Commons Sitting of 6 June 1836

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool, that Newspapers Containing only Advertisements, and Circulated Gratis, may be Exempt from Duty in the Alteration; and from Retailers of Beer in various Places, that they may be placed on the same Footing as Licensed Victuallers.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, against Turnpike Trust Consolidation Bill.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, praying (he House to adhere to the Municipal Corporations' Act (Ireland) as originally passed by them.—By Mr. MACKINNON, from the Manufacturers of Carpets, Rugs, &c, Middlesex, for the Prevention of Fraud in their Trade.—By several How. MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Amendment of the Factories' Act.—By Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, from Denby, for Revision of the Criminal Code.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, in favour of Excise Licences' (Ireland) Bill.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, against Spirits being Allowed to be sold by Grocers (Ireland).—By Mr. CALLAGHAN, from Cork, against the Amendments introduced by the Lords in. Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers.

TRADE WITH PORTUGAL.
Mr. Robinsonhad given notice last week of his intention to put a question to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs relating to the commercial relations between Great Britain and Portugal. His reason for giving that notice was, that after the expiration of the treaty of Rio Janeiro on the 30th of April last, and before any new commercial relations had been entered into with Portugal, the Portuguese Government suddenly, and without notice, notwithstanding the assurance to Lord Howard de Walden, directed duties to be levied of twenty-nine per cent., instead of fifteen percent., in all the ports of the kingdom with the exception of Lisbon and Oporto. A vessel belonging to some friends of his (Mr. Robinson's) had called off the port Viana, thinking that the cargo would only be chargeable with a duty of fifteen per cent; but, being informed that it had been raised to twenty-nine per cent., it had proceeded to Oporto. This, certainly, was an extraordinary and unfriendly proceeding on the part of Portugal. He begged to ask the noble Viscount, what were the present commercial relations between this country and Portugal, for British merchants were not aware to what duties they were or were not liable?
Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that with regard to the particular case referred to by he hon. Gentleman, although he was not officially informed upon the subject, yet he believed that the additional duty imposed in the port of Viana had been laid on by the local authorities for local pur-

125
poses, and not in consequence of any order from the Court of Lisbon. At the same time, the treaty having expired, the Portuguese Government was at full liberty to make such changes in the duties as it thought expedient, and such would remain the case until a new treaty had been concluded. If, therefore, the duty had been raised from fifteen percent, to twenty-nine per cent., by order of the Government, this country could have no just ground of complaint. It was perfectly true that great inconvenience arose from the present uncertainty of our commercial relations with Portugal; but when the hon. Member asked for information, as to the probability of the signature of a new commercial treaty, all he could say in answer was, that negotiations for the purpose were in progress. He could not possibly inform the House what was the precise state of those negotiations. Two or three changes of Administration had occurred in Portugal; it was well known how such changes in this country retarded, or defeated, public business; and, in Portugal, the difficulty was greater than in England. He did not wish to conceal from the House that many persons in Portugal entertained very strong, but utterly unfounded prejudices, in favour of protecting duties, with a view to the fostering of their own particular manufactures. He trusted that these prejudices would not prevail so far as to impede the conclusion of a treaty between the two kingdoms, founded upon principles of just reciprocity and mutual liberality; but he could not too strongly impress upon Members, that if foreigners entertained prejudices on the subject, those prejudices had been sometimes too much encouraged by speeches made in that House upon foreign trade. When the Government of Great Britain urged upon foreign Governments the advantage of unrestricted commerce, subject only to such duties as were necessary for revenue, the answer had now and then been, "This is a very good doctrine for England, which by means of restrictive duties has attained her present enviable prosperity; but we shall pursue the same course of protection and prohibition, and when we have equalled England in prosperity, we will imitate her in liberality." It was in vain to tell such persons, that England had flourished, not by the aid of, but in spite of, protecting duties; and that her progress had been greatly retarded by the vicious
126
system of former times. As long, however, as persons in foreign countries unfortunately found their prejudices supported by language sometimes held in that House on those subjects, the difficulties of Government in persuading other countries to conclude commercial treaties upon liberal principles, would be considerably increased. He could assure the House, that no efforts had been, or should be wanting, to persuade the Government of Portugal to conclude a new treaty of commerce upon principles of just reciprocity; but if Portugal resorted to prohibition, it would remain for this country to consider whether that system should be retaliated on the produce of Portugal, and whether her wines and fruits should be subject to duties of the same description as she imposed on the woollens, cottons, and other manufactures of Great Britain.
