presented several petitions from various quarters of the city, in favour of the City of London Police Bill. He hoped he should receive the indulgence of the House while he expressed the humble expectations of the petitioners, and his own, that the bill which the Corporation of London wished to introduce for the improvement of the city police might be allowed to proceed through its different stages. The committee, to whom the usual petition for leave to bring in the bill had been referred, had refused to recommend that the standing orders should be suspended. He begged to state to the House, that the Corporation of the City of London had been deprived of the power to give the requisite notices within the time prescribed by the rules of the House, owing to their having been kept in ignorance by her Majesty's Government of their intentions—whether they intended to bring in a bill to regulate the police of the City, or to leave that matter in the hands of the Corporation. The Committee on the standing orders had refused to allow the standing orders to be suspended, and had resolved to adhere strictly to the rules of the House by a majority of one. Under these circumstances he thought it would be extremely hard if they should be shut out also by the House. The noble Lord had intimated that the clauses which related to the city police in the Bill which he had introduced would be withdrawn, and the Corporation were, therefore, now anxious to have themselves protected by an efficient police force under their own management; and the bill which they were desirous to proceed with contained clauses which would secure to the city of London as efficient a force of that description as it was possible to have. He begged also to mention to the House that there was a precedent for the motion which he had the honour to submit to the House in an Enclosure Bill, where the promoters were allowed to proceed with their bill, although they had been refused by the Committee on standing orders. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving that leave be given to bring in a bill for the improvement of the police of the City of London.

said, that he wished to call the especial attention of the House to the petition which had just been presented by the hon. Baronet, the Member for London, for the suspension of the standing orders, He wished to state and expose the allegations in the petitions, which he should show were not consistent with strict truth. If he should be able to convince the House that the Corporation of the City of London had asked the House to interfere upon grounds which were not tenable, nor consistent with veracity, he thought he should induce the House to pause before they agreed to the prayer of the petitioners. The petitioners stated, that they had been prevented from giving the regular notices by not having been made acquainted with the intentions of Government; that in consequence of what had fallen from the Government previous to the termination of the last Session, they had not given the notices required by the standing orders, as it was as stated in the petition, impracticable to ascertain how far the interests of the city might be affected by the proposed measure. The evidence of the City Remembrancer clearly disproved that statement. On the 23rd February, 1838, Lord John Russell addressed a letter to the City Remembrancer, informing him that the Government were of opinion that the city police should be placed under the charge of the commissioners of the metropolitan police. Again, on the 26th March, 1838, the Under Secretary of State wrote to the same purpose. What did the city do? It ordered that copies of the resolutions of the Court of Aldermen, in consequence of these communications, be laid before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and that the day and night police committee be empowered to give evidence. Members of this committee did give evidence before the police committee, and it was, therefore, not strictly correct on the part of the city authorities to say, that they were ignorant of the intentions of the Government, officially communicated; that they were not cognizant of facts which had occurred so long before the time, when the standing orders of Parliament required the notices for private bills to be given, and which had happened under their own immediate knowledge. The statements in the petitions were not more veracious in other respects, and they had shown no sufficient grounds for the interference of the House; they simply said, it was "a necessary measure." Now he contended, there was no necessity for it whatever, because the petition of the city presented to the House only a short time ago stated, that what the bill proposed to do had been most completely and effectually done, to the satisfaction of the citizens of London. The necessity, therefore, was not proved as alleged. It was clear, from what be had stated, no case was made out, and that notices might have been given. In fact, the allegations of the petition were not consistent with veracity. On this measure no one had been more misrepresented than himself, and he must add, that no public measure had found opponents so entirely ignorant of both its principles and details as the general measure for placing all the metropolis under one police. In the city petition, which was now under discussion, it was stated, that the subject of police had been well discussed and understood. How stood the fact in reference to this statement? Why, the address voted to the Crown, and carried up to the foot of the Throne with all the gew-gaw display of the city, stated, that the bills proposed to interfere with the city magistracy—a statement wholly inconsistent with the truth. Neither bill, nor any clause in either of the bills, proposed to interfere, in the slightest degree, with the city magistracy. In fact, the petition did not justify the suspending of the standing orders, and could not be relied upon.

was in favour of the suspension of the standing orders, upon the ground that it was impossible to leave the police of the City of London in the state in which it had been previously, or in the altered state in which it was at present, without some legal enactment.

