circumstance of difficulty, he would look confidently for protection?

thought the hon. member was incorrect in his view of the law as it existed. All persons confined for non-payment of money pursuant to an order of court, were already entitled to their discharge under the insolvent act. Persons who remained in prison for contempts of court, were commonly persons who refused to do some act, within their power, which the court had ordered them to do: For instance, a case came before the lord-chancellor.—Upon investigation, it was decided that one of the parties ought to do a particular act; such as the execution of a deed or instrument. Under such circumstances (and the case was a case of every day), the court had no power to compel the execution of the deed or instrument in question: all it could do, was, to imprison for refusal. To deprive the court of the power to imprison was, in effect, to nullify its jurisdiction; and surely the party suffering had no right to complain of a confinement to which he could put an end when he thought proper. As for cases of persons committed for disrespect to a court, it could not but be within the knowledge of the hon. member, that such individuals were always, after a reasonable infliction of imprisonment, liberated upon their apology and submission. With respect to putting crown debtors generally upon the same footing with debtors to private individuals, the thing was impracticable. The great mass of crown debtors consisted of persons confined for non-payment of penalties which they had incurred by violations of the law—chiefly by offences against the Excise laws. Now, the enabling such persons to get their liberation under the insolvent act, would absolutely destroy the revenue of the country. Every man of desperate fortune would at once strike into the illicit trade; sure of enormous gains if he escaped detection, and quit, at the worst, for a term of three months' imprisonment. Besides, the situations of the crown debtor and of the private debtor were not alike. One of the main arguments for liberating a man from imprisonment, at the suit of a private individual, was the possible existence of irritation or vindictive feeling on the part of the creditor. On the part of government, there could be no such feeling; and the general practice of the Lords of the Treasury, with respect to petitions addressed to them for liberation, would be the best answer to any charge like severity towards debtors who were liable to the Crown.

begged to disclaim any idea, of apportioning certain quantities of imprisonment to the liquidation of certain penalties. The lenity of the Crown would always be freely dispensed, but it could be dispensed only with a due regard to the circumstances of particular cases. Some portion of imprisonment, where a fine was not paid, became absolutely necessary; because, if fines were not exacted, they would of course cease to be paid altogether.

thought the present course, where persons refused to obey an order of court, inconvenient and ineffective. It frequently happened, that a man, under sentence for contempt, spent his money in prison, defrauding the party who was entitled to it. He thought it would be better where a man refused to execute any deed or settlement, that the judge should have power to execute it in his name.

objected to the imposition of a fine by a judge, afterwards to be remitted by a secretary of state. A judge might as well pass but one sentence—say death—for all crimes, and leave the government to inflict the quantity of chastisement it thought fit. The judge who tried the case was the fit person to decide what penalty the offender should endure.