=Source.=—_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 60, col. 309.
Mr. Monckton Milnes said, it might be in the recollection of some
Members of that House, that towards the end of last Session he gave
notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill for
the repeal of so much of certain acts of Elizabeth and James I. as
inflicted penalties for the non-attendance on divine worship. The
circumstances to which his motion applied would be found stated in the
sixth report of the Inspectors of Prisons, published last year; the
case had attracted great attention, and the vigilant eye of the press,
to which public justice owed so much, had been directed to it in such a
manner as to render it impossible that the case should not come before
Parliament in some way or other. He thought, therefore, that it was
better that the case should be brought under the notice of the House by
one who, as far as he is known at all, is known as a humble and
attached member of the Church of England rather than by any one
indifferent or even hostile to that sacred institution. The cases to
which he particularly wished to advert were stated in page 79 of the
report, and are described by the Inspector as follows:
“Among other complaints made to me by prisoners, J.
C. came forward and stated that he was placed in the
Ecclesiastical Court, and sentenced to pay a fine of
one shilling and fourteen shillings costs; that he had
been in prison ten weeks, and had no means of paying,
and hoped that a representation might be made of his
case, or he must remain a prisoner for ever. Upon
referring to this man’s commitment, I find that he was
summarily convicted before two magistrates, that on
the _______ June, being the Lord’s Day, called Sunday,
in the township of _______, did neglect to attend a
church, or at some other place of religious worship,
on the said day, he not having any reasonable excuse
to be absent, and adjudged to forfeit and pay one
shilling together with fourteen shillings costs, and
in default to be kept in prison until the said sums
shall be paid. It appeared that the following number
of persons had been committed for a similar offence,
and been discharged upon payment of the fine and costs:
┌───────┬─────────────┬────────┬───────────┬────────────┐
│ Name. │When received│ Fine. │ Costs. │ Period of │
│ │ in Prison. │ │ │Confinement.│
├───────┼─────────────┼────────┼───────────┼────────────┤
│ │ 1839. │ s. d. │ £ s. d. │ │
│ J. B. │ February 12 │ 1 0 │ 0 10 6 │ 63 days │
│ J. S. │ February 12 │ 1 0 │ 0 10 6 │ 61 ” │
│ W. W. │ April 15 │ 1 0 │ 0 19 0 │ 16 ” │
│ J. S. │ April 22 │ 1 0 │ 0 13 0 │ 12 ” │
│ G. B. │ August 5 │ 1 0 │ 1 4 0 │ 17 ” │
│ J. K. │ August 6 │ 1 0 │ 0 11 0 │ 2 ” │
│ A. G. │ November 4 │ 1 0 │ 0 17 6 │ 16 ” │
│ B. K. │ November 6 │ 1 0 │ 1 7 0 │ 26 ” │
│ P. F. │ December 13 │ 1 0 │ 0 12 6 │ 3 ” │
│ T. R. │ December 23 │ 1 0 │ 0 16 0 │ 27 ” │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ 1840. │ │ │ │
│ T. S. │ May 10 │ 1 0 │ 0 12 0 │ 3 ” │
└───────┴─────────────┴────────┴───────────┴────────────┘
The poverty of the prisoner J. C. appearing to be such
as to leave no hope of his being able to pay the fine
and costs, I decided on making a representation of his
case to the Secretary of State, who was pleased to
recommend him forthwith as a fitting object for her
Majesty’s pardon, and he was discharged in consequence.
He (Mr. Monckton Milnes) believed that in all those
cases the parties proceeded against were simple
labouring men, who would have been totally incapable
of paying the fines inflicted upon them, if the
case had not attracted the notice of her Majesty’s
Ministers; and it may be remarked, that in the first
case the man was kept in prison during the whole
hay-time and harvest, and was thus prevented from
earning the means of his winter sustenance.... In a
question of abuse of this nature, it was but natural
that they should enquire what was the conduct of the
magistrates. He had communicated with one of these
magistrates, who had written:
A man is brought before the magistrates charged
with drunkenness in its most offensive form on the
Sabbath, and with neglecting church. On enquiry it is
found that this is his habitual practice, and that
his conduct in this state renders him a pest to the
neighbourhood. Perhaps even you will admit that such a
character deserves punishment, and that he ought to be
fined for drunkenness. Well, fine him. He refuses to
pay, and has no goods on which to distrain. What then
is to be done? Put him in the stocks, the law says;
but we have no stocks, and the vagabond escapes scot
free. To prevent this result and in respect to such
characters only, recourse has been had to the statute
enabling magistrates to fine for non-attendance at
public worship, under which committals follow in case
of non-payment.”