had, he said, to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department. He had in his hand an extract of the proceedings of the committee of the Privy Council, for superintending the application of sums of money granted by Parliament for the purpose of promoting education. This purported to be an extract, from the minutes of the Council. He presumed that the noble Lord would have no objection to lay before the House a copy of the Order in Council by which the committee was constituted. He wished to ask the noble Lord a series of questions:—First, was it intended that the committee of the Privy Council should have the disposal of sums to be applied for hereafter to Parliament, or of sums appropriated by Parliament before the scheme of the noble Lord was adopted? Next, when it would be necessary for the noble Lord—and he concluded it would be so necessary—to ask, in the course of the present Session, for a vote of Parliament to carry the scheme into operation? But, as in the third case the estimate would be brought forward among the mis- cellaneous estimates at a late period of the Session, when no opportunity would be afforded for discussion, and when the subject would be taken up as a mere money question, he wished to ask the noble Lord, whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government, at an earlier period, and in a more formal manner, to invite the attention of the Legislature to the merits of the scheme? If the answer was in the affirmative, it would be saving him any further trouble; but if the answer was in the negative, then he should give notice that it was his intention to bring forward a motion upon the proposed plan of education, so as to elicit the opinion of the House, either in its favour or against it.

in reply to the noble Lord, said, first, that there was no objection to the production of the Order in Council appointing the committee. It went no further than to declare certain officers of State as a committee of the Privy Council for the purposes of education. With respect to the question as to the funds hitherto voted, his answer would be, that there was to be no disposal of the funds at the discretion of the committee except in the manner in which those votes were applied; namely, that a certain portion should be given to the National Society, and a certain portion to the Foreign Schools, for the purpose of building and establishing normal schools. With respect to the disposition of any other sums of money, a vote would be required from Parliament before the committee would feel themselves at liberty to proceed with any further arrangement. As to the last question which had been asked by the noble Lord, he must say, that it was decidedly the intention of the Government to propose a separate estimate, containing no other item, except that which was to refer to sums to be granted for the purposes of education. On a future day notice would be given, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on that estimate alone, taking that sum, and no other, as a part of the miscellaneous estimates, or at all events taking that as the first question.

felt no difficulty as to the first portion of what the noble Lord had just stated; but as to the last part of his explanation, he wished to know at what period of the Session the noble Lord meant to bring forward the estimate on education. He wished to take the liberty of stating, that the time the last sum on education was voted was on the 5th of August, and it was not to be supposed they would have the entire and deliberate opinion of the House upon a plan which made such a momentous change in the system of education in this country. He, therefore, had to express a hope that the noble Lord would at an early period take the opinion of the House upon a resolution embodying his plan.

replied, that he certainly did not mean to postpone his resolution to the end of the Session. He hoped to be able to bring it forward in the course of six weeks.

had a question to ask of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department. He wished to know whether the noble Lord had received any intelligence of a meeting which had been held a few days since by a body of persons styling themselves Chartists, and at which meeting the most seditious and inflammatory language had been used. He also wished to know if the noble Lord had been made aware that persons were arming in different parts of the country; and if they were, he wished to ask if any steps were about to be taken by the noble Lord in consequence of such proceedings?

in reply to the first question proposed to him by the noble Lord, had to state, that he did receive an intimation of the meeting in Smithfield, and he had been consulted by the Lord Mayor, so as to prevent anything illegal taking place, and to preserve the public peace. He had, while sitting in that House, at ten o'clock, received the information from the Lord Mayor that the meeting had separated; but he had not laid before him any account of the speeches which had been delivered. There had, he must say, in reply to the next question, been reports received for a considerable time with respect to arming in parts of the country, and especially in Lancashire; and a correspondence had in consequence been carried on by him with the civil and military authorities on that subject.

thought the noble Lord had acted very discreetly.

moved the insertion of the clause recommended by the Railway Committee, viz., "And be it further enacted, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to exempt the railway by this or the said recited acts authorised to be made, from the provisions of any general act relating to railways which may pass during the present or any future Session of Parliament."

observed, that he should be happy to know what was the particular object of the clause which was proposed by the Railways' Committees to be inserted in all the railway bills now passing through Parliament. The clause, in his opinion, required explanation; because he confessed, that though he had very attentively considered it, and this, too, with the desire of understanding it, he could not comprehend it. He lamented, exceedingly, that the chairman of the Committee was not present; for he himself had never yet been able to understand the precise object of the Committee. He was utterly unable to divine why such a clause should be inserted in any railway bill. Did those who proposed it suppose, that any railway bill had given, or could give to the directors the power of opposing the authority of Parliament? He hoped, that some Member of the Committee would enlighten him as to the true meaning of the clause, for he felt a great desire to understand it.

