HC Deb 24 July 1840 vol 55 cc939-54

On the question being again put,

Mr. T. Duncombe

begged most respectfully to call the attention of the House to the resolution which was passed in the last Session of Parliament. It was this:— That it appears by certain papers laid before this House,' that John Thorogood, a Protestant Dissenter, has been confined in her Majesty's county gaol of Essex, since the 16th day of January last, for neglecting to appear in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. being the amount of Church-rate assessed jupon him for the parish of Chelmsford; and whereas, during this period, the said John Thorogood has been treated with uncalled for severity,' it is the opinion of this House, that the imprisonment of the said John Thorogood is not only cruel and unjust, but reflects great discredit upon those at whose instigation these proceedings were instituted, and under whose sanction they are so pertinaciously and vindictively continued; and while this House laments that it has not the power of affording immediate relief to the said John Thorogood, yet it is of opinion that it will lie the duty of the Legislature, at the earliest possible period of the next Session of Parliament, to make such alterations in the existing laws for levying Church-rates as shall prevent the recurrence of a like violence being ever again inflicted upon the religious scruples of that portion of her Majesty's subjects who conscientiously dissent from the rites or doctrines of the Established Church. This resolution was not only condemnatory of the imprisonment of John Thorogood, but it amounted to a declaration that the House pledged itself, during the present Session, to bring forward some measure that would prevent a like violence being ever done to the conscientious scruples of Protestant Dissenters. How had the House redeemed that pledge? Had it taken any step whatever to redeem it? No; on the contrary, it had taken the very opposite course. He had proposed to introduce a bill which would have had the effect contemplated by that resolution, but he was not permitted to bring it in. He was told by many hon. Members, that although they objected to any bill, yet they would vote in support of any motion for the release of John Thorogood if put in the shape of an address to the Crown, or in any other form that would effect the object. He was now therefore, about to give the House an opportunity of carrying their wishes into effect by moving an address, praying that her Majesty would be pleased to take into her merciful consideration the case of this unfortunate man, with a view to his release. He knew that he had first to establish the fact that the Crown possessed the power to liberate this individual; and next to show that John Thorogood was a worthy object, in whose favour that power might be exercised. He was well aware that there was no precedent whatever for the Crown interposing in a case of this sort, but that was no fault of his; because he believed that for the last 150 years there was no instance upon record of such a gross persecution as that which had been evinced towards Mr. John Thorogood. But although there were no precedents of late years, there were precedents in former times for the Crown so interfering. But before mentioning them, he begged to ask what was John Thorogood guilty of? He was confined for what was called a contempt of the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for not putting in an appearance to a citation from that court. After all, it was no actual contempt of the court, but was merely what the lawyers would call a constructive contempt. He had not insulted the judge, nor the process of the court; he had merely not put in an appearance, and there was no necessity whatever either for the judge of the court, or for the Bishop of London, or the churchwardens or rector of the parish, to take the cruel and vindictive course they had done. They might have adopted the same course as was pursued in the case of an individual of the name of Baines, in Leicester. He was cited in the Bishop's Court—he never entered appearance—a monition was issued against him, calling upon him to show cause why judgment should not be signed against him: he disobeyed that monition, and the court proceeded, and execution was now out either against his person or his goods, for a church-rate of 21. 