The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-04 00:00:00

POSTAGE BILL.

On the Order of the Day for the third reading of the
Postage Bill being moved,
Lord G. SOMERSET begged to ask whether the
Chancellor of the Exchequer could hold out any hope
that the early closing of the post-offices would be shortly
done away with, and the old system again recurred to,
and whether any alteration would take place in the deli.
very of the letters. He need not say that the early closing
of, the post-offices at half-past five was productive of very
great public inconvenience, and he trusted it would be
speedily put an end to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
hold out no immediate hope that the hour for postage
letters would be enlarged. He would remind the Noble
Lord and the House that a very great change had been ef-
fected, and a very great increase of business had taken
pia( e in the Post-office department.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Bills of Exchange Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed to-morrow.
The Dublin Police Bill was read a third time and
passed.
On the motion for the third reading of the Ecclesias-
tical Courts Bill,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE begged to take that opportu.
nity of presenting a petition from Mr. John Thorogood,
thanking her Majesty's Ministers for bringing on the Bill
to effect hisirelease, but stating his firm conviction it:would
be of no avail in consequence of the resolution that had
been passed yesterday at Chelmsford at a meeting called by
the Church wardens, by which the conduct they had pursued
was approved of, and a recommendation given to them to
persevere in the course they had adopted, and not to allow
Mr. Thorogood to be released without the payment of the
costs that had been incurred. In consequence of thin re-
solution the petition prayed that the House would take
some step by which the release would be certain to be ac-
complished. The Hon. Member had an amendment to
propose to one part of the Bill, but he believed he must
propose it after the third reading. The effect of his
amendment was to strike out of one of the clauses the pro-
viso which required that the order should be made with the
consent of the party at whose instigation the party was
imprisoned.
Dr. LUSHINGTON thought it necessary, in vindica.
tion of himself and the proceedings that had taken place
in the Court over which he presided, that the House
should be apprised of the course that had been taken there.
Mr. Thorogood, having been summoned in the Ecclesias-
tical Court, thought fit not to appear. Now, under such
circumstances, what was he (Dr. Lushington) bound to
do in virtue of his oath ? He was bound to administer
the law as it stood, without the slightest reference to any
other consideration ; and whether the law was popular or
not, he was reckless, for as long as he properly adminis-
tered the law, he cared not what was thought of
his judgments. Ho was bound to pronounce the indi-
vidual in contempt. He had no choice, and if he had
refused to do so he would have subjected himself to pro-
ceedings in other Courts, for the purpose of making him
do his duty, and also the censure of the public. A doubt
had arisen whether, with the consent of the patties, he
could release the individual. He asked those who said he
had the power to look to the statute in which they
would see that when a party was in custody for contempt,
he had no power to discharge that individual unless he had
purged his contempt. But it was said another course
might have been adopted, similar to that which had been
pursued in the case of Mr. Baines of Leicester, which
wes much more merciful. Now, with respect to the
mercy of that course, he would only say that Mr. Baines
had been sued for £2 12s. 6d., and after various proceed-
ings, the Lord-Chancellor had directed a new writ de
contumace capiendo to issue fot the £2 12s. 6d. and .4;125
costs, those costs being only fur one side.—( Hear, bear.)
With regard to the 11111, he considered that there was 0,
doubt of the power of the Court, and he had suggested to
the Noble Lard the Secretary for the Colonies that it
ought to be removed, and he had himself drawn up the
Bill which he thought would meet the case, and ho trusted
it would pass.
Mr. HAW E S considered that the case mentioned by
the Right Honourable Gentleman, that of Mr. Baines of
Leicester showed that the law ought to
he altered. It
was a disgrace to the law that j 254. Costs could 'be
puxred in proceedings for the 'recovery of 21. 12s. 6d. He