The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-25 00:00:00

FISHERIES.

Mr. D.k. RB
Y wished to the Noble Lord' the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs if any understanding had
been come to with the French Government w ith re-
gard to the regulations to he adopted for the fisheries.
Lord PALMERSTON said the regulations of the
Order in Council did not extend to within three wiles
of the coast either way, as within that distance of the
coast the fishermen were subject to the regulations of
the respective countries. The regulations referred to
the open sea without distance, which was in fact the
highway of ail nations. A Commissioner had been
appointed by the French Government and another by
the English Government to draw up regulations for the
guidance of the fishermen of the respective nations, who
should meet in the open sea, and it was to carry these
regulations into effect that the present Act was required.
These regulations could not, of course, receive the sanc-
tion of the law in France until the meeting of the
French Chambers.

THE REV. DR. M'GILL.
Mr. GOULBURN then rose for the purpose of
putting the question of which he had given notice yes-
terday, .with respect to the non-payment of one of the
Queen's chaplains. During the time he had the ho-
nour of being Secretary of State fo7 the Home De-
partment he had submitted the name of Dr. M'Gill to
her Majesty, and he had received the appointment of
one of her Majesty's chaplains in Scotland, and was also
appointed to the Chapel Royal—latterly it had come
to his knowledge that the Treasury had refused to pay
his salary, and upon Dr. M'Gill applying to him, he
addressed a letter to the First Lord of the Treasury,
pointing out to him the circumstances under which the
appointment took place, stack's, the fact of the re
fusel to pay the salary, and'' expressing a hope
that the Noble Lord would take the subject into
his consideration ; for some reason, however, no answer
had been returned to that letter, and he (Mr, Goul-
burn) supposing that there might be some irregularity
in the appointment, applied to the Home-office to as-
certain the fact, and he was informed that there was no
informality in the appointment. From that hour to the
present, he had remained utterly ignorant of the grounds
on which the Treasury had thought fit to refuse the pay-
ment of the salary. Under these circumstancesconsidering
himself bound in honour to see that this appointment
was carried into effect conformably with the intentions
of his late Majesty, he felt bound to call upon the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain how it had
I happened that the payment of the salary attached to
the office had been refused.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
was obliged to the Right Hon. Gentlemen for having
put the question. The case stood thus :—Subsequent
to the recommendation of the Civil List Comniiteee, a
discussion took place hi that House, as he understood,
in which it was stated that it was the intention of the
Government, in making any future appointment' that
no salary should be given.—( Hear.) In accordance
with that declaration the Treasury have ever since de-
clined making any issue for the payment of Dr.
M‘Giii's salary. The appointment was unaccompanied
with any duties, and consequently no salary had been
given to Dr. M'Gill. Those were the grounds on
which the salary bad been refused, and not on the
ground of any personal objection to the Reverend Geri-
, tleman.
Mr. GOULBURN really could not consider the
answer a satisfactory one.—( Hear, hear.) Dr. M‘G ill
was a man against whom nobody could say one word.
Notwithstanding a Committee of the House had dis-
tinctly stated that the Queen's Chaplains in Scotland
ought to have a salary attached to their offices, yet a
debate in that House was to be set against the warrant
of the Commission, and the recommendation of that
Committee, and the uniform practice in the case of
every other chaplain.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ap-
prehended the appointment took place subsequent to the
sitting of the Sinecure Committee. The discussion to
which he had alluded took place before Dr. M'Gill was
appointed, and the understanding was, that in the case
of any future appointment no salary should be allowed,
Mr. GOULBURN—No notice of that was given
to Dr. M'Gill.
Mr. R. STEU ART happened to be in office at the
time this question was discussed, and his recollection of
it was this :—Very shortly after coming into office,
the question was raised as to the salaries of the chaplains
in Scotland, there being at that time four vacancies.
The warrant appointing Dr. had been sent to
the Treasury, and application had been made for the
salary, but that had been done previous to the Right
lion. Gentleman opposite leaving his situation as First
Lord of the Treasury ; and the question was then raised
whether the salary of 501. a year should issue to Dr.
M'Gill. There was a distinct understanding that this was