5s. 3d., and 125l. costs. But Mr. John Thorogood had been treated in a very different manner. He was in prison for contempt, and unless the House interfered, by an address to the Crown, there was no wav whatever by which he could get out of prison, unless he should be carried out a corpse from the dungeon where the church had incarcerated him. But he would now advert to the precedents. They occurred in the time of the Stuarts. The declaration for the liberty of conscience, which was published by Charles the 2nd, clearly laid it down, that the Crown had the power of interfering in these sort of cases. It was published on the 15th of March 1671–2 by the advice of the Privy Council. After stating his Majesty's care for the preservation of the rights of the Church, it proceeded thus:— But it being evident, by the sad experience of twelve years, that there is very little fruit of all those forcible courses, we think ourselves obliged to make use of that supreme power in ecclesiastical matters, which is not only inherent in us, but hath been declared and recognised to be so by several statutes and Acts of Parliament. We do, in the next place, declare our will and pleasure to be, that the execution of all, and all manner of penal laws in matters ecclesiastical, against whatsoever sort of non-conformists, or recusants, be immediately suspended, and they are hereby suspended. And all judges, sheriffs, justices of the peace, &c, are to take notice of it, and pay due obedience thereunto. Under this declaration 460 Quakers were released from prison, where they had been committed for non-payment of tithes. He was quoting from "The Christian Progress of George Whitehead," who in his observations upon the effects produced by this declaration, stated that "the King discharged and delivered of many of our suffering friends out of the prisons, remitting their fines, and releasing their estates." It was rather an extraordinary fact, that there were several individuals committed to the very county gaol in which poor Mr. Thorogood was now confined. Mr. White-head gave an account of his visiting that gaol for the purpose of releasing his suffering friends there, and he stated that the magistrates did all they could then, as they did in the present case, to retain them. In the subsequent reign an order was sent down by Lord Sunderland, then Secretary of State, requiring the goods of certain dissenters to be given up that had been seized, but not offered for sale, a disposition prevailing in that day, as well as in this, among the people not to purchase goods seized from persons under such circumstances. The letter was in these terms:— Whitehall, Dec. 14,1687. Gentlemen—The King being informed that some goods belonging to John Wales, and other Quakers of Leeds, which were seized and taken from them upon the account of their religious worship, do remain unsold in the hands of John Todd, who was constable at the time of the seizure, or in the hands of some other persons: and his Majesty's intention being, that all his subjects shall receive the full benefit of his declaration for liberty of conscience, his Majesty commands me to signify to you his pleasure, that you cause the goods belonging to the said John Wales, and all other Quakers of Leeds, which were heretofore seized upon the account of religious worship, and are unsold, in whose hands so ever they remain, to be forthwith restored to the respective owners without any charge.—I am, gentlemen, your affectionate friend and servant, SUNDERLAND. It was quite clear, therefore, that at that period, the Crown had the power of interference for which he was contending, and he had yet to learn when that power was taken from the Crown. Unless Gentlemen could prove that the Crown had, since the time of the Stuarts, been deprived of this power, and were prepared to say that the Queen was not the supreme head of the Church, any attempt to argue away the inherent power of the Crown to interfere in this case would be of no avail. Admitting, then, that the Crown had this power—was John Thorogood a fit and worthy object for having it exercised towards him? He would maintain, that John Thorogood was a fit and worthy object. He was a most humane, kind, and amiable individual, and was now suffering purely for conscience sake: he had been already eighteen months in a cold, unhealthy gaol, and he should be glad to know when the vindictive feelings of the Church would be satisfied with this unfortunate man's sufferings. All sorts of reports had been circulated about John Thorogood, every one of which, if specifically brought forward in that House, were capable of being rebutted. He understood that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, had paid a visit to Mr. Thorogood in Chelmsford gaol, and lie had the opportunity of finding that Mr. Thorogood existed there, and that there he was likely to remain. The hon. Baronet went as a sort of illustrious visitor, totally and entirely incognito, and the individual whom he went to see had not the least