Mr. Robinsonadded, that he had not wished to provoke a discussion; he understood the application of the observations of the noble Lord, and on Thursday next he hoped to have an opportunity of answering them. What he complained of was the breach of a positive engagement on the part of Portugal, for he held in his hand the copy of a letter from Lord Howard de Walden, in which due notice of any change in the duties was stated to have been promised by the Government of Lisbon. What had been done at Viana was without notice, and he should like to know what security merchants had for carrying on trade, if municipal bodies in different parts had the power to increase the duties? The noble Lord did not seem to know the facts of the case, or not to understand their application.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that although he was not officially informed that the duty at Viana had been increased from fifteen percent. to twenty-nine per cent, by the local authorities, he had good reason to believe that such was the case,

BURY ST. EDMUND'S.
Earl Jermynpresented a petition from Bury St. Edmund's, complaining of the appointment of some, and of the non-appointment of other Magistrates for that Borough; and his Lordship entered into a statement upon the subject, no part of which reached the gallery.
Mr. Scarlettsupported the prayer of the petition, and referred to the case of Norwich, where the Magistrates had been

127
nominated from party and political motives. Those persons in whom the inhabitants had most confidence, from long knowledge, had been left out of the Commission.
Mr. Roebuckspoke to order. The hon. and learned Member was debating on a petition.
The Speakerdecided that such a course was very inexpedient.
Lord John Russellhaving been particularly appealed to by the noble Lord who presented the petition, would either make his statement now or on a future day, to which the debate might be adjourned. It seemed to him rather an extraordinary course to present a petition to the House upon the subject before an appeal had been made to the Secretary of State or to the Lord Chancellor. That was the proper course; and if justice were then refused, an appeal might be made to the House of Commons. He had never heard that any want of Magistrates was felt at Bury St. Edmund's; if any were wanted, he was quite ready to add to the number already appointed. Out of the list presented by the Town-council, he had rejected three persons; the absence of one of those he had nominated might possibly occasion a temporary inconvenience. One person he had named was certainly an attorney, although his practice had been to reject attorneys when a sufficient number of respectable and competent persons could be found without them. This, however, afforded no sufficient reason for resorting to the House in the first instance. The noble Lord had not complained that the persons appointed were not respectable; and if they were not numerous, as he had said before, he was quite willing to appoint others. If the town-councils of the kingdom recommended individuals of liberal principles, he thought it would be some time before the House of Commons entertained that objection, and decided that the parties were, therefore, not eligible. During twenty years that he had sat in the House, he had constantly seen magistrates appointed from party and political motives, but he had never on this account thought it his duty to complain, as long as the individuals were persons of respectable character, and adequate to the administration of justice. Now, indeed, a different rule of conduct seemed to prevail, and a course was taken which he had
128
never ventured to adopt. He knew that the great majority of Magistrates in England and Wales had long been opposed to him in politics, but he did not think that a constitutional objection to their being in the Commission. That party could not now bear to lose any of its power; and although he did not complain of the petition, he thought that the House could not properly entertain the question. It was quite impossible for Parliament to institute an inquiry into the particular political opinions of different individuals; and to say that because this or that man, however good his character, and however large his fortune, had, at a certain time, voted in favour of certain measures, therefore, he was not a fit person to be placed in the Commission of the Peace—that was a proposition which he never ventured to make when he sat on the opposite side of the House; and he was sure that the noble Lord, after the very fair manner in which he had stated the case of the petitioners, would not altogether venture to assert that doctrine, a doctrine in his (Lord John Russell's) opinion, most injurious to the prerogative of the Crown.
The Solicitor-Generalhad the honour of holding the situation of Recorder for the Borough of Bury St. Edmund's, and he regretted that he had not been aware of the intention of the noble Lord to present the petition on this occasion; because, if he had, he would have been in his place when it was first brought forward. He had received from the borough a communication, informing him that a meeting of the inhabitants of that town had been duly convened by the mayor, at which they had come to certain resolutions, which they had requested him, on this petition being presented, to state to the House. It was not necessary for him to state them at length; he would confine himself to stating the substance of them, which was this:—that the inhabitants being duly convened by the mayor, in consequence of a report that such a petition as the one now before the House was about to be presented, met, and came to the conclusion that they did not know that any public meeting of the burgesses had taken place on the subject. [Earl Jermyn: It was not pretended to be a public meeting]. Very well; that got over the difficulty as to the reception of the petition; at the same time it materially diminished the weight and importance of

129
it. At the meeting of the inhabitants, several resolutions were come to, the last of which was, "That this meeting fully believe, that those persons whose names are already inserted in the Commission of the Peace, as well as those since recommended by the Town-council to the Crown, are suitable and proper persons to act as justices of the peace for this borough, and that they do not believe that the burgesses have in any instance been deprived of that proper adjudication of their concerns which Parliament has provided for them by legislative enactment."
