The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-04-11 00:00:00

:g STATESI

air - __________
he Protest tot religion. Of this be could adrinee
'lnane Proofs, but be wont! iner• ly state one to the House,
Which nould net fail to convince them how great a pro-
trete the Catholic religion was makino over the
we Prerotes64
tant. I n one parish iti Ireland in 1731, there
Protestants, and 613 Catholics ; and in 1818, there were
but five Protestanti nd no less than 2,400 Catholics.—
The union of pa a reductive. of the greatest mis-
chief. He was cr se respeifible iin-tlernan as zea-
lously attached the Ptdieetant religion as any man,
. that be had seventeen anilets•to go to his racists church.
the union extitorillif letee One end to the other no less
than thirty-six valle-s. 'This evil could he rimeAled if the
unions were dispelimed with, and the revenue of the First
Fruits made as pgoductive as it might; siva 'applied
Seir e-
to
building glebe-I)4**mi' The Earl of Bartteouila,
tar yof State in the 'latter years of (Nero Anne, said
" that much was said of the poverty of one, part of V e
flerleY. but little of ate vs eslth of the other part, and yet
1111Chnetian Chord' had a larger provision. In the lands
d the Deans and thapriters. who were as useless as the
Monks and Abbott, were sold and divided amongst the
poorer Clergy, it could be productive of no.mischief that
Ire knew, males!, perhaps, that the 'Bishops' daughte s
r
wouldnot to off to well ; and he hoped that t
themunder a
he begirt-
latareirould, at some future period. put
better regulation." Now, he asked if that time had
not arrived? Sorely they were not in a better state
now than they had been then. The objectof his motion
was to call upon the Crown to make its own members
useful to the people. The Hon. Bart. concluded by me-
in, the following Resolutions:—
That the first fruits or &mates, be the first year's in-
That
come of every Ecclesiastical dignity and benefice in Ireland,
became at the time of the Reformations part at the Revenue
of the Crown, as head of the Church, and waendered pe
able by by instalments, and otherwise, regulated by the Irish
statute of thi 2Sth 'Mewl Mt, and continued annexed to
the Royal Revenues until the year 1710.
That her Majesty Queen Anae, as an act of grace and fa-
TOUT tti the Established Church of Ireland, by letters pa-
tent, confirmed by subsequent Acts of Parliament, did then
vest In certain Trustees and Commissioners the produce of
this branch of Royal Revenue, for the purposes
ebes. of building
and repairing churches, tor the purchase of beg
wanting, and of improPriations wherever the benefice was
not sufficient for the liberal maintenance of the Clergy hav-
ing cure of souls.
Queen Anne did at the same time
Cr at her said Majesty Q
absolutely exonerate and release the Clergy of Ireland from
the payment of the twentieth parts. or twelve pence in the
pound, theretofore payable annually to the Crown out of the
income of a 1 Ecclesiastic benefices.
That it appears from retoros laid before this House that
the gross amount of the First Fruit revenue thus vested in
trust. as paid in to the Treasurer of the Board of Co mmis-
li
sionets during ten years, ending in January. 1621,
amount.
ed only to three thousand seven hundred aid fifty-two pounds.
leaving the net amount of produce. applicable to the valua-
ble purposes of the grant, no more than 2,923 f. averaging
eunuelly 2921. after the deduction for salaries and Incidental
expenses of the Board, of 5271.
That the grants of Parliam for building New Churches
ent
and glebe-houses, and the purchase of glebes in Irehusd
daring eleven years.
That the grants of Parliament for building New Churches
end glebe houses, and the purchase of glebes in Ireland
during eleven years, endin of WIS. amounted to OSOOOI.
being an anneal average4s,oool.; and that provision
still continues to be madebay annual grants for these sale•
terry purposes from the pub.ic revenue.
That four hundred and sixty seven of the dignitaries and
benefices of Ireland, being nearly ooe-third part of the
whole, have never been r..ted or valued to the payment of
tee First Fruits, as directed by the statute of Henry VIII.;
all that three hundred and thirty-sis benefices more, al-
though wen, do not contribute thereto, in consequence of
Et- very early period and the low rates on which the valua-
tion was effected; and that the whole of the Archbishop-
rics. Bishoprics, and other Ecclesiastical Dignitaries of
Ireland, are estimated as amountirg to only 4,247/. yearly
value.