idea of who the personage was that did him the honour of a visit. A short colloquy took place between these two distinguished men, and at its termination, Mr. Thorogood was made acquainted with the name of the mysterious stranger. Mr. Thorogood had written to him a letter, in which he observed that as it was quite possible that Sir Robert Inglis might refer to what passed between them the other day, he was desirous of making him acquainted with the particulars; therefore, with the permission of the House, he would read Mr. Thorogood's own words. The hon. Member read the following letter:— Chelmsford Gaol, July 17, 1840. Dear Sir—I thought I would take the liberty of sending you word what passed between Sir It. Inglis and myself on his visit to me, as probably he may refer to it on your motion for the 21st. He came in with the turnkey, who knocked at my room door. I said 'Walk in.' They then walked in. Sir Robert commenced by saying, 'I am no friend of yours, but I hope I am no enemy.' I then said, 'I hope not, I beg you will be seated.' He saw a bird in the room, and said, 'Oh, this is your bird.' I said, 'Yes, Sir.' He then said, 'How is the state of your health? I replied, 'Not very good,' for I had got rheumatism down the whole of my left side, and I felt a numbness, which I thought appeared like paralysis, and I had suffered dreadfully in my head, from rheumatism. He said, 'Oh, they are quite different complaints.' I said, 'I must beg to differ, for I thought they both proceeded from stagnation of blood, pro- duced by cold, but I don't understand it much.' He observed, 'it is a good thing you are allowed to have your wife backwards and forwards.' She happened to be in the room at the time. I said, 'Yes, it is; I am thankful for it.' He then said, 'Have you no other room but this?' I said 'No.' He replied 'A very good room.' I said 'Yes, but very cold.' He then said 'Do you have it to yourself?' I said 'Yes, but I should not mind having company, as mine was like solitary confinement.' He next asked 'Have you anything to complain of?' I replied 'Oh, yes, a great many things: first, of the unmercifulness of the system that had thrown me into prison, for we read, Sir, in the Bible—"Be ye merciful, as your Father who is in heaven is merciful;"—and I thought my prosecutors had not shown me much mercy by imprisoning me eighteen months for 5s. 6d. 'He said,' I don't mean that (I suppose he did not like scripture quotations, for I took him to be a parson, knowing, as I do, that not many of them are spiritual minded). He said, 'I mean as it regards your treatment here.' I said, 'Yes, I have complaints to make about that; I did not like being locked up at nine o'clock every night in the summer time, as an hour later in the yard would be pleasant in the cool of the evening, and I complained of being prevented from working likewise. The distinction made between rich and poor debtors, if he could call me a debtor—for rich men come here and pay 8s. per week for a front room—but because I could not afford to pay, I am not allowed one, and they had access to the yard until ten or eleven o'clock every night. The law was rigorously enforced in my case, and why not in theirs?' He said, I think it is not right.' I said, 'I know it is not.' I then complained of having no coals allowed me when I was dangerously ill, and my life almost despaired of, although I made repeated applications for them, and knew that others had them allowed, with extra allowance of food.' He said, 'I must bid you good day.' I said, 'Good morning, Sir,' and when he had got partly down stairs, I asked him to favour me with his name, when he came back, and said, 'I told you I was no particular friend of yours, my name is Robert Inglis (up to this time I did not know who my visitor was). I said,' I am glad to see you, and as I have Sir R. Inglis before me, I shall take the liberty of saying something more. I wish to ask you, Sir Robert what is your opinion respecting my persecutors, whether their conduct has not been most unmerciful towards me? He said 'You know my opinion.' I said 'Perhaps you are aware I gave 1l. towards erecting a chapel of ease built on the voluntary principle.' He said, 'Yes, I am aware of it.' I said, 'I feel it to be a case of cruel oppression, after having laboured hard to benefit my fellow creatures, both temporally and spiritually ever since I knew the truth as it is in Jesus, that I should be cast into this prison because I could not pay to a system which supported murder, robbery, and idolatry, and these three charges can be proved against all establishments when connected with the state' He said, 'That is your opinion.' I said 'Yes, and of brighter minds