Earl Jermynhardly knew whether the debate should be adjourned or not. It was very unfortunate that the noble Lord had thrown so much asperity into the debate already, because he (Lord Jermyn) had merely stated the facts that were complained of by the petitioners. He was not himself personally aware of them. In presenting the petition which had been intrusted to him by a considerable portion of his constituents, he had done no more than his duty. There was nothing in the petition which made it at all irregular or improper to present it to the House. He was sorry he had not the opportunity to communicate to the Solicitor-General his intention to present the petition to-day. He did communicate the fact to the noble Lord on Saturday last, and also on Friday. With respect to the counter-resolution, referred to by the Solicitor-General, it did not appear to him that the circumstance of the meeting being held in the absence of the mayor altered the facts of the case as stated in the petition. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had given too much importance to the meeting at which those resolutions were passed. With regard to one statement made by the noble Lord, he begged to assure the noble Lord that this was the first time he had ever heard that any communication had been made of a wish on the part of any persons in the borough for the appointment of a gentleman of Conservative principles to the magistracy. He was aware that a wish had been entertained for the appointment of a gentleman who was neutral in politics, but not for any one of Conservative principles.
Lord John Russellbegged to assure the noble Lord that he found no fault whatever with the course pursued by the noble Lord; on the contrary, the noble Lord had given him fair notice of his intention to present the
130
petition. He complained of those who had signed this petition, and had intrusted it to the noble Lord, for not making correct representations to the noble Lord, of the real state of the facts before he presented it.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REGISTRATION BILL. — HALF-PAY OFFICERS.
Lord John Russellhaving moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of the Registration of Births, &c, Bill,
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that he was anxious to bring before the House the cases of those officers who had been deprived of their half-pay without a trial, in order that they might be properly investigated. This was the only instance in which British subjects were punished without inquiry and without being heard in their defence, and in which individuals had do endure great indignity and injury, without having any means of redress in their power. The right hon. Baronet opposite had, on a recent occasion, compared the incomes received by the clergy of the Irish Church with those of the doorkeepers of the House. He was willing to admit, that the revenues of the Irish clergy were reduced to a very low ebb, but he did not consider that they had any more reason to complain in that respect than the officers of the navy. The oldest post-captain on the list, and who had held that rank for thirty-five years, was in the receipt of half-pay amounting to no more than 264 l. a-year. Those of thirty years standing received only 228 l., and the others only 191 1. But officers were not allowed to enjoy even such slender pittances as these in security; they were liable at any moment, without a trial, without being brought face to face with their accusers, or allowed an opportunity of proving their innocence, to be struck off the half-pay list. A commander of fifty years standing was only entitled to a half-pay of 182 l. 10 s., and if promoted to the rank of captain he would never receive more than 191 l. He hoped, then, that gentlemen opposite, who had dwelt so much on the poverty of the Irish clergy, would be induced from the same motives which actuated them in that case to give their support to his proposition. The noble Lord opposite had appealed to the House of Commons as gentlemen in favour of the Irish clergy, and he (Sir E. Codrington) claimed the same considera-

131
tion for officers of the navy. Hon. Gentlemen were little aware of what those of that profession underwent; they were exposed to dangers and difficulties to which no other class was liable; even peace brought no repose from exertion; and yet their remuneration was proportionately less than that of any other class of the community. He was not now contending, however, for an augmentation of half-pay, all that he now asked was, that they might not be deprived of the pittance allowed them without any reason being assigned for it. The Secretary of the Admiralty had charged him with a desire to procure these papers from mere motives of curiosity; but the design he had in view was, to give an opportunity to officers to assert their rights. He could not consent that an officer should be swindled out of his commission, as he must affirm had more than once been done. The hon. Gentleman had asked what was to be done to an officer who was proved to have acted in a manner unbecoming the character of a gentleman? Why, such a man's name ought to be erased from the list; but what ground could there be for depriving a deserving officer of his commission? When they demanded a reform of the Pension List, they were told, that the pensions, even of those who had never done anything to deserve them, must be regarded as vested rights; but it appeared that the receipt of half-pay for forty or fifty years was not sufficient to constitute such a right. The right hon. Baronet opposite had said, that if ever he should return to the station he had occupied— that of First Lord of the Admiralty—he would advise the Crown to strike his (Sir E. Codrington's) name off the list, if he did anything unbecoming the character of an officer or a gentleman. The expression used by the right hon. Baronet seemed to imply a doubt whether such a power rested with the Crown only, or might be delegated to the Admiralty. Admiral Vernon had been similarly punished by the Admiralty for writing a pamphlet which gave offence to them, but had been reinstated by the King, after the twelve judges had been consulted. He thought that this case proved, that this prerogative could only be exercised by the Sovereign himself. But he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet what he considered to be conduct unbecoming the character of an officer or a gentleman? If he were to
132
employ his Majesty's ships in the conveyance of building materials for a private residence, he should like to know if that would be so considered. He wished for an answer, that he might know what risk he ran of losing his own commission. He was of opinion that the Admiralty ought not to possess the arbitrary power of ruining an officer, and, even if they did, ought never to exercise it. The hon. and gallant Admiral concluded by moving for returns of the names of all officers, of whatever rank, who had been deprived of their half-pay without their consent or the investigation of a court-martial, from the year 1790 up to the present period, with the alleged reasons for such deprivation; also a return of any persons whose half-pay had been restored to them, subsequently to such deprivation, with the alleged reasons for such restoration.
