The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-13 00:00:00

JOHN THOROGOOD.

It was once decided by some Dutch philoso-
phers, after a very long debate, in which the pros
and cons were most minutely weighed, that it was
possible for a man to bite off his own nose. It would
appear that some of these worthy gentlemen's de-
scendants must have been transplanted into our
Consistory Courts, and that others may claim the
paternity of the enlightened Chelmsford Church-
wardens. Except in the case of John Thorogood,
I believe the world never heard of an instance of a
man sending himself to prison. Now, although I
admire his indomitable spirit and non.compronusing
integrity, not withstanding he is only a poor shoe-
maker, I cannot say I shall approve his taste, how-
ever I may be surprised at his skill, if it can be
proved that he has actually incarcerated himself.
Let us examine the facts of his case in the spirit of
an English Jury, sworn to do justice, and not like
quibbling lawyers, who can decide according to
law, bat not according to justice—who can hunt
the hare and disclaim the hounds ; men who can
persecute to the death, but if not present at the
death, flatter themselves to be guiltless of murder,
and whose elastic consciences can only be made to
give way by the weight of their fees.
" The law that makes more knaves than e'er it bung,
Little considers right or wrong ;
But, like authority, 's soon satisfied,
When 'tis to judge on its own side.
For as there is a war between
The devil and them, it is do sin
If they by subtle stratagem
Make use of him, as he does them."

For the last three or four years previous to his
self-imprisonment, Thorogood had refused to pav
the Church-rate. There was an attempt made to
cajole him by appointing him Collector of the As-
sessed Taxes, but it would not do. He was too
respectable to be bought---
" The mind 's the standard of the man."

He had asked impertinent questions in public
vestries about the religious conscientiousness of
Church pluralities, and requested to be informed
how the money collected at the communion-table
was disposed of—he was not to be bullied—he
would not be cajoled—and personal clerical in-
quiries were made amongst his neighbours as to
whom the premises in which he resided belonged.
Can any one guess the reason and intent of this
special inquiry ? They were not found, however,
to be within the reach of the long Apostolic arm.
After the Bishop's visit to Essex there was a grand
Church-rate stir in Chelmsford and Halstead.

Thorogood, having repeatedly assured the Church-
wardens that he never would pay the rate, was
summoned before the Magistrates by William
Baker, Thomas Morgan Gipp, and Thomas
Moss, Churchwardens of Chelmsford and the
hamlet of Moulsham. Here the persecution ac-
tually commenced, and this, therefore,
.forms the
first step to John Thorogood's self-imprisonment.
" Who can deserve, for breaking of the laws,
A greater penance than an honest cause ?"
' He attended before their Worships, and knowing
by experience that conscientious scruples were not
much attended to either in great or little Courts, lie
delivered in, to be upon a par with those who
dragged him there, his legal objections. These
took the case out of the Justices' hands, and he
was asked if he intended to appeal to another
jurisdiction--his reply, that he did, can only be
honestly construed into meaning that if he were
sued he would resist. It must be remembered that
he is only a poor shoemaker, unpractised in the
learned and gentlemanly quibbles of the law, and
the very delicate sophistries of the Spiritual- Courts 1
This teas the second step to John Thorogood's
self-imprisonment. He was next cited to appear
before the Ecclesiastical Court by the aforesaid
William Baker, Thomas Morgan Gipp, and Thos.
Moss, Churchwardens of Chelmsford and the

---
hamlet of Moulsham. He did not appear—if he
had, he must have paid 64 ss. for the liberty of
appearing, and he would in all probability, accoid-
ing to the pre-eminently blessed uncertainty of the
ecclesiastical law, which enables an advocate to
say one thing, and the same advocate, when no
longer an advocate, to say another, have been cast
in suit and costs to the amount of five or six hun-
dred pounds I
" I would not give, quoth Hudibras,
A straw to understand a case,
Without the admirable skill
To wind and manage it at will ;
To veer, and tack, and steer a cause
Against the weather-guage of laws,
And ring the changes upon eases
As plain as noses upon faces." _ _