than mine.' I then pressed him for his opinion as to the unmercifulness of the churchwardens, for I had not acted like a bigot towards them; for I promised them another pound, if they needed it, as no force was used to obtain it. He calmly said,' Well, if I must tell you, John Thorogood gave the sovereign, but his house must pay the 5s. 6d.' I replied my agreement was to pay 14l. per year for my house, and I had always done so, and all her Majesty's taxes for civil affairs, and even Mr. Gepp (who is one of the churchwardens) had considered me worthy to be trusted as assessor and collector of the same, and I had filled the office, having collected the half year's, within 10s., for the parish of Chelmsford, the hamlet of Momshan, a thing which those who preceded me had not done for years. He said, 'I do not think it right to discuss the question here; it is the law of the land.' I said, 'Yes, it was the law that one-fourth of the tithes should be appropriated to the repairs of churches, to the maintenance of the poor, to support the minister, to entertain the pilgrim and stranger; but the state priests had embezzled the whole, and thrown the burthen on the industrious classes.' He said,' No, no.' I said 'I beg your pardon, but I say yes, it is true.' He immediately bade me good day, and left. There are rooms empty in the front of the gaol. I told Sir Robert I had written to the Secretary of State that I might be allowed to occupy one, but was refused by the magistrate, although I believe Lord J. Russell wished it. I believe he said, 'Very likely,' but it was to that effect: and Sir, the high sheriff visited me yesterday, when I made the same complaints to him, and being locked up alone every night from nine until six o'clock asked him to grant me the use of a room unoccupied, when Mr. Neal, the gaoler said, yes, if I would pay 12s. a week I might have it. Dr. Prichard saw the spirit manifested towards me by Mr. Neal. This, Sir, is as near as possible what was said. I have distinguished what Sir Robert said by putting a dash under it, that you might easier refer to it. I hope you will not consider me troublesome; but believe I am greatly indebted to you for your kind exertions on my behalf, And believe me to remain, Your humble servant, JOHN THOROGOOD. He considered that John Thorogood was right in refusing to pay the money endeavoured to be extorted from him merely to gratify the malice and persecuting spirit with which he had been visited. It was well known that his persecutors sought to subdue the firmness of Mr. Thorogood, but he believed that they would find themselves in error. It had been attempted to turn the scruples of this conscientious individual into ridicule. He knew not what the hearts of the ecclesiastical authorities in the neighbourhood of Chelmsford could be made of to pursue Thorogood so unrelentingly, or what the heart of the Bishop of London could be made of to be capable of looking on at his sufferings without taking any steps to remedy the evil. He believed that unless the House interfered, John Thorogood would never come out of gaol alive, for there was no power on earth that would induce him to pay an exaction to which he conscientiously objected, or adopt a course of which he could not approve. Would, then, the House of Commons suffer such a man to undergo perpetual imprisonment? He trusted that as professors of the Christian religion they would not; but that those hon. Gentlemen who were about to return to their homes, their property, and their friends, would, as far as they were able, remedy this grievance, and lay at the foot of the throne their opinions of this hard case. Those persons who were attached to the Church of England might depend upon it that by acting in the spirit of an enlightened toleration towards this man, they would gain more affection and respect for the establishment than by the incarceration of a thousand such individuals. It was not only humane and just, but it was the imperative duty, on the part of the House, after the resolution of last year, and after the pledge then given, to endeavour to terminate this persecution against John Thorogood—a persecution which was not only a scandal to the religion they professed, but a disgrace to the country in which they lived. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolution:— That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to take into her Majesty's merciful consideration the case of Mr. John Thorogood, a Protestant Dissenter, confined in her Majesty's county gaol of Essex, since the 16th day of January, 1839, for neglecting to appear in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. church-rate, with a view to his release.

