The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-19 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION:

passing his last days in comfort. The Hon. Member
concluded by urging the House to support his motion.
Captain PECHELL seconded the motion.
Sir THOMAS COCHRANE opposed it as one
highly prejudicial to the public service. He was sorry
to take this course, but he felt it b be his duty to do so.
Sir C. ADAM said it would only be necessary
for him to address the House very shortly. He
deeply regretted this case had been brought for-
ward, for he was sure that no court-martial, and no
Court of Admiralty could act otherwise than had been
done in this case. In 1807 this officer had been found
guilty by a court-martial, for not permitting a frigate
under his command to go into action, and was in
consequence dismissed from his command. After the
court-martial Captain Le Roche suffered six months
to elapse before be made any representation to the
Admiralty, who after examining his case, answered that
they did not think proper to take any step in the
matter. He then wrote more than one offensive letter
to the then First Lord of the Admiralty on the sub-
ject. When the Board of Admiralty found the sere
;Nice of the court-martial was founded upon evidence
that could not be in the smallest degree impugned,
they felt they could not place him on the retired list
of Captains. Captain La Roche sent a me-
morial to the Board of Admiralty in the year
1838, but the Board thought there were sufficient
reasons for refusing the prayer of the memorial.
He thought the application was one to which the
House could not consent. The case having been de-
cided by the sentence of a Court properly constituted,
it would be highly improper for the House to accede to
the motion.
Captain PECHELL said the Gallant Admiral had
argued as an Admiral of 1807. He had denied the
authority of the House to interfere, contending that the
Government was vested with the administration of the
.itrairs of the navy, and the subject should never be dis-
cussed by Parliament. There were many things which
should be considered in relation to this petition. The
cieeumstanccs in which Captain La Roche was placed
were very peculiar and difficult. The object of the
Vrcnch frigate and corvette was to decoy the English
frigate under very powerful batteries ; and if ho had
-risked the lass of his ship unnecessarily he would no
doubt have been censured as strongly as he was now
tor the exercise of prudence. It should also be remem-
bered that a frigate of thirty-six 12-pounders
was opposed to a French frigate of fifty 18-pounders.
It was not fair to keep back any of the circumstances
trhich tended to pace the motion in a favourable light.
it had been said that Captain La Roche had tlelayed
his application to Parliament from 1808 to 1830.
Why had he done so ? Because he knew that he could
never obtain redress under the old system. When a
Liberal Government came into power he immediately
applied to have his case re-considered.
Mr. ALSTON replied.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw ; but on our re-
turn to the gallery we found that the motion had been
withdrawn.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL moved for Returns of
each British Colony, Dependency, or Possession, in
which, since the Legislative Union between Great Bri-
tain and Ireland, down to the present time, the office or
offices of Chief or other Justice, or Judge, or Magis-
trate of any Supreme or District Court of Law,
Equity, or Admiralty, or Attorney or Solicitor-General,
has or have existed or been created : The name of
each such office or offices in each such Colony respec-
tively, together with the date of creation : The name
lad salary of each person appointed to each such office,
-with the dates of each appointment : Whether such
parson was,at the time of his appointment, a member of
the bar of England, Ireland, or Scotland, and of which re-
spectively. The Hon. Member said, in the last ten years
only five or six appointments of this nature had been
iilaced at the disposal of the Irish Bar. Within the
last year there had been twenty important legal ap-
pointments made in the colonies, and of those only one
bad been referred to that Bar. Even that one was of an
Inferior nature, namely, the District Judgeship in Ja-
maica, He trusted that, under these circumstances,
the House would not reject his application.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was quite impos-
sible to give the information asked for by the Hon.
Member. He must, therefore, object to the motion.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL inquired if the Noble
Lord would give his consent if the last paragraph were
struck out ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had no objection
to give similar Returns to those granted in 1832.
The motion, omitting the last paragraph, was then
agreed to.
IMPRISONMENT OF WILLIAM BAINES.