said, that the objection of the hon. Member was somewhat late. The clause appeared to him to be perfectly intelligible, and the Committee had taken great pains before bringing it before the House.

could not allow the observations and question of the hon. Member for Leicester to be put to a Member of the Committee, asking them to explain what could possibly be the meaning of the clause now introduced into this bill, and expressing some doubt as to the object of that clause, without giving an answer to that question. The Southampton Railway Bill and other bills were before Parliament. Parliament was aware that much inconvenience was likely to arise, if railways were not put under some reasonable regulations. That was distinctly stated by the President of the Board of Trade, when he moved for the Committee upon railway communication. The simple question was, whether such regulations as were necessary for the protection of the public with respect to railways should be inserted in the bills now before Parliament? These regulations might be introduced into such bills, so as to operate disadvantageously on those particular companies; and the question, therefore, in Committee was, whether they would impose regulations that should be binding on this particular company, when all were not before Parliament? It was felt to be a much more liberal course to bind the railways that were not before Parliament by such regulations as were of general application, instead of taking advantage of those particular railways that were before Parliament, and introducing regulations into their bills. This was his answer to the difficulty. Instead of exposing this company to the difficulty of contending whether the regulations were reasonable or not in their particular case, it was proposed that this company should be bound only by such regulations as were binding on all railways, as well those which were not before Parliament as those which were. The company was now only bound by such regulations as were of general application.

begged, in explanation, to be allowed to say that he really did not know, at the time he mentioned the subject, the particular railway to which the clause was proposed to be added. His only object was to understand, before it was introduced, what were its real meaning and effect. Of these he was still ignorant.