Sir B. Inglis

took the liberty of rising early, in order that those hon. Members who had heard the statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury, might also hear his statement? It was some time ago stated in a newspaper having a very great circulation, that the health of John Thorogood was sinking, slowly but surely; and, it was also observed, that it was in the power of certain individuals, one of whom was himself, to release, if they pleased, Mr. Thorogood from his imprisonment. This appeal having been made to him, he felt that at any rate, it was his duty to ascertain what was Mr. Thorogood's state of health. The course he pursued enabled him in a few hours to receive from the person who, he believed he might say, had the charge of Mr. Thorogood, a statement which satisfied him that that individual's health was not in such a condition as had been represented. Subsequently he had the opportunity of visiting the gaol in person. His object simply was at that time to satisfy himself by ocular inspection—and that as a stranger, and not as a professional man—that Mr. Thorogood's health was not so bad as it was stated to be. His first words to Mr. Thorogood were:—"I am not one of your friends." This, he said in the course of conversation, and also at the close of it, and he did so, lest Mr. Thorogood should have been led by the appearance of a sympathy on his part, in calling upon him, of concluding that he was Mr. Thorogood's friend; and he might, therefore, have committed himself by some observation, which he might perhaps have made if he had not been 30 informed. He added that he hoped he was not his enemy, as he hoped he was not the enemy of any man, but he was not one of his friends in that sense in which the House would understand the expression. Of course he thought it would not have been becoming in him to enter into a discussion with Mr. Thorogood, his object being simply to learn what was the state of his health. As to the room in which Mr. Thorogood was confined, it appeared to him to be a very good room for a prison. The hon. Member for Finsbury had animadverted upon the conduct of the Bishop of London; but the Bishop of London had no more to do with the proceedings of the Consistory Court, than the Chief-Justice of England had with respect to any technical proceeding that passed through the court over which he presided. It was true the Bishop of London was at the head of the court before which Mr. Thorogood was cited, but he did not sit in it, and had no more cognizance of what took place in it than the Queen had of the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench. He had no wish to enter into the general question, but having been called upon so paticularly by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he felt it his duty to offer the explanation to which the House had been kind enough to listen.

Lord John Russell

had certainly no more wish than the hon. Baronet to enter into the general question; but with respect to the question immediately before the House, he thought it was a decisive answer to the motion for recommending the case of John Thorogood to the merciful consideration of the Crown, to state that it was not in the power of the Crown to discharge that individual from imprisonment. Mr. Thorogood was not confined within a prison from which any interposition on the part of the Crown could remove him. Therefore he considered it was not proper for the House to entertain the motion that had been made. He believed his hon. Friend was quite right in saying likewise that the Bishop of London, in whose court the proceedings against John Thorogood took place, had nothing to do with the continuance of his imprisonment. At the same time, as the question had been brought before the House, he would say that he believed there were some parties in authority in the parish to which this sum was due as a portion of the church-rates, who could interfere to procure the discharge of John Thorogood; and for himself he must say he thought those parties would act very wisely if they were so to interfere. He did not know whether those who agreed with him in that sentiment would concur with him in the grounds on which he rested it. He thought that those persons who, from a conscientious feeling, sought to make the laws respected by enforcing the punishment of imprisonment against those who violated the laws, did no good whatever in the way of maintaining a respect for the law when they acted not in accordance with the general feeling of the community. Another ground upon which he thought that it would be perfectly safe and highly expedient to put an end to the imprisonment of John Thorogood, was, that he considered that this poor man, who no doubt had been actuated by a very conscientious feeling, had been entirely mistaken in the notion of the sympathy which his sufferings had created. He had no doubt that those who acted with this poor person thought that if he consented to remain in prison for a certain time, for conscientiously opposing the payment of church-rates, the result would be such a general feeling in his favour, and such a strong opposition to church-rates, as would induce the Legislature to put an end to them, He considered that the attempt to excite the sympathies of the public had entirely failed. A great portion of the people of this country—he believed a majority—were attached to the Established Church. There was another portion, undoubtedly, who thought that there ought not to be an Established Church: but the portion that thought there should be a resistance to the law, and that parties should go to prison, was very small, and their conduct excited no great degree of sympathy. At the same time, he believed that John Thorogood was acting upon conscientious scruples. He believed, therefore, that if the parties who had sent John Thorogood to prison because he had put himself into contempt with the court, should now think fit to discharge him, they would relieve a worthy and an honest man, who was suffering an imprisonment which, if continued, might excite feelings of compassion for his sufferings, and thus, ultimately, identify them with a cause that did not in itself excite public sympathy.