Lord John Russellwould not enter into the question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend. The Order of the Day was for proceeding with the Bill for the Registration of Births, Marriages, and Deaths, and if his hon. and gallant Friend, had any motion to bring forward, he thought it necessary for him to show that the House should not entertain that Bill, and that that proposition was of such a peculiar and urgent nature that the Order of the Day should be postponed. He did not mean to advance any argument for or against the motion, but no reason had been given why the House should not now consider the Bill which stood first among the Orders of the Day.
Sir Edward Codringtoncomplained, that whenever he brought forward this subject, he was always met by a point of form. He should however take an opportunity of again submitting the motion before going into a Committee of Supply.
Motion withdrawn.
Order of the Day read; and the House went into a Committee to re-consider the Report on the Bill for the Registration of Births.—On the first clause,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he rose to state his main objection to the Registration Bill, as regarded Births, at that early stage of the discussion, because it was of such a nature as could not, he apprehended, he removed by any verbal alteration of the clauses in the Committee. He owned he had some reluctance to explain that objection to the Committee, because it was one connected with the religious obligations, and

133
advantages which belonged to the Established Church; and he knew, that of all places in which it was possible to state objections of a religious character, perhaps the House of Commons was the least fitted for discussing them. But a strong sense of duty induced him not to permit this measure to pass through the House without pointing out those objections which on the score of religious principles, he believed attached to it. The Bill provided for the Registration of Births in this way, that in the case of every birth, the parent was bound to give notice of that birth, and to state the name of the child at the same time. Now the complaint that he (Mr. Goulburn) made of this arrangement was, that its tendency would be to dissociate the naming of the child from the baptism, and in the case of ignorant persons it would induce them to withhold the inestimable benefit of that rite from their children. It was impossible to conceal from ourselves, that however anxious the Church was, that the humblest of her Members should be fully acquainted with the importance of her Sacraments, there were many among her professing Members, who, from ignorance, did not fully appreciate the benefits which the rite of baptism conferred upon their children, and who were now only led by the temporal consideration of the necessity of giving those children names, to give them the benefit of the ordinance of baptism, because without submitting them to the latter they could not, at the present time, assign to them the former. If the two were dissociated by Act of Parliament, he (Mr. Goulburn) believed it would go far to increase that ignorance which already prevailed too widely on this subject, and apparently to sanction the persuasion that the child once named, the religious ceremony might be omitted. He thought every Member in that House (whether members of the Church of England or not) would sympathize with him as to the importance of not excluding the innocent children of ignorant parents from the inestimable benefits resulting from the rite of baptism: and if the effect of the Bill were such as he had reason to apprehend it would be; viz. that many who were brought to be registered would never afterwards be brought to the baptismal font, he thought they would agree with him in saying that, however great and numerous the advantages of the Bill in other respects might be,—however necessary to procure correct statistical information,—however useful and valuable for legal inquiries—an evil would be caused for which
134
none of these advantages could compensate. When the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, brought forward a measure upon this subject in 1834, he stated that he forbore to press it, because in his opinion the expense it would entail upon the country was too great, and was a sufficient reason for reconsidering it; all he (Mr. Goulburn) asked of the noble Lord was, that he would give equal consideration to the objection which he was urging,—of far greater importance than a mere pecuniary objection; one connected with the spiritual interests of these innocent children. He did not ask the noble Lord to forego the benefit of a general registration: all he begged was, that the noble Lord would not hold out to Members of the Church of England an inducement to forego, on behalf of their children, the advantages derivable from a religious ordinance, by dissociating, in his act, what had been from the earliest period of the Christian Church associated together, the naming of a child and the rite of Baptism. Would the noble Lord gain anything by this dissociation? The