rose, and said he was about to bring under the consideration of the House, a case in which the liberty of the subject was deeply involved—the case of Mr. John Thorogood, an inhabitant of Chelmsford, who was confined in the gaol of that place for his refusal to pay Church-rates. He did not know that he could in any way better explain the subject he had to submit to the consideration of the House, than by stating shortly the particulars of the petition which had been presented to that House some time ago. That petition he had had the honour to present on the 28th of February, and in it it was stated that the petitioner had for twenty-three years resided in Chelmsford; that he was a dissenter; that in the month of September, he was summoned to appear before the magistrates of the county of Essex to answer for neglect in not having paid the sum of 5s. 6d. for Chinch—rates; that he appeared, according to the summons, before the magistrates, and was asked why he had not paid, and that his answer to the inquiry was, that he declined to make the payment, in the first place, because he entertained an opinion that it was not consistent with the nature of his religious obligations to pay a compulsory rate for the support of religion; and in the next place he said, he really believed the rate to be an improper one, inasmuch as no proper estimates had been laid before the vestry meeting at which the rate was agreed to; and he further observed, that the rate was unequal, and therefore unjust. Upon this, the magistrates dismissed the complaint, refusing to adjudicate upon the case, and in November last the petitioner received a citation from the consistorial court of the Bishop of London, requiring him to appear before the court, and answer for subtraction of Church-rates from the churchwardens. The petitioner declined to answer to this citation, and the reason he gave for declining to attend was, that he was of opinion that he should not receive justice in the court before which he was summoned, and he said further, that he was not in circumstances to encounter the expenses that were likely to arise from such a proceeding. The matter continued in that state until the month of January last, and he believed that on the 16th day of that month this parishioner of Chelmsford was seized by the officers, taken to prison, lodged in the gaol of his native place, and there he had remained ever since, and there he was now confined. The petitioner had conscientious objections to the payment of Church-rates, and not only this, but he believed that compulsory payment for the purposes of religion was inconsistent with the divine Scriptures; it was, therefore, not for the amount that he contended, but he conceived that in paying this rate he would be violating a law which he held to be of more importance than any human law, and the petitioner concluded by praying, first, that Church-rates might he extinguished; secondly that ecclesiastical courts might be abolished; and thirdly, that such relief might be afforded in his case as the House in its wisdom should think fit. He thought that the case of this tradesman was such as ought to excite the sympathy of the House. He found, on inquiry, that this poor man was confined for eighteen hours out of the twenty-four; he meant that he was confined strictly and severely during eighteen hours, for, of course, he was in prison during the whole twenty-four. During these eighteen hours daily he was debarred of all intercourse with his friends, and indeed was only allowed to communicate with his friends between the hours of ten in the morning and four in the afternoon, and this he felt to be a very great privation. There was also another privation of which he complained very grievously. He was not allowed to receive from his religious teacher any of that religious consolation and advice of which he stood so much in need in his present situation. And he further stated that he was not allowed to see his wife or family on Sunday, although this was almost the only day of the week on which they could have an opportunity of communicating with him, seeing that his wife was engaged in endeavouring to keep together the little that remained of a business which had been almost destroyed by the harsh proceeding's that had been commenced against him. It had been frequently doubted whether the allegations in petitions respecting conscientious objections to Church-rates were well founded, and whether such objections did not in reality arise from a wish to save money. He thought that the present case proved as clearly as demonstration could establish it, that this was not the case with this unfortunate man. What was his situation? He had now been confined in gaol for nearly four months, his business had been suffered to go to decay, he had suffered imprisonment during an inclement season of the year, and was forbidden that intercourse that was necessary for the comfort of any man who was accustomed to the intercourse of a family, and he was also forbidden the enjoyment of that religious advice and consolation which was so necessary to him. He thought that after having made these statements he should not be required to show that there was anything on the part of this parishioner of Chelmsford like the appearance of cupidity. For his conscience, this poor tradesman had made a sacrifice which he believed very few Gentlemen in that House, or in another assembly, would be disposed to make. But this was not the only parishioner of Chelmsford that was treated with great hardship, although not with equal hardship to that endured by the petitioner. He held in his hand a paper, from which it appeared that not fewer than forty inhabitants of Chelmsford had had their goods seized and sold, some for two, three, four, and even five times the amount claimed—those goods, too, belonging to men in a small line of business, who could not afford to be deprived of the little emoluments derived from thence, and have them applied to the purpose of paying Church-rates. This was a proof, if proof were wanting, that the conscientious scruples of those persons were sincere, for what other motive could they have for suffering their goods to be thus seized, and themselves thus deprived of three or four times more than was due, but that they felt a conscientious and sincere objection to the payment of these rates, and therefore it was, that this petitioner prayed that Church-rates might be extinguished? But there was another reason why these rates should be extinguished. Did not the petitioner and the people of Chelmsford know well, that in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, and other great towns of the kingdom, Church-rates were not only refused, but were not enforced; There was about these ecclesiastical courts great courage. They seized hold of the man that was weak, and enforced their claim; but when they came to a place where they were bearded by a whole community, they had not the courage or manliness to attack them in front. What was the case at Manchester? The people there were called together for the purpose of making a Church-rate. What did they do? A person in the meeting proposed a certain rate, when some other person rose, and proposed that the meeting should adjourn for twelve months. The meeting accordingly adjourned without making a rate, and the rate had never been enforced. In Chelmsford and other minor places poor tradesmen were seized upon and made victims; there the Church-rate was imposed, but in large towns the imposition was not called for. In some towns for the last twenty years Church-rates were treated with derision. Was not this a reason why these petitioners should pray for the extinction of Church-rates? They said, and very reasonably, if Church-rates were equitable and fair, why not enforce them throughout the kingdom? Why neglect to enforce them in large towns, and enforce them with such severity against the smaller places? It was said that in order to render the rate valid it was necessary, in the first place, that it should be consented to by the parish, and that if it were not so consented to it could not be enforced. The consequence of this was, that the law was held in utter derision in populous parishes, and could only be enforced against small communities. It was high time that such a law should be terminated. A very honourable and sincere attempt was made in that House to put an end to the law by her Majesty's Ministers. That attempt unfortunately, he thought, for the Church as well as for the dissenters, was defeated, and at present no fewer than ten counties of England were resisting the payment of Church-rates. They had an agitation spreading against Church-rates, as if there were not sufficient grounds for agitation on other subjects. That agitation had spread through Devonshire, Wilts, Essex and the whole of the principality of Wales. He did not mean throughout every parish, but he thought after the exhibition of the other night of the situation in which the parish of Llanon was placed, there could be no doubt but that great agitation existed in that country, when he found that a man was put in prison because he did not provide the elements of the Lord's Supper, when it was out of his power to provide them. That was in reality the true case, and this