Mr. EASTHOPE said that when he gave notice
of his motion with respect to the petition of William
Baines, he stated that it was not his intention to go
into the general question of the abolition of Church-'
rues, but as much as possible to confine himself to
the grievance complained of by the petitioner. He
was aware, and the House must be aware, that it
ould be very difficult, if not impossible, to state the
aaae of William Baines, who was now immured in
rfisou for the non-payment of a Church-rate, without
referring generally to the question of Church-rates.
He would, however, as far as possible, redeem the en-
gagement which he bad made at the outset, by adhering
strictly and closely to the case of this individual, and
avoiding as much as possible the general question of
the propriety or impropriety of such impositions. It
would be in the reoollection of the House that this
petitioner stated that on the 17th of May, in the year
1.938, the inhabitants of a parish in Leicester, made
a Church-rate of sixpence in the pound, which to this
petitioner amounted to 21. 55.; that that was demarded
of this petitioner in the month of August, and was by
him then refused ; that when summoned before
two of the Magistrates the petitioner dis-
puted the validity of the rate, and required
them to withhold giving judgment in his case, and the
case was thereupon dismissed. The petitioner then
received a citation from the Arches' Court of Canter-
bury, dated November 15, 1838, to which he paid no
attention. He was thereupon pronounced in contempt,
was afterwards served with a legal proceeding, of
which he took no notice, and subsequently received a
monition for the payment of the rate and costs, amount-
ing, in all, to 1271. Sr. He went on to state that he
was arrested in November last by the Sheriff's officer,
taken from his family and business, and has ever since
tqat time been a prisoner in the county gaol of Le.ces-
ter. He then proceeded to state that it was unjust to
make a c'emand upon him for the support of a form of
4corship which his conscience disapproved ; that it was
unjust, inasmuch as he believed that the demand was
1.a,1 in law to send him for a remedy to an Ecclesiastical
Court, and thus to call upon him to recognise the au-
thority of the dignitaries of a Church of which he was
not a member, and to seek, at an enormous expense,
a decision involving his rights, at the hands of parties
who were interested in giving judgment against
Mtn ; that it was unjust to take his person and
oonfine him in gaol, when he had been guilty of no crime
eg-inst society, and had merch corrie 1 out his I:rinciFlei
t 3 a disienter from the Established Church, choosing to
eto ineyGod rather than rear. Now he ( Mr. Easthope) did
!an to argue that this MC had been deet with dif-
reUtli from the case which had formerly come under the
consideration of the House ; but he did intend to present
the case -echo
Houset as one which was ill calculated
either to serve then
interest of the Church, or to promote
way change of conduct
on r
the part of those who dissented
teem it. —( Hear, hear. Beforec the proceedings coin-
,ienced in the Ecclesiastical
meeting or vesry, to tate into 11
consideration the propriety of proceeding-
case, and they were unanimously further in the
expedient to do so, on the ground that thate it
wasot !on:
ienggardteirnii arc
the House
tendeJ to make an alteration in thperelsaewntr
rates. He had the honour of
Ciat day a petition from Leicester, signed by 6 000 WI"
hi'ants, of all sects and parties. An address had also
cne up to the Throne, signed by 7,0n0 females of
Leicester ; and he could saftly say that no ques-
tion bad ever excited more gPneral interest and
sympathy in that borough than Mr. Baians's case. They
felt that the means taken to enforce the payment of
Church-rates in tae case of an honourable and independent
minded man, eras a violation of all the principles of justice,
and was neei calculated to advance the interests of rc
How would such scenes and such occurrences possibly be-
veligion in any way ?—( Hear, hear.) The question
had been already discussed in that House, and they were
aware what the sentiments cf the Noble Lord (.I. Ras-
Gel) were on the subject. He believed it was generally
ucknowledged that these occurrences were ill-adapted to
ProMo.Ce the cause of religior, or the interests of the Es-
tab..lished Church. He thought it isas extremely injudi-
tious to continue the enforcement of a law which acted
against all the feelings of religion and humanity. He did
not think the sufferings and imprisonment of Mr. Baines
were required for the maintenance of any religieus worship,
nor could not advance the interests of any religious com-
munity. Übe entered at any length into the subject of
Church-rates generally, he felt that be should be offending
against the pledge he had given to the House, but he re-
gretted much to find that there existed in the minds
of some part'es on that
subject
much bitterness
and uncharitableness, instead of the kindly f cl-
ings which should prompt them to dcv.