That the receipt and management of this Revenue hed
as
been always reierveri to and continued in officers
appoinletters
t
by the Crown, and that the duties thereof were,
by
patent, in the year Idl2. entrusted tocertain Commissioners,
with power, as therein specified, from time to time, to col-
lect, levy, and receive, and to comities and search for the
just and true value of all and singular the dignities and be-
eefiees of fretted, but that no veuntion appears to have been
made under authority of this patent.
That these Resolutions be laid before his Majesty, toge-
ther with our humble representation, that itappearsjust end
eitable that this branch of Royal Revenue, be-
stquowed on the Church of Ireland, for wise and sliberallyalutary put,
pales. shonid be rendered of
necessity for
the the attainm
of Inent of
t-e objects of Royal bounty. without -
creasing annually the public burdens by Parliamentary
grants; and that we humbly pray his
Majesty may be
pleased to authorize and direct the patentees of the Crown
to proceed orthwith in the execution of such measres all
may he deemedf necessary for ex amining Red searchiung for ,
the just and trite value of all and singular the dignities and
benefiees of Ireland, and for rendering all such es shall be
fiend to exceed the annual value of one hundred and ft
pounds rateable contributors to the First Fruit Fund gas
escalades in such dignities and benefices may hereafter take
place.
Mr. GOULBURN said that he would not be back-
v sr., in supporting this motion, if he thought the mea-
slier! was likely to prove benefit io to Ireland. So frr
from being opposed by to the Right Hon. Bart. in toto
I,e coincided with in many of the views which he had
taken of this subject. But the consideration of the ques-
tion at this particular time, he considered unreasonable,
because in his opinion it would be more properly intro-
decel in the discussion upon a Gill for the regulation of
Welt tithes, which he (Mr. U.) meant to submit in a foie
days t' the House, alien the whole question could be
gone into. Upon this understanding then. he should
decline framing the Right Hon. Baronet into the great'
variety of details obi It he had thought it his dirty to lay II
before the House. There could be no difficulty, how-
ever, in shoeing that what he now called upon the
House to adopt was nos sanctioned either by statute
law or modern practice. The Right 100 .to Barincreaseonet's
ohj-et, if he understood him rightly,
sae
the first fruits and annates of benefices in 1 relaad, in the
seine proportion with the increarred value of these benoe
Tice
lie considered this a partial and unjust exactionl
front a particular class of persons. Besides the whole',
tenour of te ancient Statu-es established the ivies:lin, that
those psymhents being once freed could uot be increased.
Their increase, when demanded by the Pope, who made
the sesame claim as that nos preferred by the Right Hon.
Barone, was positively- dischimed by several Statutes.
On thet contrary, these Statutes are filled with complaints
against the Pope for the unreasonableness of his demands,
in endeavouring to exact an increase of these assess-
ments. The Right Hon. Gentleman quoted all the an-
cient Statutes upon the subject, through the reigns of
Richard the First, Edward the Second, and up
to Henry
the Eighth. In all these, as well as the Patent of Queen
Anne, and the
.9th Geo. 11. cap. 12. the principle was
dierinct ronized, that valuation having been once
tnade. could not be increased. He challenged the Right
Bin. Baronet to adduce any instance• in which a second
vat n,ition had been made. any
several Statutes that had
been made upon the subject were not directed
ases w with
here
a
view to lucre:ore the original valuation, in
any valuation had been male, but only to parishes in
which no valuation whatever up to that time had been
pre,iously made. The great error then in the Right
dm Baronet's statement was an assumption that the
first fruits had been originally intended to be increased
in the cause proportion as the value of the benefice in.
&easel. He hoped be bad shown that the First Fruitats'
irswe were framed with a very different spirit, and th,
on :he contrary, they firmly established the principle
that these valuations were not to be at any time increasehe
d.
For all these reasons he should oppose the motion. T
Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the previous
question.

Sir J. NEWPORT, in hie reply, contended that
answer had been given to the- case which be had made
out. Even admitting that there parishes l* which salon-
lions had bees made owe four or five htmdred years ego
should not be interferred with, what did the Right Hon.
Oentiemap say of parishes in which the first fruit
da
y had
never been valued ? He eoneleded by eressing his
termina.ion of taking the sense of the House upon tin

quotation.