poor man was put in prison in order to enforce a Church-rate—a paltry tax, too contemptible to be collected, and yet, in order to irritate the Protestant dissenters, and to keep up a bad feeling both in that House and out of it, the people were harassed with church-rates year after year. He, therefore, thought that it was not an unreasonable prayer to pray that a matter which disturbed the peace of society to so great an extent, which did great violence to religion, which was in reality a source of bitter complaint and hostility among different religious communities, should be terminated. The next prayer was for the abolition of ecclesiastical courts, and perhaps; after the exposition they had had the other night from one of the highest authorities of the realm, as to the state of those courts, and as to the utter unfitness of their judges to administer justice, there could be little doubt but that it was high time that these courts should be abolished. But there were other reasons, and much more powerful ones, why those courts should be abolished. In those courts the officers were clergymen, and as they were necessarily unacquainted with law, their administration of justice was in some cases most partial and unjust. Would it be believed, and really he said it with diffidence, that there was no one of the judges of the ecclesiastical courts who did not himself live in open violation of the ecclesiastical law? Yes, the whole of the clergy in this kingdom, 17,000 in number, lived in open violation of those canons which it was their duty to enforce. Having made this observation, he would refer to some evidence in order to show that he had not used strong expressions without being able to substantiate the facts. He believed it was known to the House that the 50th canon of the Church required every clergyman to read the Litany every Wednesday and Friday, and not of Lent only, but throughout the whole year. Now, it was known to many gentlemen whom he had the honor to address, that this canon was violated every week in the year, in every parish in England and Wales, but no person was thrown into prison for being guilty of such violation. The ecclesiastical courts were very indulgent towards great offenders, but they were extremely severe, and well disposed to show the weight of their power, towards those who had not the means of resisting their severity. Again, by the 29th canon of the Church, it appeared that persons were forbidden from performing the office of godfather or godmother without having previously received the sacrament of the Lord's supper. Was it not notorious that no person was ever asked whether he had received the sacrament or not? It was a matter of fact that not one person in ten, who took the obligation, ever received the sacrament, that it was passed over with perfect impunity, and that no punishment was inflicted upon those who were guilty of the violation of the canon. The 59th canon required that every clergyman before evening prayer should examine and instruct youth for half an hour at least before the service. Would any Gentleman say that the clergy of England discharged that duty. He was sure he knew many who did not do so [a laugh]. He did not know how to construe that laugh. If it were meant to say, that it was the practice of the clergy of the English Church throughout England to discharge that duly regularly, he begged leave to say that he thought that upon inquiry it would be found to be by no means a universal practice. It might prevail in some parishes; but it was the exception, and not the rule. And what was the punishment awarded for offenders? For the first offence they were to be severely reprimanded, and for the second offence suspended. He asked those Gentlemen who were anxious to show that they were cognizant of the clergy having performed their duty, whether they were cognizant of any clergyman having been severely reprimanded or suspended for neglecting these obligations? He was not surprised at receiving no answer. Another canon, the 57th, prohibited the clergy from frequenting taverns or playing at cards or dice, under pain of ecclesiastical censure. Now, he believed that clergymen were much like other persons, and that when they were so inclined they frequented taverns; and he did not hesitate to say, not wishing to cast any reproach upon the clergy generally, that they might sometimes play at cards or dice, but he had not heard of any censure of the Church having been passed upon clergymen who had been guilty of these practices. By the 112th and 113th canons it appeared that clergymen were required to present to the bishop once a-year all persons who lived in immorality or neglected to attend the Church. Now, in this great city of London, where the Consistorial Court was in active operation. [Mr. Goulburn said, the hon. Member does not cite the canons correctly.] He had read them shortly, but not incorrectly. He was afraid it would not be very desirable to read them at length, but in substance these canons required, that the ministers should present to the bishop once a year at least, all persons within the parish who should live immorally, or who should neglect to attend Church, and also all non-communicants at Easter. Was this done? There were judges sitting in judgment—and in great severity of judgment—against humble individuals; but against people in higher places they heard of no prosecutions. He believed, that many men in London did not attend Church, or receive the sacrament at Easter; but they were not presented. Did he quote these canons to cast reproach upon the clergy? He said no. Others might choose to put such a construction upon it if they pleased, but he cited these cases to show, that those persons who had the administration of the ecclesiastical law did not administer it in justice and equity—that they punished those persons who transgressed against the law who were in humble circumstances, and of an inferior rank in life, but that they did not punish those who were opulent and of high rank—large and important places which were capable of controlling their operation they let go free, and small places they compelled to pay rate—and lastly, that the judges of those courts were themselves persons on whom punishment would fall, if the canons, of the Church were strictly obeyed. He thought he had made out a case to prove, that John Thorogood had not done wrong when he petitioned for the abolition of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Could hon. Gentlemen think, that the present state of things ought to be suffered to exist? He was sure that when he appealed to the judgment and candour of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, they would say, that such a state of things ought not to exist, as that a man should be immured in a prison, deprived of all the consolation and gratification which he ought to enjoy from communication with society, for a trivial matter of this kind. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had reproached her Majesty's Ministers with hostility to the Church, but let him tell them that no ministers could have ever rendered a greater service to the Church than those who would abolish Church-rates, except those who would abolish Ecclesiastical Courts. He hoped, that both objects would, without loss of time, be effected. The last prayer of the petition was one with which he was very reluctant to weary the House. It prayed the House to grant such relief to the petitioner as in their wisdom they should deem fit. It might be said, that this person had offended against the law. But the House should recollect how many offenders there were against these laws, that those who ought to administer the laws were offenders, and they would then, he was sure, think, that this person might very fairly claim clemency on the part of the House, and, perhaps, even of the court that had put him in prison. There was another ground also, on which the petitioner might rest his conscientious scruples to pay Church-rates. By the 6th and 7th of George 3d, it was declared, that Quakers should not be liable to suffer in person for their refusal to pay Church-rates, because they had a conscientious objection to such payments. Now, if Quakers were exempted from answering in their persons, why not make the law applicable to all other Dissenters upon the same grounds. He thought it high time, that this law, this most anomalous and unjust law, should be amended. He thought, therefore, that this petitioner very fairly made out a case for bringing this petition under the consideration of the House; and whether he considered the subject of Church-rates, or the Ecclesiastical Courts, or the case of the petitioner himself, he was of opinion—and he hoped the House would be of opinion—that the time had come when they ought to remove from the law the obloquy that rested upon it. He would, therefore, move, "that there be laid before the House a copy of the decree issued against John Thorogood by the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, at the suit of the churchwardens of Chelmsford for the recovery of Church-rates in 1838, and a copy of the warrant by which he was committed to the gaol of Chelmsford in January, 1839, under the authority of which he was still confined in that prison."

