The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-12 00:00:00

Churel. Why should he have sunk it fee a majority
of five ? Why be coetent with such half-andshalf, bit-by-
bit reform, es that which be expected the count y to be
satisfied with ?—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. BAINES denied that John Thorogood had re-
fused to obey the law ; all that he hnd done was to sub-
mit to the penalty of the law. In Sheffield the inha-
bitants had not paid Church-rates fiar twenty years.—
Had the• Vicar dealt with them as the Rector with John
llorogood ? No. Why ? Because he knew that a
great body of iuhabitants were opposed to the payment
of the raze. John Thorogood complained of the inequa-
bq of the law. The Quakers had been exoneratl.—
Why should they be relieved ? (Lord John Rusell—
" They are made to pay.") Yes ; hut should there be one
law for the Quakers and another far the Indepeadents?
—( Hear, hear.) 'rho Quakers were not incarcerated
in prison.—(Lord John—" Yes, but the Dissenters are
all to be relieved from that now.") But the Noble
Lord had been tardy in his relief, and during that time
poor John Thorogood had been confined in prison.—
(Hear, hear.) Then in Ireland the whole country had
been relieved from the Church cess, or rate. Were
such inequalities in the law just 2—( Hear.) The law
was, moreover, in itself unjust in principle. Now all
these anomalies and irregularities were so many at-
tempted palliations of a law felt to be unjust.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) The Rector of Chelmsford
should have refrained from enforcing so strictly the
law, which he knew in other large towns was not en-
forced, against a poor parishioner of his—the effect of
whose prolonged imprisonment would be seriously to in-
jure his health. John Thorogood complained not of
the Ecclesiastical Courts which had merely done that
which the law of the realm directed them to do. Let
not the Noble Lord suppose that the display of such in-
tolerance as had been exhibited in this case would only
irritate factious disturbers—it would do more injury to
the Church than all the evils of Socialism, of which so
much had lately been said in another place by a Right
Reverend Prelate. The removal of the Dissenters
from vestry discussions would have a good effect
on the Church, as well as on the peace of
the country.—(Hear, hear.) But as the Dissenters
were now forced to pay Church-rates, they could
not be excluded from vestries. Now the Dissenters, it
had been said, were only called -on to pay one--!ortieth
part of the Church-rates. If so, they had only to pay
7,0001. out of 300,0001. a-year. Admittir6e this to be
correct, which he (Mr. Baines) however doubted, what
absurdity was there in risking the harmotry and peace
of society for the sake of so small a contribution ! He
would be a great benefactor cf his country who could
devise a mode of settling all these irritating causes of
dispute. No other effectual mode of attaining such ob-
ject had been suggested than that suggested by the
Hon. Member for Finsbury. Therefore he (Mr.
Baines) should support. it, trusting that it would tend
to produce that enviable state of the Christian
world, which had, in the earlier and the purer
ages, been described—" See how these Christians love
one another ;" whereas it was to be feared that now it
would much more justly he said, " See how these
Christians hate one another."
Sir R. H. INGLIS was surprised that the Noble
Lord—to whom the Dissenters owed more than to any
other person—(Hear, bear)—should have found his
propositions of Church-rete Reform so coldly received
by the representatives of the Dissenters in that House.
The case of Jahn Thorogood tied not been quite truly
stated. That person had stated, in a letter to The
Sun newspaper, that Mr. Boykett, the Secretary of the
Church-rate Abolition Society, had advised him to re-
fuse appearance to the citation, saying, that the " cause
would derive benefit from it ;" and promising to " move
heaven and earth to release him." John Thorogood
had been first prepared to appear to the Ecclesiastical
Court summons, but he, hapless Wight, had been per-
suaded not to do so by the " grievance-gathering" So-
ciety—(Hear, hear)--who thought they could make
him a fit subject of their speeches, and then left him to

pine in prison, neglected and uncared for—(Hear.)
He held that all property was liable to any contribution
that the law might call upon it to make, He therefore
could not agree to the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury ; nor did he think the case of John
Thorogood a proper case on which to bring forward
such a measure. He did not feel it necessary on this
occasion to enter further into the question ; but,
whether the number of Dissenters was small or great,
so long as the Church-rate was the law of the land, it
was the duty of every one to submit to it ; and the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Finsbury was
merely proposing to give a bonus to dissent.
Sir S. LUSHINGTON said that the Ecclesiastical