one of the offices which was not to receive r. ny salary.
That was the real state of the case. The "warrant issued
from the Home-office then did not carry any salary,
Sir R. PEEL was in office where the appointment
of the Rev. Gentleman was made, and he did think
that, after the recommendation of the Civil List Com-
mittee, that Rev. Gentleman had every thing on his
side. He had the favour of his Majesty and the re-
commendation of a Committee of the House of Com-
mons, and considering that the appointment was one
made by a deceased Monarch, he thought it was bad
taste to refuse the salary.
Mr. 11U ME had taken some trouble in this matter,
having written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
reminding him that the Sinecure Committee had de-
cided that no salary should be attached to this office.
He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserved
the thanks of this House and the country for his con-
duct in this matter.
Mr. GOULBURN said the Civil List Committee
for Scotland had recommended that the Salary for this
office should continue to be paid.
CASE OF JOHN THOROGOOD.
Mr. T. DU NCOM BE said he now rose to call the
attention of the House to the case of John Thorogood,
and his object was to move " 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 Pro-
testant Dissenter, confined in her Majesty's county gaol
of Essex, since January 16, 1839, for neglecting to
appear in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop
of London for the non-payment of ss. Gd. Church-
rate, with a view to his release." The House
had, in July last, passed a resolution distinctly
pledging themselves to bring forward some mea-
sure to prevent the recurrence of a like violence being
offered to the conscientious scruples of Protestant Dis-
senters. He (Mr. Duncombe) had introduced a Bill
to carry that resolution into effect, but it had been ob-
jected to by many Hon. Members, who had stated, that
although they objected to the Bill, they would sup-
port a motion for an address to the Crown for the
release of John Thorogood.—(Hear.) He believed he
was now affording those Hon. Members an opportunity
of carrying their wishes into effect. He believed that
within the last 150 years there was no instance of such
violence being used towards any unfortunate individual.
Let him ask what was the charge against John Thorne
good ? He was confined for what was called a (eon-
tempt of the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of Lon-
I don, when cited for the non-payment of ss. Gd.
for Church-rates. But after all it was not an
I actual contempt of Court, but merely what was called
a constructive contempt. He had not insulted the
Judges or the Court, but he merely had not appeared be-
fore the Court, and he would say that there had been no
necessity on the part of the Court or the Bishop of
London, or the cburchwardens, or the rectors to take
the cruel and vindictive course which they had pursued
towards the individual in question. At present, however,
there was no means of effecting his liberation, except
through the merciful interposition of the Crown, and
he contended that the Crown had the right to use that
interposition. The present law relating to chure.'nes
had been in existence in the time of the Fetuarts,
and yet in the year 1671 an Act ,:eat passed
by the Crown declaring that by its ienerent power,
all penal laws in ecclesiastical matters should be
suspended.—( Hear hear.) The consequence was,
that several parties who were in confinement for
the non-payment of tithes, and among them four
hundred Quakers, were liberated from prison.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Member then referred to the statement of
Whitehead, who visited the gaol for the purpose of re-
leasing those prisoners. The Magistrates upon that
occasion did all they could, as in the 'case of John
Thorogood, to prevent the liberation of the ecclesi-
astical victims. In the next reign an order was issued
by the Secretary of State, Lord Sunderland, directing
that all goods should be restored to the Dissenters
which had been seized upon—(according to the words
of Lord Sunderland's letter)—" on account of religious
opinions."—( Hear, hear, hear.) Now, since those
days the ground had been cut away from; un-
der those who maintained that the Crown had no
vid
of theo g
tiveie this matter, matter, unless, indeed, they could
show thathasbeen, since that time, deo .
A
prerogative
the Crown
C prerogative, and that. the Queen had ceased to
be the head of the Clne'rch.—(Hear, hear.)
The
question was wl7.'etlier John Thorogood r/as a nxt
Object forproper
t!..le interference of this House., He (M
e""e'tended that he was. He was, a virtuous, r.
kind,
D.)
and humane man, and was suffericg for conscience sake.
; He bad now been eighteen months in that cold un-
healthy gaol. The Hon. Goldman opposite (Sir J.
T. Tyrrell) might laugh when be (Mr. Dun-
combe) said that Thorogood was an amiable,
kind, and humane man. It was always the way