The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-18 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING,

last evening that " Hitherto people had been paying
large sums of money to change their names, though
ho told the house and the country at large from his
place in Parliament that they need not pay
a farthing to any one for such a purpose." A
few months ago that assertion when first put forth
by the initiated, we may quite safely assert, took
the vast majority, even of educated men in this
country, by surprise. It was a bit of news that
hardly one person in a thousand had ever before
heard a whisper of. It took even Lord LLANOVER,
we may be sure, by surprise like the rest of the
community, though his lordship's surprise got no
further with him than just simply to confirm his
incredulity. For two hundred years, as the hon.
gentleman reminded the house yesterday, those
royal licenses had been granted, and gene-
ration after generation had been taught to be-
lieve in the validity and importance of their
enforcement. Ail of a sudden, thanks to the mis-
understanding between Mr. JONES of Clytha, and
the Lord LLANOVER, Lord-Lieutenant of the county,
" a change has come o'er the spirit of the dream " of
every unfortunate wight afflicted with some de-
grading or ridiculous surname—these same afflicted
ones abruptly awakening to the not unwelcome
knowledge that POTTS can be instantaneously and
permanently changed to PLANTAGENET, that
STUBBS can bloom into COURTENAY, a HOGG into a
HOWARD, or a DUNN into a DEVEREUX. Now is
their time, if they are in any way desirous
of availing themselves of this absolute freedom to
dispense with licenses. For we cannot seriously be-
lieve that the law of the land will be allowed inde-
finitely to remain in its present state, in this same
position. And that, if for nothing else, because of
the threat thus held out in terrorem over a great
and busy mercantile community, the threat of a
confusion becoming rapidly worse confounded, by
reason of the breaking rip far and wide of many of
the securities for the identification of individuals.

Mr. ROEBUCK'S proceeding last night we take
to be one merely preliminary. It was, as will be
observed, simply a motion for returns of the names
of all persons who had applied for licenses to change
their names since 1850; of the instances in which
such licenses had been granted during that period,
together with a statement of the names, of the suc-
cessful applicants, and of the names which they had
been permitted to assume by royal license; of the
names of the persons so applying who had been
refused during the same period, with the reasons
assigned in each case for the refusal; of the prin-
ciples by which the Home-office is guided in grant-
ing and refusing such licenses; and of the amount
of fees demanded for such licenses since 1850, and
the manner in which the moneys received had been
applied. As will be seen this very reason-
able motion was, after an amusing and
animated discussion, very readily agreed
to by the House of Commons, as was like-
wise a, kindred or supplementary motion for re-
turns of the names and titles of the various officers
of the College of Arms in England, Scotland, and
Ireland, their duties, fees, and emoluments. The
rest will follow, we may be sure, in due course, and,
quite as a matter of course. It is quite impossible
that the law as it now stands in this particular can
be left unaltered.

We are not surprised that some inquiry should
have been proposed into the working of the game
law passed last Session. We have, from the very
first, denounced it as an unjust and impolitic mea-
sure, which would result in the production of far
greater evils than those it was designed to sup-
press. The numerous instances in which it has
been brought before the public in the course of
the recess have only confirmed our assertions, and
shown the urgent need of some reconsideration of
this hasty and ill-advised measure. Mr. FORSTER, in
his sensible and temperate speech, brought forward
very forcibly the objections to the measure, which
unfortunately produced little effect on the in-
terested opposers of the investigation. It is not
in accordance with the principles of our
English legislation to stifle inquiry, but it
would seem that the conclusions of an inde-
pendent and disinterested committee were not to be
trusted. It must be remembered in answer to those
members who professed to object to the unusual
course of passing a bill in one session and appoint-
ing a committee on the subject in the next, that it
was expressly stated at the time that the
recent act was hurried through Parliament,
that a committee of inquiry should be proposed
this year, as owing to the advanced period of the
Session at which the bill was brought forward it
was too late to proceed in such an inquiry then.
But any excuse is sufficient for men who think
more of their hour's shooting than of the life-
long well-doing of their neighbours. It is much
easier and pleasanter to lament the increase of crime,
and the depravity of the masses, than to give a consci-
entious vote, which will probably curtail the voter's
own pleasures. Yet the fact remains that poaching,
although, as was justly observed last night, seldom
regarded as criminal by any class, is the stepping-
stone to a life of crime, and that, on the authority of
our present Home Secretary, such offences are
greatly on the increase. Sir G. GREY said that in
1857 3,567 persons were charged before magis-
trates with infringements of the game laws in the
day time, and 1,883 persons were charged with
night poaching, making altogether 5,500 cases
summarily dealt with; and in 1861, the
last year for which the returns were com_
pleted, 8,563 cases had been taken before the magis.
trates for summary adjudication, and there were
7,700 convictions. In 1862 there were 10,135 cases
taken before magistrates, but he had been unable to
ascertain the number of convictions. These returns,
however, which excluded the cases of persons com-
mitted for trial on serious charges, demanded con-
sideration. A committee was moved for in 1845,
and one of the main reasons urged for granting it
was the connection of the game laws with crime—
a reason which was much more strong now than it
was then. Offences had greatly increased, end he
believed that it was owing to the increase of game
and to those excessive preserves which could
not be too strongly reprobated, whilst a reason-
able preservation, of game was desirable."
It must be evident to the most superficial observer
that poaching is a snare into which active and
thoughtless men may easily be led; it must
be also evident that the habitual infracticn
of the law, however unjust, and the reck-
less companions among whom such a course
of life would bring him, are means sufficient
to transform in a short time the honest labourer
into a felon. As Mr. FORSTER observed there have
beenidiscuisions as to whether poaching is theft, but
" in whatever way that question is solved there is
an undoubted fact that the poacher does not com-
mence at once to be a thief, but he certainly end
by becoming a thief." It is therefore unjust and
cruel to the last degree to thrust so great a tempta-
tion carelesly and constantly in the wayof the honest
working man, and then, when the offence is com-
mitted, hand him over to the judgment of a
bench
of county magistrates, who, as was very justly said,
are men, not angels, and who regard poaching,
seemingly, as next door to a capital offence. The
onus probandi, as was remarked by Mr. FORSTER,
is thrown on the defendant, which is in entire
opposition to the spirit of English legislation. A