Ise a remedy for
the grievance. He would remind the House that no
Church-rates were leve iin Leicester, except in that one
parish, and no individual had more honestly and sincerely
lamented the effects produ'ed by that infliction than the
clergyman who pre,ided. Mr. Ertkine, a name vene-
rated by every lover of liberty, had told him (Mr. East-
hope) that it was one of the greatest discomforts of his life,
and that nothing was he more anxious for than to see an
end put to such scenes. The question was not confined to
the loyalty of Leicester, for already tweety.sie indivi_
duals in different parts of the country had been served with
monitions, and were liable to be immured in prison. e,
Ten
persons were actually summoned for the next day—( Hear,
hear)--and it WAS impossible that, such a state of
things, producing strife and ill will, could be allowed to-go
on. What the feelings of Mr. Beines's fellow townsmen
were, might be inferred from the fact that, although he
had been four of the inclement months of winter immured
in a gaol, he _ inelement
et, his
native been unanimously cl-cted a town coun-
sellor: boreugh for ore of the largest wards
in it, containing a population'
Nothing could exhibit ines of 20.000.—( Hear, hear.)
sympathy with such a law"' strongly that there was no
his obstinacy and conturnece Whatever might be said of
inLeiceater that Mr. Qwtabser quarters, it was felt
high courage and =flinching heneast martyr—a man of
;sidle Lord and the House would feely.He hoped the
that the enforce-

merit of such a law in a community where such feelings
prevailed, could be of no advantage ; but was, on the
contrary, almost a scandal to the Church—was rather
adapted to work its decline, and to retard the gs at ob-
jects which it was the duty of the Church to aim at, and
which religion, when lac to its own genial i iraience,
would be sure to produce —( Hear, beer.) Ti Hon.
Member concluded by moving a resolution, to t' e effect,
that the puni-hment of Mr. Baines, for refusing to pay
Church-rates, was to punish him for acting in accordance
with what he regarded as a religious duty, and was a vio-
lation of the principles of religion and justice.
Lord J. RUSSELL said his Hon. Friend had
brought forward the present motion, having given notice
of a motion to take the petition of Mr. Brines into con-
sideration. He lees not aware, till it had bceu
read from the Chair, of the nature of the motion,
which, considering no notice had been given, was of a
somewhat wide and sweeping character. Although the
particular grievance of Mr. Baines was made the ground-
work of the motion, the cause of the grievance was ono
affecting the general question of law, and the resolution
did not go so much to release Mr. Beines as to denounce
the existing law, as one under which the subject should no
longer suffer. Using that argument, and not saying that
the resolution was not a proper one under certain circum-
stances, he must say that theuotice should have been some-
what longer than the Hon. Member had thought proper to
give.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the particular case
of Mr. Baines, he did not mean to give any opinion as to
whether the parties were justified in the course they had
pursued ; but with regard to that i
llouse, the question, as
the Hon. Gentleman had put it, was, whethe• s was a
violation of conscience to enforce the law of the land with
regard to the payment of Church-rates?—( Hear, hear.)
He had no hesitation in answering that question directly
in the negative. He could conceive very well that it was an
impost which it was not desirable to maintain, and that it
might be expedient to adopt some other plan. Various
grounds had been stated by the Honourable Gentleman,
on which it ought he considered advisable to alter the low;
but it was a totally different question, as to whether Mr.
Baines was to set up the standard as to what was to be the
law for himself, and that what he thought oppressive to
his conscience was no longer to be tolerated. —(llcer,
hear.) Mr. Baines had stated his own case in his peti-
tion. He did not deny that the inhabitants had made a
Church-rate, and therefore it was clear that a rate had
been made by the parishioners, of which the legality had
not been questioned. He refused to pay the rate, and was
cited before the Magistrates. If he meant to dispute the
gate, if he meant to say that that rate was not legally hil-
-1 posed, he could have had reeourse to the Court esta-
blished by the law in such cases, and endeavour to
show that it was not legally laid on. If he was proceei.
ing fairly, such would naturally be his course. Then,
with regard to the law, ho (Lord John Russell) need
not argue whether it was a wise or a politic one.