wished to know, whether the hon. Member had any objection to add the name of the judge that passed sentence?

said, he had no objection to that or any other amendment that should be deemed necessary.

said, in rising to second the proposal of his hon. Friend, it was not his intention to make any accusation against the clergy, or to mix up anything in the discussion of an acrimonious or offensive nature. If there was any subject that should be approached in the opposite feeling, he thought this was that one. He would not believe but that every friend of the Church—at least every real friend of the Church—must feel, that it was high time that some provision should be made to prevent the recurrence of cases of this sort. He could not imagine it possible, that any gentleman could be so deluded as to believe, that these committals for non-payment of Church-rates could have any other influence than that of injuring the Church, and of spreading a spirit the very opposite of that which the Church was intended to promote, which it ought always to promote, and which it must promote in proportion as it exhibited the spirit of Christianity. It was probable, that this question might be met by its being stated, that this unfortunate man had been committed to his present imprisonment for contempt of court, in not appearing against the proceedings that were taken against him. He knew, also, that it would be stated, that this individual had been committed by a gentleman of the most liberal opinions, one of the most intelligent men in that House, an ornament to his profession, and one who felt as much as any gentleman could feel for those who were oppressed and wretched under the operation and exaction of these penalties. He knew it would be stated, that this unfortunate individual, the petitioner, had been committed under the authority and by virtue of the immediate warrant of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets. But what had that to do with the case? It only aggravated the case. There was a law in existence by which this poor man—he would admit an ignorant, a very ignorant man if they pleased—but a very conscientious man, for he would not have endured imprisonment of this kind, if he were not under very strong feelings of conscience; and he would ask, was there a Gentleman in that House who wished for the continuance of laws which operated to impose very severe penalties for the exercise of conscience? His hon. Friend had very well put the case, when he asked why there should exist a law that more severely operated against Protestant Dissenters than against Quakers? Was it not found that the operation of the law and the exaction of penalties from Quakers was inexpedient and indefensible. Yes, not only unjust, but inexpedient for the interests of the Church? The exemption from personal imprisonment was enacted on behalf of the Quakers, and was still inflicted on Protestant Dissenters. He submitted, whether those Gentlemen opposite, who deplored these individual cases, could not contrive some method, until an alteration was made in the law, by which this individual could be relieved from this extreme punishment. Every friend of the Church must feel that such cases, so far from benefitting the Church, were just precisely what the greatest enemy of the Church would wish. He lamented to say, that by that day's post he had received a letter detailing an exactly twin case to the unfortunate case before the House. The letter came from an individual for whose veracity he would not hesitate to pledge himself. It was from the Mayor of Worcester, and was as follows:—