Sir E. Sugden

was very much disposed to agree in the observations of the noble Lord. He could confirm what the noble Lord had said as to the Bishop of London having nothing to do with this case, and he thought that if the parish should see no chance of the repetition of the offence, they could not do a more wise or a more popular act than to take the advice of the noble Lord, and release Mr. Thorogood from prison. He had been always opposed to a continued confinement for a contempt of court. He had himself introduced a bill to relieve persons in prison for contempt of the Court of Chancery, which had passed into an act, and which had been found to work well. He thought that there could be no difficulty in extending, as far as they were applicable, the provisions of the Chancery Court to the other courts, so that the judges might have the power in all proper cases to discharge a person in the situation of the prisoner. In such a case as the present, for instance, he would give a power to the Bishop of London, as the judge, a power to release. He conceived that John Thorogood had not, as a matter of right, a claim to be discharged, because it had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), and had never been contradicted, that John Thorogood had voluntarily placed himself in the present situation, and that he had no real cause for complaint. The Legislature ought to say to these parties, "If it answers your purpose to remain in prison a victim, it will not be agreeable to our views or our notions of the law to keep you there as a victim." He would, therefore, ask his right hon. Friend (Dr. Lushington) to perform the duty of introducing a measure to extend the provisions of the present law.

Mr. Hume

said it was very satisfactory to have heard the speeches of the noble Lord on that side of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman on the other side. It was evident in what direction the feelings of the House went. Because, while the noble Lord contended that the party was legally confined, he could not approve of the length of time of the imprisonment. After the very liberal sentiments which had been expressed, he had altered the opinion which he had originally formed as to the propriety of going to a division, and he would now recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw the motion. They had been informed that her Majesty had not the power to give relief in this case; but he knew that about eighteen years ago he brought forward the case of parties who were in prison for contempt of court, that in the end relief was given. Until the right hon. Gentleman opposite brought forward his bill, there was, he believed, no legal method of giving a discharge; the public were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the remedy he had carried, and he hoped that the method which the right hon. Gentleman had recommended for getting rid of the difficulties in the case of Thorogood would be adopted.

Mr. H. Vernon

knew nothing of the case of Baines, which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Finsbury; but he presumed that the party was before the court, that the court came to a decision, and that the party was committed upon that decision of" the court; but the case of John Thorogood had never been before the court at all, the party having refused to appear. On the general question he concurred very much in the observations that had fallen from the noble Lord; but when the hon. Member for Middlesex talked of the sympathy which had been expressed for this individual, the parties would have shown it more clearly by paying the 5s. 6d. into the hands of the churchwardens, and he would thus have been released from prison. John Thorogood might have a conscientious conviction against the payment, but those who sympathized with him might have done what he had done himself in a case that he had taken up. He happened to know a conscientious and excellent dissenting minister, who would not pay a rate that was imposed, from conscientious principles, and he felt that he was doing nothing improper in paying the money that was due from that minister for the church-rate. He would not have done so, however, if he had not thought that the refusal originated in an opinion formed among certain parties that if they resisted payment at that time, when there was considerable excitement upon the question of church-rates, and if they brought their cases before the courts, they would get up such a state of excitement throughout the country as would effect their object of getting rid of church-rates. When he found such a delusion operating upon the minds of some persons that they might, by becoming victims, carry on the agitation, he thought, that he was counteracting the bad effects of this delusion by paying the rate, and having a personal good will towards the individual, he had stopped the cause of agitation. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, who felt so much for the sufferings of John Thorogood, would send the 5s. 6d. to the churchwardens, whether they liked it or not, the churchwardens must let this person out of prison tomorrow.

Mr. Baines

said, it appeared to him, that the learned Gentleman who had just sat down was wrong as to the state of the law. It was rather difficult for him to offer a legal opinion against that of a judge of an ecclesiastical court, but in the case which the learned Gentleman referred to be had paid the rate before the party was sent to prison. John Thorogood, however, had been some time in prison, and he went there under circumstances which would prevent his discharge upon payment of the original sum. If the payment would have discharged him there would be ten thousand persons who would be ready to make it, and they could do nothing that would be more serviceable to the Church, by preserving it from public odium, because the feeling which was excited in the country, whether right or wrong, was most injurious to the Church. The noble Lord had now made a suggestion, which he (Mr. Baines) wished had been made last year; it was most valuable. He knew that many Quakers had been liberated who were imprisoned under the same circumstances as John Thorogood; and if the Quakers were released, he did not see why the same rule would not apply to John Thorogood. He had written to Mr. Thorogood to advise him, after the last discussion in the House, to advise with his friends, and the answer received was, "No power on earth shall cause me to yield to what I believe is not right, and, under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty, I am determined to remain in prison till I am discharged without any violation of my conscience." That was the determination of a martyr, and it would be wise to act upon the suggestion and the general understanding on both sides of the House. With respect to the notice of his hon. Friend, thinking, that after this discussion and the observations which had been made the imprisonment of this party would be put an end to, he would advise his hon. Friend rather to withdraw the motion, seeing that he had accomplished, and that in the most unobjectionable way, the purpose he had in view.

