The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-31 00:00:00

INDON, WEDNESDAY`,

He was not vindicating the conduct of John Thorogood'
in refusing obedience to a process issued by a court of
law, because he was for upholding the law—but what
he did complain of was, that the same rule was not ob-
served in this case as when property was concerned.
But, in the consideration of the Legislature, property
was evely thing, and personal liberty was of no value.—
(Cheers.) It might be said that it would be no use
bringing forward this case of John 'rhorogood ; but it
would be of use, because it was only by bringing for-
ward cases of this nature that the attention of the
House and the Government could be aroused to this
subject. Let them look at the cases of Lovett and
Collins. How many thousands were then suffering the
same hardships in prisons, to which these men had been
subjected, whose complaints never had, nor never could
reach that House! It was only when, in political cases,
that—be would not say the best feelings of our natures
were excited—that individual cases of misery had
a chance of finding a hearing in that House.
They in that House were altogether too restricted in
their views ; they lived in u world of their own in St.
Stephen's, more intent upon the gratification of their
own conceits than upon regarding surrounding circum-
stances, or upon inquiring into, still less redressing, the
grievances which affected the great masses of the
people.—(Hear.) But he would advise them to direct
their serious attention to the facts ; for though the
Ministers of the Crown might say it was in-
convenient, to inquire into them—though Honour-
able Gentlemen might wish to proceed to the Orders
of the Day—though they might desire to enter into
discussions on finance, or arguments for the increase of
our military force—or for appointing constabulary au-
thorities—still let him say that this was not a whole-
some method of legislation, and if they were to proceed
thus, it would not conciliate the affections of the people.
—(Hear, hear.) He deprecated this mode of dealing
with questions emanating from the popular power
—indeed he thought the time was now come when
claims of that sort ought to suggest to our minds ap-
prehensions which had been too long delayed.
Mr. BRAMSTON said the petition of John Tho-
rogood contained two charges—one against the Magis-
trates for excessive cruelty, the other against the parish
officers for prosecuting him on the ground that he was
a political partizan. The facts were, the petitioner
during that part of his imprisonment from the 20th of
May to the 27th of July, 1838, had been treated better
than any of the debtors—he had one of the best apart-
ments in the gaol ; he was permitted to receive books
and refreshments ; and in that period he had not received
less than 383 visits. If his business had been " ruined"
he persevered in his resistance to the demand for the
rates, in full knowledge of the consequences which had
been clearly detailed to him by the Churchwardens,
who if they had not proceeded against him, would
have neglected their duty. He would oppose the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord.—(Question, question.)

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved to omit the words
reflecting on the treatment Mr. Thorogood had received.
Sir R. H. INGLIS opposed that proposition.
Mr. HA WES then proposed the same suggestion as
an amendment.

Mr. EASTHOPE wished to say a few words not in
reference to that individual but to the law. He believed
neither the Magistrates, •nor the clergy of Chelms-
ford, nor any party in that House, were pleased with the
law as it stood at present. They might call Mr. Tho-
rogood an obstinate man, a fanatic, if they pleased ;
but, at all events, here was a man suffering for the sake
of conscientious scruples, incarcerated from the 10th of
January till the 23d of July, because he felt bound
to refuse to pay ss. 6d. Church-rates. The man suf-
fered under a papistical law, which he wondered
should have been so long permitted to con-
tinue. He wondered exceedingly that the Right Hon.
Baronet, who wa§ so distinguished an opponent of Po-
pery, should thus cling to a remnant of it. He was
astonished the Right Hon. Baronet was not anxious to
remove what was a disgrace to the Established Church.
He would implore the House to regard this individual
case with singleness of purpose, and to remember that
John Thorogood had been so many months incar-
cerated for refusing to pay Church-rates, an impost
which the House of Commons ought not to continue.—
(Hear, hear, and Question, question.)
Two divisions took place. The first on the question
that the original words be retained, and the numbers were
Ayes 2O
Noes 44
Majority
The House then divided on the previous question,
and the numbers were—
Ayes 42
Noes 22
Majority. 2O
The amended resolution was carried without a further
division.