§ Lord J. Russell,in moving that the House do agree to the Lords' amendments to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill (No. 1), said that one of those amendments he much regretted, as it made the release of the party imprisoned dependent on the payment of the debt and costs. He thought that one amendment by their Lordships, which extended the benefits of the bill to persons who had been six months in custody, was an improvement, but he repeated that it was with regret he saw the other amendment to which he had just alluded. However, as the principle of the bill was a good one, and empowered the Ecclesiascal Court to discharge persons in custody for contempt under particular circumstances, he would not ask the House to dissent from their Lordships' amendment.
§ Mr. T. Duncombedid not rise to oppose the motion of the noble Lord. He agreed With him in thinking, that the extending the jurisdiction of the court to cases where parties had been imprisoned for six months was an improvement in the bill. 1396 John Thorogood would be enabled to avail himself of the bill in that respect, for he had been more than three times six months in prison. He much regretted the other amendment which made the discharge dependent upon payment of the debt and costs; it was a shame that a bill which went to establish a good principle should be made dependent on a question of pounds, shillings, and pence— a matter of filthy lucre. Yet, even as it was, he looked upon the bill as a matter of triumph for John Thorogood and those who concurred with him on the principle of church-rate. It did indeed give a "heavy blow and great discouragement" to the collection of church-rate. He looked upon the whole of this prosecution as a cowardly affair, because it was well known that there were thousands of John Thorogoods in large and populous manufacturing towns, who refused to pay this rate, but no proceedings were taken against them. The proceedings were commenced in a rural district against a man who had been known to take an active part in parochial affairs. This, he thought, was altogether unworthy of the Church. However, after this he supposed the House would not oppose the motion of which an hon. Friend of his had given notice for next session for the total abolition of this rate.
§ Sir E. Sugdendenied that the Church had anything to do with the imprisonment of John Thorogood. He was in prison because he refused to appear to a citation in the Ecclesiastical Court, over which the Church had no control whatever.
§ Amendments agreed to.