Courts had no power whatever ica take cognizance of
Church-rates if the rate be under 101. If the Church-
wardens had sued in his Court, and Mr. Thorogood had
pleaded he was liable to the rate, he would have been
dismissed with costs. But he had brought himself into
Court. He had been summoned before two Magis-
trates, and had denied the validity of the rate, and gave
notice that it was his intention to dispute its validity
before the proper Courts. It was therefore by his own
act that he brought himself within the jurisdiction of
the Ecclesiastical Court. When summoned to appear
before the Court, he refused to appear, thus voluntarily
placing himself in contempt. He regretted his long
imprisonment ; but supposing it-had been the case of a
husband refusing to appear to the citation of his wife, or
of a man keeping a; will in his pocket. If the Court had
not the power of committing, the course of justice would
be impeded. It was by these ways and these means that the
Thorogood came before the Court, and yet the Hon.
Member for Leeds had spoken of the cruelty of the
Rector of the parish. Tne Rector had no power to
interfere,--it all rested with the Churchwarden, who had
taken an oath to execute his duty. The whole state of
things was different between Sheffield and Chelmsford :
in the one place there was a Church-rate, in the other
none ; but the law W 43 the same. Now, with regard to
the remedy, he believed Church-rates a great griev-
ance, but he was not therefore bound to vote for every
crude proposition. He objected to the principle, that
if a person would take a certain declaration, he should
derive a certain advantage. lie considered that this
was a great temptation to lire farmers, whose rates
were heavy ; but the principle was absurd. The man
might make the doclaration, and go to Church the next
day. The proposition would, he felt confident, when
it came to the knowledge of the D:ssenters, cot meet
with their approval. The Ecclesiastical Ccmmissioners
all, una voce, wished to transfer jurisdiction in cases of
Church-rates to the Magistrates. Had this been done,
it would have tak...n away the possibility of such a case
as this occurring. If any rational and fair measure,
founded on just principles, were brought forward to do
away with this grievance, he would be one of the first to
support it.

Mr. HAWES opposed the views of his Right Hon.
and Learned Friend. He thought the wiser course
would be to vote. at least for the introduction of this
BM. The test now sought to be introduced was not to
try his faith in a peculiar manner, and yet the Noble
Lord considered that it would tempt persons to take
an unfair pecuniary advantage. He thbught this might
be remedied in Committee. He objected to the mea-
sure of the Noble Lord. Church-rate, as it stood at
present, xas not a statutable tax, and the proposition
of the Noble Lord would place them on a new founda-
tion, and one which every friend of religious liberty
'would be bound to oppose. In many parishes there
was no Church-rate.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he did not intend to
make it a statutable tax.

Mr. HMI ES was sorry be miAunderstood the
Noble•Lotd, who was one of the best friends the Dis-
senters had in the country—(hear, hear)—but he did
not 'mistake the Ecclesiastical Commissi.mers, who had
recommended that the Church-rates should be paid out
of the Poor-rites. With regard to John Thorogood tie
should say little, as he did not think that it bore on this
Bill. But he felt that this case was doing the greatest
possible harm to the cause of the E,tablished Church.
He thought it very hard they should have been so long
without a remedy for these evils. 'rho absolute ne-
cessity of coming to a settlement on this question had
been admitted for years. Five different plans had been
proposed for the settlement of this question, four of
which bad been objected to by Gentlemen opposite.
Lord Althorp's plan had been opposed by the Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, and every other
plan had met with similar opposition.
Mr. W. ELLIS was afraid the Noble Lord had
not duly considered the' determination to which he had
come. He was exceeding'y sorry the Noble Lord had
made'up his mind to oppose the motion of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury. The Dissenters had no feeling
against the Church—their only feeling was to be re-
lieved from the payment of Church-rates, which they
considered to he a most obnoxious impost.—(Cries of
" Question, question," " Divide, divide."
Mr. MILD\TAY would detain the House for only
one minute. The Hon. Member for Leeds had endea-
voured to create a very unfair impression, by the ailu•
sw'a hhe had
requnirleddetoto the Rector of Chelmsford. He
as sorry that the cause which the Hon. Member ad-
vocated
—(Hear, hear.)
the Rector acted withhe bath:ne:t(ce.rheudrHetth.p by such an attack.
the Rate. As that warsta.wr.ong
Mr. BRINES expl • -1
linewpahrrelsdesiiiostnhi,noltileogn.litfintardnt
enforcing
hesitation whatever in retracting what he bad said.
Gent., the Membernfaorbtand4e
Mr. T. DUNCO replied.T The Right Hon.
intorwoderucHedanhiliemtss,ellifadinstntatthede that John Thorn')