The Attorney-general

rose to make but one single explanation. The hon. Member had referred for a precedent for his motion to the time of the Stuarts, and said, that he wondered there was not as great liberty in the time of Victoria as in the days of James 1st and of Charles 2nd He believed, that the release from the imprisonment was a gross violation of the law, by the exercise of the dispensing power of the Crown. It was one of the acts that brought about the Revolution; and it was specifically declared to be illegal by the Bill of Rights. By passing the hon. Member's motion, the House of Commons would be addressing the Crown to violate the law.

Sir Robert Peel

had seen so much inconvenience arise from a misunderstanding as to what was called the general feeling of the House, that he was anxious to express his opinion of what the general feeling of the House upon this point was. When the hon. Member for Leeds said, that he hoped there would be an end to all imprisonments for the non-payment of church-rates, he was afraid that he could not concur in that hope; for if a demand were made in pursuance of the law of the land, and there was a refusal to pay that demand, it would be impossible to determine whether that refusal arose from a conscientious feeling or from contumacy. It was impossible for them—as they could not dive into the heart of man—to say from what cause the refusal arose; and it was necessary to punish the party refusing by a penalty. Suppose he purchased property in Scotland, he would be obliged to contribute to the support of an Established Church from which he dissented, and he must say, that that appeared a very extraordinary ground for complaint. He would have received an abatement of the price for this very payment when he made the purchase; it would be among the in cumbrances upon the property which he would have found there, and, therefore, he could hardly claim exemption from the contribution. He thought, therefore, that the general feeling of the House did not go to a disapproval of the original commitment of John Thorogood, and he did not think that the result of the general understanding of the House was, that there should be no future committals for the non-payment of church-rates. If that were the general understanding, he for one would not concur in it. Whilst the law remained the same, authorising the imposition, he saw no alternative but to obey the law, and if parties refused that obedience they must take the consequences, otherwise there would be a dissolution of the bonds of society. At the same time, however, that he gave this general opinion as to the law, he must state the satisfaction it would afford him to hear of the discharge of John Thorogood. He must give to John Thorogood the credit of acting from conscience, and he thought, that as a punishment for his offence, the imprisonment had been sufficient, whilst it had been adequate for the vindication of the law. Whether, therefore, he considered the offence, or the great object of punishment, the vindication of the law, he thought that the imprisonment which Thorogood had suffered had been sufficient for either object. He thought, that with two years' imprisonment for parties violating or contumaciously opposing the law, they would find few who would oppose it. He believed, that if those who could do so were to take such a course as would lead to the discharge of John Thorogood, without causing him to make any concession, it would be for the interest of all parties that the discharge should take place. While, then, he expressed his opinion that it was desirable to discharge Thorogood, he was anxious to state, that if there were again a refusal to pay church-rates by any party, whether through contumacy or from mere scruples of conscience, he could see no alternative but to subject the second John Thorogood to the punishment of the first.

Mr. Aglionby

after the recommendations which had proceeded from such high authority, he hoped that some mode would be adopted without the necessity of any further proceedings on the part of the Legislature to allow this party to go free; but if there should be no power to effect that object without the aid of an Act of Parliament, he trusted that the noble Lord would proceed without any hesitation to legislate on the subject.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, that in consequence of the opinions which had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and other hon. Members of the House, he thought that he should best attain the object which he had in view by requesting permission of the House to withdraw his motion.

Motion withdrawn.