"There were some poor Dissenters at the Broadway in Worcester, who had demurred to the payment of Easter dues, and proceedings had been taken against them in the spiritual court by a gentleman whose name he (Mr. Easthope) would not mention; but who was a clergyman. One poor man, named Israel Brown, having a wife and six children, had been cited for three years' dues, at the rate of 4d. a-year, and the expense of the citation was 3l. 3s. This money was paid by the co-operation of the man's neighbours, in order to prevent his going to prison."

From this statement, it appeared, that but for the benevolent interposition of his neighbours, this poor man, having a wife and six children, would have been cast into prison for a claim for Easter dues, amounting to one shilling. It was probable, that the poor man conceived that in law he was not bound to pay this demand. For how many Gentlemen were there in that House who thought what were called Easter offerings were voluntary contributions, and yet it was true that they were a compulsory payment! In the present case, their payment had been enforced; and but for the co-operation of some benevolent neighbours, this poor man, having a wife and six children, would have been cast into prison for a claim of three fourpences. He thought that the time was indeed come when some provision should be made against the infliction of penalties so severe, and mischiefs to religion so serious, as those which must inevitably result from this sort of proceeding. He hoped that these discussions would quicken her Majesty's Government to provide a remedy for these lamentable and oppressive evils; and he hoped, also, that when the subject was brought on, it would be treated, not as a party or sectarian question, but with an earnest and honest desire on all sides to secure the rights of conscience and emancipate the national religion from the charge of injustice and oppression.

said, that he must admit that the speech of the hon. Member who had last spoken, had been characterised by a much better spirit than that of the hon. Member who preceded him. With respect to the hon. Member for Leeds, although he commenced his speech by laying claim to a great deal of good temper in the manner he dealt with the subject, yet he must say there appeared to him to be a great deal of asperity, mixed up with somewhat of the spirit of injustice, in what fell from him. The hon. Member stated, that the petitioner averred that he could not expect to get justice at the hands of the Ecclesiastical Court. But every one who knew the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, who presided in that court, would, he was sure, treat such a remark with the contempt it deserved. The hon. Member appeared to labour under a great deal of ignorance as to what were the functions and duties of judges. He appeared entirely to forget that they were not the parties to bring on cases, but to decide upon all cases brought before them by others. When the hon. Member said, that the judges did not dare to face the large communities, but only the smaller ones, and that they did not dare to deal equally with the rich and the poor, he was sure that the hon. Member could find nothing in this or any other case to warrant such insinuations. If the hon. Member could show him any case which had been brought before the Ecclesiastical Courts in which justice had been administered differently to the rich and the poor, then, indeed, he should be ready to give every attention to the charge. He would not enter upon the general subject of church-rates at present, when there was every probability of the House being counted out; but he would only ask the hon. Member when a man had defied the authority of a judge before whom he was cited, how could that judge act otherwise than defend and vindicate the authority of the law? The hon. Member had given the House a great variety of pathetic details of this case, as to the time of year at which the petitioner was taken to prison, the number of hours he was kept without seeing his friends, &c.; but he did not think the House, looking to the merits of the case, had been much moved from its propriety by these statements. He must say, that in his opinion, the hon. Member had mixed himself up on many occasions with matters connected not only with the temporalities, but with the spiritualities of the Church, rather more than, as a Dissenter, he was fairly entitled to do. In conclusion, he had only to disclaim, on the part of the Church, all the suggestions which had been made by the hon. Member.

expressed his regret that the bill for the abolition of the Ecclesiastical Courts and Church-rates had not been passed. He begged distinctly to say, that he thought no charge of injustice was attributable to the judges of these courts in any of their proceedings, for they were bound to administer the law as they found it, and not otherwise. As a magistrate himself, a great many cases of severe hardship had come before him from time to time, arising out of these jurisdictions; and he therefore hoped that the Legislature would interfere to prevent their recurrence.