Bill of the noble Lord only afforded, after all, secondary evidence: while under the present system, there was the best evidence that could be afforded,—the certificate of baptism. Under the Bill of the noble Lord, there was no evidence but that which was drawn from intermediate persons, who might have an interest in stating the facts incorrectly, and coming before a Court of Justice, it could only be received as secondary evidence. What objection could there be to having an additional column, in the present Register, in which the clergyman might insert the period at which the child was born, along with the name? This plan would have one great advantage over that proposed by the noble Lord, that it would not impose upon the members of the Church of England any additional trouble: for under this Bill they would have, whether they baptised their children at the Church or not, to give the regular notice to the registrar. It was very possible under the Bill of the noble Lord, for some of the districts to be of very great extent; and individuals residing in those districts would have either to incur the penalty affixed to non-compliance with the provisions of the Bill, or to incur any inconvenience, or injury, which might attend their journey to the registrar. Take the case of a labouring man, residing a considerable distance from the Registry

135
of the district to which he belonged. He would either have, on the birth of every child, to incur the penalty imposed on him for not obeying the provisions of the act, or to lose the profit arising from a day's labour, (to him perhaps no trifling matter) and run the risk of offending, or even injuring by his absence, the employer on whom he depended for daily subsistence. But, by acting on the plan which he (Mr. Goulburn) proposed, the labourer would be spared the double duty of attending the registrar, and also the Church, to obtain baptism for his child, while you would have the same degree of evidence as the Bill of the noble Lord provided. It might be said, that he (Mr. Goulburn) ought to have prepared clauses to carry into effect the alterations he had suggested, and proposed them in Committee: but the reason he had not done so was, that he thought those alterations could be rendered far more effectual by those who had framed the whole of the Bill, and who therefore understood the correspondence and connection of its several parts, than by any individual Member of the House. He had now stated what appeared to him the main objection to this Bill so far as regarded the Registration of Births: viz. that he could not consent to dissociate what had, from the earliest period of the Christian Church, been associated, he could not consent to the holding out by those clauses in this Bill which effected this dissociation, that which he believed would operate as a Parliamentary sanction and encouragement to the opinion, that the naming of the child was the first and most important thing to be considered, and that the rite of baptism was but of secondary consideration. He begged the Committee to consider, if the Bill passed as it at present stood, what a situation the conscientious clergy of the Established Church would be in; they would feel themselves bound naturally to exhort their flocks, both in season and out of season, not to forego the rite of baptism, and to lay before them the necessity of bringing their children to the font. And he (Mr. Goulburn) could not but fear, that their conscientious endeavours to arouse the ignorant and the indolent, to a true sense of the advantages of the rite of baptism, would produce in the lower orders of the people a dislike of the provisions of the statute, which required them to bring their children to be registered, whether baptised or not.
Lord John Russell: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, has acted very properly in stating his objections at the present stage of the Bill, because undoubtedly they are objections which go to the very principle of the Bill,—the establishment of a civil Registry of Births, Marriages, and Deaths. It is the opinion of those who framed this Bill, that with respect to Births, the State ought to establish a civil registry, common to persons of all religious persuasions, not a registry of members of the established Church only; or of any other denomination, but one, in the benefits of which all might alike partake. Now, Sir, such being the object of the Bill it is quite evident, that what the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposes could not be effected without entirely foregoing that object,—without framing the Bill in a totally different way. He says, the Bill might be framed in such a manner, as that the clergyman, at the baptism, might enter in the registry the time of the child's birth. But he seems to forget, that there are a great many persons who would not be inclined to administer to their children the ordinance of baptism, according to the forms of the Church of England.
Mr. Goulburn: I referred only to the case of Members of that Church,—I do not wish to interfere with the Members of any other.