The place fur disputing the legality of the rate was the
Arches' Court at Canterbury, to the citation of which the
petitioner gave no attention. Now, was that a justifiable
cause ? Were they, the House of Common?, to say that,
so long as there was a Court appointed to try that case,
and that that Court proceeded in the regular course to hear
what the petitioner had to say, and cited him to appear—be-
cause of his disputing the legality of the rate, the peti-
tioner was himself to decide that that was a law which was
not to be obeyed? He refused to pay any attention to the
citation, anti, therefore, Hon. Members were to adopt a re-
solution that the law was a most oppressive and unjust one.
Could they keep up any law by that means? William
Baleen thought that the existence of Church-rates to sup-
port the Established Church—that decision with respect to
Church-rates according to the law of the land by the Ec-
clesiastical Court, was unjust and oppressive, and a violation
of the rights of conscience. But another man might think
the same thing with regard to any other law—another
might have just the same opinion, that it was a
violation of the rights of conscience, to ask him to con-
tribute anything to the payment of the army and navy,
which were used, as they sometimes must be, to produce
bloodshed. Any payment that might be required to sup-
port the law or the State might be refused, on the ground
that the particular individual refusing felt that it was a
violation of conscience to contribute to its existence.
Where was the distinction to be drawn ? How could they
say that Mr. Baines had the sight of deciding for himself?
Was he to lay down what was lawful, or what was unlaw-
ful? Ought not every individual in the United Kingdom to
have the same power and right as Mr. Baines to apply to
that House to make a resolution in his favour, that such
and such laws were oppressive, and a violation of con-
science ? It was not, therefore, on the ground merely
of Church-rates, but upon the general question as to
the support of the laws, that he (Lord John Russell)
thought it impossible that Abet House could give its
sanction to the resolution of his Honourable Friend.
With regard to the general question of Church-rates, he
did not know that his Hon. Ft fend had entered much
into it; and he (Lord J. Russell) did not conceive that it
was necessary for him to enter into it now. He certainly
regretted that there was not a mode for providing for the
support of the Church Establishment in a less objection-
able way than the present mode was. It was very
different, however, to establish by any resolution, or by
any Bill that might be brought into that House, to give
countenance to the opinion stated by several Dissenters,
both with respect to that case and Church-rates gene-
rally, that it was not proper to contribute to the support
of the Established Church. He would be sorry that, by
any commutation or any other mode, they should give
any support to that opinion—an opinion which, though
held by many respectable persons, was, however, incom-
patible with the existence of the Established Church, and
could not be defended by any sound argument. The
early Christians were commanded to pay tri-
bute to the Roman Emperors, which were applied
to such purposes as the erection of temples to Jupiter
and the other heathen gods, where their superstitious
and abominable rites were performed. Yet those early
Christians were told by the highest authority to pay taxes.
Now ho could not really understand that it was a violation
of the rights of conscience to pay sums cf money which
were to go to the support of places of worship equally
Chri.tian with the form of Christianity which the indivi-
dual paying felt himself bound solely to believe. That
did not seem to him (Lord John Russell) sufficient
grounds to say that they had a conscientious repug-
nance and feeling against such a contribution. Ho wished
as far as possible to respect all conscientious feelings.
but they should not allow an unlimited decision to
every individual in that respect, and that they had
merely to pronounce the word " conscience" in order
to relieve themselves from the payment demanded.
It was impossible that the State could adopt such
a principle. The pe itioner said that it was
unjust to confine him in gaol when guilty of no
crime against society, but be merely carried out the principle
of dissenting from the Church, wishing to obey God
rather Vann man. He (Lord J. Russell) had no doubt
that the latter portion of the statement was true, but he
could not completely exonerate thepetitioner from any crime,
for be was giving a bad example. It was a mode of act-
ing which would go to shake confidence in the law, and
therefore it was in itself a crime against soci ty to act in
that manner. With respect to another mode of contri-
buting to the Church-rates it was totally a different quei•-
•ion. This wan one alteration in the law which he had
before spoken of. namely, to make the enforcing of the
law take place in a Civil and not in al Ecclesiastical
Court. If a Church-rate were levied and enforced at the
Quarter Sessions, from which there was an appeal to a
superior Court, such a tribunal must be a competent one,
he thought, to decide either upon Church-rates or upon
tithes. With regard to altering the law in that or in any
other respect it was quite a different question from an
individual assuming, at a sacrifice to himself, but assuming
the iesponsibility of deciding what law ought to be obeyed,
and chat rates and taxes ought to be eeforcei. He
thought the House would not sanction that each ind:vi.