The House divided upon the .first Resolidioa,..whisa•
there appeared— - -
For the original motion, 39-east it,
rity 9.
All the Resolutions were then negatived without a di-
vision.

APPRINTICS LAWS. • 0:
Sir JOHN BOUGHEY obtained leave to Wog lo
a Bill to extend the powers of Junket in matters cos-
cerning the laws of master and servant, and master and
apprentice.
SLAVS TRADE. .
Dr. LUSHINGTON obtained leave to bring in a Bill
,leo fur
cli°trontiof dai
thein aliveginto otradAe.ct all the laws relating to tbit
CROWN DEBTORS.
Mr. HUME nid he rose to move for certain returns I
connected with Crown Debtors, confined in the several
gaols of England. This return was but a continuation
of an account which had been presented to this House in
1619, when it appeared, that at that time there were 200
perm); confined for Crown Debts, and 75 for other debts
of the same nature. His object was to ascertain the
I exact number now in durance under similar circumstan-
ces, with a view of seeing whether it were not possible
to put these debtors of the Crown un the same footing
;with all other classes of debtors whatever: Such was
the practice already in Scotland, and as it was contem-
plated to assimilate the customs of both countries, he
thought it would be well to make the English practice,ia
this respect, conform to that of Scotland. He saw n 3 I
reason why there should be any difference between the
Crown and any other creditor, or why the former should
possess advantages which every individual creditor did
not enjoy. In the return last presented, it appeared that
there had been persons imprisoned for years
were no more than from 201. to 251. Another objection
which he had to the system was, that of the discretion
exercised by the Secretary of State of setting free such
persons as lie thought fit. He also objected to a gradua-
-1 tion of terms of imprisonment laid down by the Right
IHonourable Secretary for the Home Department, as a n•
l aisliment upon those who were unable to pay tines. The
*abject, the Hon. Member said, he considered of the
greatest importance, and be regretted that some lawyer
in the House had not taken it up, who would do it more
justice. He had also to move fur another return, which
was in continnati..n of that preeen ted on tbe 1 lth of July,
1820, respertiog the number of persons confined in the
Fleet Prison for contempt of the Courts of Chancery and
Exchequer. In these commitments be undertook to
show the existence of the greatest abuses. The numbers
committed on this charge were incredible. In 1620
alone, 21 persons were so committed; and by the returns,
it would appear that there were some persons in the
Fleet who had been there 31 years, some 20, and some
_l4, for contempt of Court. The case of Hannah Barker
WAS a remarkable instance of this harsh treatmwasent. She
bad been imprisoned in 17159, and in 1820 she still in
prison, on the charge of not paying 401. pursuant to an
order of the Court of Chancery. From 1812 to 1820 no
less than 12 persons died in prison who had been eon-',
mited for contempt. One of these was Thos. Williams,
who had pined away no less than 31 years and 10 months
in prison, charged with a contempt of Court. Another,
named James Dvke, had spent 14 years in gaol under the
same charge. Tints, it appeared, the imprieonment ex-
tended to the whole term of a mans life. Now this was
a power which, by the laws of England, he contended,
no Judge whatever was warranted in assuming. In every
other case, when a man was accused of an offence, he bad
the benefit of a Jury; but he (Mr. H.) saw no reason
why, in a cssa where his liberty fur life was committed,
an Englishmen should be debarred that invaluable privi-
lege. lie concluded by moving for returns of all persons
confined either as Crown Debtors, or for contempt of the
Courts of Chancery and Exchequer, with a specification
of the sums for which they were confined, the terms of
their imprisonments, the nature and amounts of their
securities, tke.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL opposed the motion.
He contended that the Hon. Member was misinformed
of the state of the law in respect of Crown Debtors.—
He had forgotten that, by the present Insolvent Detbto an
tors'
Act, any person declining to pay money pursuan
order of the Court, might take the benefit of the Act,
and be discharged from prison like any other debtor.—
As to limiting the power of Courts for committing for
Contempt, he (the Learned Solicitor) was sure the Dm
nourable alember, upon reflection, would not be art ad-
vocate for such limitation!. There could not be said to
be any hardship in the imprisonment for refusing to do
a deed ordered by the Court, when it was considered
that the individual suffering was himself a party to it.—
The case of common contempt was this : an investiga-
tion took place before a Court, and in the result, in order
to bate justice done to all parties, an individual was or-
dered to perform a certain deed. This lie refused to do.