Lord John Russell: Exactly. And then arises the very objection which I have just stated: viz., that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman will impose upon persons not belonging to the Church of England, the burden of a ceremony not according to their belief, or it will make necessary two separate registers:—one register, belonging to Members of the Church of England, the other, those who differ from her. With respect to the births and deaths of parties, they are matters which no doubt concern the welfare of the community, and in which no religious difference ought to be admitted: therefore, I say, there should be one register,—and that that should be a register taking notice of no religious creed, but common to all the members of the community. The right hon. Gentleman said (and I know it is an objection which is often urged against this Bill) that in as much as you ask only the name of the child and do not require the baptism to be stated, you thereby produce an impression in the minds of the ignorant, that the rite

137
of baptism may be dispensed with: and that the name having been registered, they would never attend the Church, for the purpose of having their children baptised. Sir, that is, as the right hon. Gentleman properly said, an objection founded on the ignorance of the lower orders of the people; and I say, that if that ignorance does exist (and I am sorry to hear it stated by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as by many others, that it does to a great extent prevail) I say the cure for that is to give the people knowledge, to dispel that ignorance. I say it is the fault of Parliament,—I do not say it is the fault of the Church,—but the fault of Parliament, which has left the people in that ignorance. I do not think we should frame our laws for that ignorance or that you should give up the benefits of a national register, because you wish to connect two things,—the registering of the name,—I do not say the giving of the name, but the registering of the name and the rite of baptism. If you wish the people to avail themselves of a certain rite of the Church, I say they ought to be taught by the State, and sufficiently enlightened in the duties of their religion. I am not prepared to say, that you ought to encourage their ignorance, and hold out a premium to that ignorance, by refusing to pass a Bill for a national register. Therefore, certainly, I adhere to my original opinion; that you ought to have a register for persons of all religious persuasions. Even if it were necessary or expedient to effect the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, it might be effected in a much simpler manner. You might enact that the Christian name should not be entered in the register till after the baptism; but I think it will be impossible to attain the great end we have in view,—the establishment of a general register—but by some machinery similar to that provided in this Bill: the right hon. Gentleman has not explained how he would propose to deal with those persons who hold the doctrine of adult baptism:- —in their case it would be necessary to ascertain the period of a birth which took place perhaps eighteen or twenty years back. It is evident of how little value the evidence of the Church register would be in this case: it would in fact be no evidence at all. Upon the whole, therefore, I think you ought to make your register, a register, not of baptisms, but of births.
Sir Robert H. Inglisthought, that the
138
difficulty which the noble Lord apprehended might easily be met by there being a provision to this effect—that registers of the births and deaths of Dissenters should be opened at Dissenting meeting houses, and that copies of them should periodically (annually, biennially, or at other intervals, as the provision might be) be forwarded to the Central Registration Office. This, he thought, would supply the State with the necessary information, whether for national or for legal purposes, while, at the same time, it would obviate all the objections which had been raised to the plan proposed by the Bill, on the score of the mischievous influence it would have upon certain classes of the population in tempting them to forego the rite of baptism according to the ordinances of the Established Church. He admitted the principle laid down by the noble Lord, that a register was absolutely necessary for national and legal purposes; but he could not think that there was any necessity for running-counter to the opinions and to the principles of a large body of the public, the members of the Church of England, and the clergy. He had many other objections to the Bill as it now stood. For instance, it was difficult to be seen how the registry was to be induced among certain classes of the population. If it was to be voluntary, there was then no occasion for a general register, because the members of the Church, being satisfied with the present system, let the Dissenters maintain their own register. If, on the other hand, it was to be compulsory, whether the compulsion was by way of fine or of domiciliary visit, considerable objection must arise. If by line, was it to be a fixed amount, or was it to be proportioned to the means of the payer? If fixed, it must operate partially as between rich and poor, and if proportional it must induce a species of minute inquiry into the affairs of individuals. If it was by domiciliary visits that the practice of registering was to be enforced, the persons intrusted with the office would require to be armed with such powers as Englishmen would not readily submit to. On the score of expense, too, he objected to the plan, as it would lead to the necessity of imposing a burthen on parishes for the maintenance of a registry-office. But after all, his main objections to the Bill were religious ones. He objected to the Bill, because, for the first time, it separated the form of naming the

139
child from the rite of Christian baptism— a rite which had been observed and respected since the existence of the Church. He objected to it also because it went to tempt certain classes of the people, consequently to forego the right of baptism; and, finally, he objected to the measure because it tended to bring the regularly ordained minister of the Church of England to the level of the ambulatory minister of fluctuating congregrations; and because it would have the effect of degrading and bringing into contempt a portion of the service of the Church of England, which had always hitherto been regarded as sacred and essentially necessary.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, had urged as his principal objection to this Bill that, by requiring the registry of the name of a child, prior to the administration of the rite of baptism, injury would be done to the cause of religion, and the Established Church. Now he, (Dr. Lushington) felt as much as the right hon. Gentleman the impropriety of attempting to discuss any question in this House, which had the slightest reference to matters of religion. But at the same time he must be permitted to observe, that he could not anticipate anything like that extent of evil which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to dread. He (Dr. Lushington) could not think, that the great bulk of the members of the Church of England, if they were convinced of the value of the rite of baptism would be deterred from obeying the directions of their Church, because they were required to register their children within a given period after their birth; nor could he think that such a provision could fairly be characterized as tempting the members of the Church of England to depart from the directions of their church. The only evidence he had seen, which would warrant him in ascribing to this Bill the effects which the right hon. Gentleman had ascribed to it, was the evidence of persons inhabiting the district of St. Giles. He (Dr. Lushington) thought that those persons greatly undervalued the understanding of the people of this country, and the vast increase in knowledge which had taken place during the last thirty years, who imagined that they would be at once neglectful of one of the duties which their religion imposed, and regardless of the advantages which flowed from its ob-