should decide for himself. If the House thought it better
to abolish Church-rates altogether, let them decide so on
general grounds, but let them not agree to a resolution
which was in favour of refusing the Church-rates that
were legally claimed—a resolution which might bo also
used in favour of disobeying any law whatever.
Mr. HUME was opposed to the sentiments uttered by
the Noble Lord who had just sat down. The claim for
Church-rates with respect to Dissenters was an unjust
one. The iebble Lord complained of any man taking
the law into his own hands. The Noble Lord well knew
that that was the mode in which oppression Lai been met
in all ages. Ho (Mr. Hume) was sorry to hear the Noble
Lord refer to the Roman Emperors to support his argu-
ments. The other Light the Hon. Member for the Uni-
versay of Oxford, said that no man could be an honest
men who would pay for the support of a religion in which he
did rot believe. He ( Mr. Hume) wished the Hon. Ba-
ronet was now present to hear what was advanced in the
recollection
1833,. when Lord Althorp broughto
tion of abolishing Churclx.rates
Noble Lord (Lord John Russell)a t°
and Ohl not the House decide I )
thought—that Dissenters ought
The Noble Lord then took
cf 265,0001. to support the fabric
sum, the Noble Lord declared,ha u(1
sion, to propose to be paid out
The Roman Catholics of Ireland were
relieved of the payment of 76,000/. Hume)
atwouhl he did
call
forward the ques-
getber. Did not the
support
.that measure,
a large majority-266 he
eff
55not to pay Church rates ?
,000/., and left the sum
the Church, and that
et; I.l:z:di on a future occa-
onsolidated Fund.
also at the sameperiod
After suchh
been given in that House—such decisions oome votestoaftad
the declarations of the present Ministers on this head_.
er
was it not fair to expect that
.Government.svould not allow—
r period to clap: e without proposing some remedy any longer
few further observations -
for the abuse ? After a . ons on the
which
importance of a meeting at he was. present
great purpose of opposing the
in Leicester, convened for the
impost ofl
Church-rater, the Hon. Member cone udel by
seconding the motion.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS would not enter at 101101
into the subject of Church-rates, as the Hon. Member
( Mr. Easthope) said he would postpone the consideration
which of the general question. The eottnetionich he ( Sir
,
Honourable
R. Ingli.) made on the subject to which tee
'ht
man ought
Member opposite (Mr. II.) referred, was that a
not voluntarily to contribute to the support of aChurch
which he did net believe to be the true one according to the
Word of God, yet that he ought to submit to the law ; and
as far as he ( Sir R. Inglis) could he would make all his
fellow subjects submit to the law which bound nut the ir-
selves but their properiies to the support of schools and
places of worship belonging to a creed in which,
as individuals, they might net believe.—( Hear.)
The question was not what were the personal opinions of
Mr. W. Babies ; the question was whether he occupied a
tenement in the parish of St. Martin's, in the borough of
Leicester, subject to a Church-rate, and which, whether
it were occupied by Mr. David Salomons, Mr. Joseph
Hume,
Sir
Robert Inglis, or Mr. William Baines would be
subject to it. The question had not the least rr ference to
the present opinions of the individual, but to the value of
the tenement
he occupied. If that tenement remained un-
occupie lit pail nothing—but if occupied, whether by
Jew, 'Turk, heretic, or infidel, it paid the same sum: `lr.Bain eoccupied this tenement,
t knowing that it was liable
to thisimposition, and knowing
that on this account he
paid so much less rent for it, or if ho bought it, that ho
paid a gross sum so much the less than if it bad' not been
subject to this imposition. The resolution on the table of
the Home was that Mr. Baines had been sued for