What power then bad the Court to compel him, but im-
prisonment; and this was a punishment which ceased
the moment the party complied with the order of the
Court. A person so confined, therefore, could not com-
plain, since his imprisonment was in fact voluntary.—
(Hear.) But if the individual was committed for an in-
sult upon the Court, it was usual to set him free, as a
matter of course, as soon as he avowed contrition for his
ottence, by acknowledging the jurisdiction of the Court.
In that respect, therefore, there was no reason to quarrel
with the power assumed by the Judges of the several
Courts. With regard to the other p ant in the case,
namely, the placing of Crown Debtors on t
the; , same foop-
t-
ing with the debtors. of private individlthis a
peared to-him to he inconsistent with the due collection
of the revenue. Many of the Crown Debtors were con•
fined for offences against the Excise Laws, but if there
was a prospect of getting emancipation from the fines'.
imposed on smuggling, a very great temptation would be
held out to illicit traffic, and the revenue would be there-
fore greatly prejudiced. Besides, in all cases where
there appeared to be any hardship used, or when the
party was proved to be totally unable to discharge the
debt, an appeal to the Lords of the Treasury always met'
with the greatest attention. Cie challenged the Honour-',
able Member tdmention any case in which the party,
seemed to have been hardly dealt with, in which the
Lords of the Treasury did not interfere, and give such
equitable redress as the case merited. For all these,
reasons, he considered any alteration in the present
law unnecessary, and he should therefore oppose the
motion..
Mr. Secretary PEEL denied that he lild ever suggest-
ed the substitution of a scale of terms of imprisonment
in lieu of tines, when the parties were unable to pay
them. He had no liesi'ation, however, in saying that he
would oppose the unqualified discharge of Crown Debt-
ors from prison, for he thought the Crown should have
some discretion in awarding at least such a terns of im-
prisonment on those who could nut
.pay fines, as would
deter others from engaging in illicit trade on the spe-
culmion of a complete indemnity against the conse-
quences.
Dr. LUSHINOTON thought it would be an improve-
ment of the law tb give certein officers a powerof cluing
certain acts, for persons contumaciously. remaining in
prison, more particularly where their obstinacy worked a
prejudice to their parties.
Mr. WYNN opposed the motion.

Mr. RICARDO conceived, after the doctrines held
iolth that day by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,
the best came te pursue, would be to pass pursue, law, duke:
ing that there should be only one punishment fur every
offence; let it be the punishment of death, if kliOsters
thought fit; and then to have it in the discretion of the
Secretary of State, to say whether the same should be in-
-dieted, or bow far it ought to be mitigated.
t— Mr. SecreteryPEEL explained; be said the discretion
of inflicting punishments did net rest with the Crown.
The motion was then put and agreed to. -
Mr. HUME said he had another motion to make on
the subject of these penalties, which were adjedged by
law, and with the amount of which Government had
nothing to do. On referring to certain docurneotst he
found that on the 30th of July, 1789, a persdriliad been
committed on what was called a writ of rebellion; the
offence was a breach of a writ of execution, and for not
paying the Sum of 4601. The • person so committed re-
mained in the Fleet Prison for the space of 30 years.
There were,instances of persons having been confined
there for the non-payment of penalties of 201., and there
did not appear to be any existing law by which they
could obtain relief. What he contended for was, that
Ministers should not have a power to grant partial relief
to one party and refuse it to another. He concluded
with moving for a return of all persons confined, and
now in custody since July, 1820, for contempts, by order
of the Court of Chancery or Exchequer, or in conse-
quence of any processes issning from the Ecclesiastical
Courts; also he number of persons who, ing confined
for contempt,t died since that period.—Ordbeercd.
REGISTRY or VESSELS.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of the
Registry of Vessels Bill,
hlr. SYKES obsirved, dip this was a measure in
which gentleman connected-With trade and commerce,
were highly interested; and he hoped that some fur•
thee time would be allowed them for, dm due consider-
ation of it.
Mr. HERRIES said, there could no objection to
the postponement wished for, by the Honourable Mem-
ber. The Bill was, therefore, put off to the 18th instant.
Mr. HUME moved fur a return of the income and ex-
penditure of the country for each year, between the year
1792 and 1798.—Ordered.
At half-past seven o'clock the House adjourned.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' ACT.