140
servance. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, that with the name of the child should be inserted in the Church register, at the time of baptism, the date of its birth. With great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, he (Dr. Lushington) would suggest, that it was notorious the baptism of children in the Church did not take place within a month, six months, or even sometimes twelvemonths after the birth; and did it follow that the person, who brought the child to the font would be necessarily acquainted with the circumstances attending its birth? Even taking it for granted that they were, was there not a great difference in the evidence of a person, as to a certain fact given a few days after it occurred, and when given after the lapse of a considerable time. Under the present system of registration, it would be impossible to arrive at anything of certainty respecting the facts which were to be entered in the register. The clergyman entered the names as he performed the ceremony; it was no part of his duty to make any inquiry, in order to ascertain the correctness of the facts he was to enter. Would the right hon. Gentleman require the clergyman before he administered the rite of baptism, to put questions to the parties attending with the child for that purpose. First, he (Dr. L.) would remark, that as he had just stated, the evidence in many cases would be of little value, being given after a long lapse of time; and next, it would be imposing an onerous duty upon the clergyman, and one which, in his opinion, it was not fair to impose upon him. Besides, how were the members of the Church of England to be distinguished from those of other denominations,—for, was it not likely that many would assume that title in order to get rid of the provisions of the statute as regarded registration, if the exemption proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were to be made. In short, it was clear in his (Dr. L.'s) opinion, that under the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the register would be totally ineffective. He (Dr. L.) utterly denied that the object of the Bill was to afford relief to the Dissenters. He considered the question embraced in the Bill to be one of great national importance, and to those who understood anything about the difficulties which were experienced in the tracing of pedigrees its advantage would be too manifest to need explanation. At present searches after pedigrees were

141
attended with immense delay and expense, persons had to go all over the kingdom to ascertain where such a person was buried —where another was born, and so on; and, in the majority of instances, their search was after all unsuccessful and unsatisfactory. And he (Dr. L.) considered that the members of the Church of England were fully as much interested as Dissenters, in the Establishment of a national register. It had been said, that this Bill would for the first time separate two things, which from the earliest period of the Christian Church had been associated—the naming of the child, and the rite of baptism. That was not a correct representation, for though the Bill required the parent to state the name which he intended to give to his child at the time of registration, there were express provisions in the Bill to this effect, that he might change the name of the child if he thought fit at the baptism; and it was too much to suppose that any parent of common understanding would say, "I have now given my child the benefit of a civil registry, therefore I will not give him the benefit of the ordinance of baptism." The scheme of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, was this—that the ministers of all Dissenting congregations should have the power of keeping their own registries. He (Dr. L.) was surprised at such a proposition. Did not his hon. Friend know that one of the principal objects of a registry was, that it should be kept in a state of the best possible security, combined with easiness of access. And how could these objects be attained among Dissenting congregations—the ministers of which were always moving, and in some denominations only continued for a short period at any station. The hon. Baronet had asked how the Bill was to be carried into operation? He considered that such an objection should have been taken at an earlier period. But he must observe, in his opinion, when they were making an experiment of such great importance as the establishment of a general register, they should take the best means of giving effect to the provisions of the Bill, they ought not to be made at first too onerous upon the public. And with regard to the case which had been put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, (Mr. Goulburn) of the loss which the poor labourer would incur in some cases, from
142
the extent of the districts in which he resided, in registering his children, he (Dr. L.) would take it upon himself to assert, that very few labourers would (even allowing one child a-year for ten years) feel it a great burden that he had to spend one day a-year in obtaining for his children the advantages resulting from inserting their names in the national register. He allowed, that the penalty in case of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act (20 s.) was small; but was it not better far, in making a great experiment of this kind for the first time, to run the risk of erring by too small, than too large penalties. Information would spread rapidly upon this subject. When this Bill had passed there would not, he (Dr. L.) ventured to assert, be an alehouse in the country in which its merits would not be discussed; it would be matter of discourse every where, and there would be soon, not an individual in any rank, or any denomination, who would not become acquainted with it, and duly estimate its advantages. With regard to the existing system of registration, the result of his experience was this. A great improvement had undoubtedly taken place, during the last twenty years, in the state of the registers throughout the country, and the manner in which they were kept and preserved. But there had been cases in which sufficient care—he would not use a harsher word—had not been exercised over them, to prevent loss or obliteration. And when it was considered that they were very often kept, not in the Church, but at the minister's residence, and that during a vacancy (which often lasted for a considerable time) there was no person who had the care of them, the wonder was, not that so many, but that so few were lost, or injured. Upon the whole, he (Dr. L.) was of opinion, that the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, and the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, were not of any weight, and that neither of their propositions could be acceded to without giving up the object for which the Bill was introduced. He had only one word more. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford had said, that the reason for introducing this measure had been to degrade the clergy. He (Dr. L.) could not but consider such expressions as ill-calculated to uphold the character of the Church of England, and to produce

143
that harmony and good feeling among all denominations of Christians, which all must desire to see. On the contrary, he (Dr. L.) must say, that it was calculated to prejudice the character of the clergy of that Church, and to hold them up to the odium of the people of England, to say that a measure which professed to confer a great public benefit, could not be carried into effect except through the medium of their degradation.