said, that the case which was stated in this petition had come before one of the most learned individuals in the country, and one as little inclined to do wrong as any person in the country. The hon. Member had made it a charge against the judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts, that they did not seek out and punish those who violated the canons. Why, the hon. Member might just as well go to the statute-book and say, that the judges in our Temporal Courts were responsible for not calling into operation all the statutes that were to be found there. With respect to the case in question, he regretted that power had not been given to the Ecclesiastical Courts to enforce their sentences by distress. In the case of Quakers, the remedy was given by a distress of goods. With respect to the Ecclesiastical Courts, bills had been previously brought forward by the administrations of Earl Grey, of Sir R. Peel, and of Lord Melbourne, for their amendment; and these bills had failed, not from any unwillingness on the part of the Church to consent to them, but from the opposition of the various local interests connected with the inferior courts. With respect to the relief prayed by the petitioner, it could be got out of the House. He could be brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, and if any grounds could be shewn for it, that Court would order his discharge.

was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member opposite express a wish that these courts should be abolished. He would only refer to the treatment of the Church-rate victims at Truro the other day, when a splendid procession, and an elegant dinner awaited them on their liberation from prison, to show the House the impolicy of persevering in the present system. It appeared to him a pitiful course of proceeding to oppress the poor in order to support a Church which ought to be rich enough to support itself. It was surely making it out a beggarly religion that could not support itself without oppressing the people. How could they put up a pretence to civil and religious liberty if people were obliged to pay for other people's clergymen, as well as their own? It was intimated that Mr. Thorogood had brought this misfortune upon himself. So he had; and for so doing, in his opinion, he had much merit. Was not Hampden held in veneration for resisting an oppressive tax? He held in his hand a list of persecutions (for so he would call them), which had taken place in Birmingham. Men for small sums had goods to a large amount taken out of their shops, and sold for a few shillings. Why, it was nothing less than robbery—it was a robbery against conscience. Hon. Members would not deny, that the pockets of the people were picked by law every day. The system was one which no enlightened community ought to suffer to exist any longer. It was inconsistent with Christian principle to punish a man for believing according to the dictates of his conscience. He really thought, that if the bishops and prebends of the Church, rich as it was, were to contribute towards a fund for this purpose, this odious exaction, amounting to about 240,000l., might be abolished, without any detriment to the Church. In the mean time, here was this unfortunate Mr. Thorogood in prison; and how was he to get out? The judge had not the power to liberate him—[An hon. Member: By a subscription.]—A subscription! he hoped not. Mr. Thorogood was now a martyr to the cause, and he hoped that he would remain in prison, to be a constant stimulus to the Government and to the public; so that there should be public meetings every day, till some measure was carried to remove this stigma from the Church.

thanked the hon. Gentle- man who had just sat down, for changing the character of a debate which had begun in so acrimonious a tone. He should not have troubled the House, were it not that he had interrupted the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the motion in the course of his observations. He had asked the hon. Gentleman to read the canon which he had quoted. Now, what were the exact words of that canon on which the hon. Member had founded a charge against a clergyman? They were—"Because it often comes to pass that persons of the laity whose duty it is to prevent the commission of sin and wickedness neglect that duty, it is hereby enacted that the clergyman of the parish may, if he think fit, take measures for their prevention." This was the literal meaning and words of the canon, and yet the hon. Member insisted that it was a positive duty incumbent on the clergyman to restrain evil doers. The hon. Member must surely have mistaken the canon, and had consequently fallen into a gross misrepresentation of the case.

should not oppose the motion. Being resident in the neighbourhood in which the transaction had occurred, he was anxious it should have every publicity. He hoped, that the unfortunate gentleman, when satisfied by the statement of his case and the production of his papers in the House of Commons, would purge his contempt, and regain his liberty. With regard to the statement which had been made that his wife had been refused admission to the prison, he could state that on the only occasion on which application was made to the visiting magistrate, permission was granted. In his opinion, the more the matter was sifted the more clearly it would be proved that the magistrates had merely done their duty.

could not assent to all that had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, but he cordially assented to the remark, that that hon. Member did not like subscriptions. He was sorry that he would not support the man with his purse as well as his tongue. A large subscription had already been made for the man, and he was neither poor nor ignorant.

moved, pursuant to instructions given to him as chairman of the select committee on private petitions, that lithographic petitions should be considered as printed petitions, and therefore should not be received by the House.

was proceeding to observe, that no good reasons had been alleged in support of this motion, when he was interrupted by

who, having said that this was far too important a subject to be discussed in so thin a House, moved that it be counted, and forty Members not being present, it adjourned.