When a man is persecuted, and has the choice
of evils, he would be an idiot indeed if he did not
select the one least disagreeable to his conscience
and feelings, and best adapted eventually to serve the
cause in which he is engaged, and suffers. Thom-
good did not appear ; and he was taken by the
Sheriff's officers and conveyed to Chelmsford Gaol,
on the 16th of January, 1839, where he is to re-
main for life, according to the fiat of Lord john
Russell. And this was the third and last step
of John Thorogood's self- imprisonment.
" For wholesome laws preserve us free,
By stinting of our liberty."

Dr. Lushington says the Rector had nothing to
do with it. There are sins of omission as well as of
commission—did he as a Christian Minister inter-
fere to prevent it ? We know he is too experienced
a tactician to commit himself by ordering ! Dr.
Lushington says the Churchwardens were bound to
do as they have done ; to be sure they were ! We
grant they had the power—they have exercised that
power. Cui Bono ? Ask the excited population of
every town in the empire. Would it not have been
more in accordance with custom, more just, more
prudent, more wise, more in the spirit of Chris-
tianity, to have consulted the parishioners, whose
servants they are, and from whom they derived the
power they have so greatly abused ? It is evident
John Thorogood did not imprison himself—he
was sent to gaol by Clerical mandate !
Dr. Lushington, as the Newspapers state, says
that if he had appeared in Court--having, of
course, first paid the sum of 61. ss. for the liberty

of appearing, the case would have been dismissed
in his favour with costs, the law, since 1831,
having been altered, and the Ecclesiastical Court
not having power in any case under 101. If this
be true, then has this poor, but high-minded, shoe-
maker been most tyrannically and cruelly oppressed
from the first ; and to a degree which calls forth
an execration against his pursuers, almost too ter-
rible to be written or spoken with safety. He has
been imprisoned contrary to law ; he is kept there
contrary to law ; he has been sued contrary to law,
the Court having no jurisdiction in his case; and,
because he did not appear to an unjust citation, he
is to remain in prison for the term of his natural
life, contrary to every law human or divine, unless be
will consent to pay five shillings and sixpence con-
trary to his conscience.

Let the Bench of Bishops, and the Bench of
Judges too—more especially if they wish to be
respected—look to it.

ATTACK UPON THE " NlCK."—About one
o'clock on Tuesday morning the police made a successful attack
upon a gambling-house, No. 16, Leicester-square, known as
the " Nick," and, in addition to the bank, containing 2.!.4/. 10s.,
roulette-wheels, rakes, dice, dice-boxes, S:e., they captured the
principal, the croupier, the porter, and no less than twelve of
the players. On Thursday the principals were placed at the
bar, before Mr. Long, at Marlborough-street. They gave
their names Jahn Wells, proprietor ; Lewis Franks and. Wil-
liam Jones, croupiers ; and Thomas Williams, porter. The
defendant Wells, without hesitation, admitted that he was the
owner of the gaming-house, and that the other three were his
servants, acting under his directions. Wells seas fined 1001.,
Franks and Jones 50/. each, and the porter 20/. The twelve
players were then ranged at the bar, and all except the foreigner
were fined 51. each. Riviere was fined only 2/. A ci,mplaint
was made against the police far having carried away the bil-
liard-table. Mr. Long would not entertain it, as it was evi-
dent for what purpose the billiard-table had been placed in the
TO0113•
THE LATE HON. EDWARD PERCEVAL.—
This lamented gentleman was the second surviving son of
Jane,tihre.
venerable Lord y
Arden, and was born 30th Jul 1795. iN
Perceval was a widower, having married his firs;
eldest daughter of the late Right Hon. Spencer Perceval, First
Lord
died in of
1824, leaaysi the Treu
no issue, who was shot by Bellingham. This lady

Lord Haddo, the eldest son of the Earl of
Aberdeen, will leave town shortly, on another tour in the east
of Europe.