Dr. Bowringthought, that the object of the Bill had been misunderstood by those who objected to it. It had nothing whatever to do with baptism, because that was a religious act in which the whole community were not concerned, but what it had to do with was the fact of birth—a fact which was important to the whole community. What was wanted in this country was a registration of those facts with which the community were interested; the birth, the marriage, and the death of individuals. In most countries those facts were registered, so that it was easy to trace any individual from the time of his birth to his death by means of the National Register. It had been suggested that the clergy should continue in the custody of the Registers. On that point he (Dr. Bowring) would only state the following fact, given in evidence by a friend of his before the Registration Committee. At the last Revolution in France and Belgium, the clergy endeavoured to regain possession of the right of registration. But the civil registration had become so popular, so useful, so efficient, that the Legislature refused to give it them. In the present system of registration, he (Dr. Bowring) must observe, that there was no distinction made between legitimate and illegitimate children, and consequently no security to the public in cases of disputed titles to property. This Bill supplied that deficiency, and would be in his opinion of great advantage. He could not refrain from making one remark in conclusion. He had observed, (and it was the case here) that whenever opposition was made by the great body of the clergy to any measure useful and advantageous to the whole community, there was always to be found at the bottom of that opposition, something in the shape of fees or emoluments.
Mr. Potterexpressed his great satisfaction that such a measure as that before the House had been introduced.
Mr. Estcourtobserved, that in most cases the clergyman, before baptism, inquired as to the age of the child, and who were its parents. That, however, was not, he knew, sufficient to render the registry of baptism evidence of birth; but if the Legislature would enable the clergy to register both circumstances at the period of baptism the object which they had in view would be ascertained without the complicated machinery of this Bill, which he agreed would operate to discourage the members of the Church of England from having their children baptised.
Mr. Peasesaid, the great object of this Bill was to effect a system of registration which would be complete and satisfactory, not to any particular body, but to the community at large. He thought the Bill would effect that object. He entirely agreed in the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, that it was improper to place burthens upon the necks of one denomination of Christians, which would induce the members of that denomination to neglect a religious rite. But the same principle should be carried out to Church-rates, imposed as they were upon the members of different denominations, who had in addition to support their own religious services. He (Mr. Pease) thought the idea, that this Bill would tempt the members of the Church of England to neglect a rite of that Church, was perfectly absurd. He (Mr. Pease) could say on behalf of his denomination, that though there might be some trifling inconvenience connected with this Bill as it regarded them in particular, yet they were perfectly satisfied with it as a whole, as being a measure calculated to confer a great benefit upon the community at large, in establishing a system of universal registration.
Mr. Bainessaid, the objection which had been raised as to the inconvenience this Bill would occasion to heads of families, fell to the ground, because it was not necessary for the parents personally to attend the Registrar, a letter, or a messenger, would convey the information equally as well. And with regard to what he might term the conscientious objection, that this Bill would encourage the omission of the rite of baptism, he (Mr. Baines) considered it would have the contrary effect; it would induce clergymen to be more zealous in laying before their congregations the importance of attending

145
to that ordinance. He was sorry that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, had not spared the injurious reflections which he had made on the Dissenting meeting houses, in the comparison which he had made between them and the Church. Both would be, he (Mr. Baines) trusted, roads to Heaven; and, therefore, whether the Church was to be reduced to the level of the meeting house, or the meeting house elevated to the dignity of the Church, was of very little consequence.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he was not hostile, on the contrary, he was favourable, to a general register, and the plan he proposed would not interfere with the attaining that object. But if it could not be obtained but at the sacrifice of a religious rite, he (Mr. Goulburn) did not feel prepared to purchase it with all its advantages at such a price. It did not follow, however, that because the registers of the Church of England were to be retained, that they might not all be carried into a general Register.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 27th, which provides for the expences of registration, by imposing a certain charge on the parish rates,
Mr. Trevordeclared, that this expense, which was obviously for a national object, ought not to fall on the parochial funds, but on the Consolidated Fund.
On this point the Committee divided, when there appeared for the original Clause: Ayes 71; Noes 28—Majority 43.
Clauses to 33, agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.