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

SCOTTISH NORTHERN JUNCTION RAILWAY

BILL.

The order for the second reading of this bill was die.
charged.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON THE
SABBATH.
A great number of petitions were presented against the
sale of intoxicating liquors on the Sabbath.

WRITS PROHIBITION BILL.
Mr. BOUVERIE intimated that it was his intention to
move, on the second reading, that the order be discharged,
ao that he might withdraw it, and introduce it in an
amended state on an early day after Easter.

BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. AYRTON gave notice that he intended to propose,
on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, that the
bill be referred to a select committee, with power to take
evidence.

TICKETB OF LEAVE.
In reply to Mr. WATLINGTON,
Sir G. GREY intimated that certain conditionswere en-
dorsed on tickets•of-leave in Ireland, but never on those
issued in England. He should not object to produce a
copy of the conditions endorsed on tickets-of-leave in Eng-
land if the hon. member thought proper to move for them.
ANNUAL BANKRUPTCY RETURN.
In reply to Mr. MURRAY,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that some unex-
pected delay had taken place in the preparation of these
voluminous returns, but he might state that he hoped to
lay them on the table of the house on the first day's sitting
after Easter.
RIOTS AT CORK ON THE 10TH.
In reply to Mr. VANCE,
Sir R. PEEL said that the Government had received
information with respect to the distarbances referred
to. It appeared that some disturbances took place
on the 7th instant, and, in consequence, the autho-
rities had obtained the services of 80 of the constabu-
lary. On the night of the 10th some disturbances took
place, some illuminated houses were attacked, and the
mayor was very roughly handled. At four in
the morning two detachments of the military
were marched into the town, but quiet had previously been
restored. Some of the rioters had been made amenable to
justice before the local authorities; but the investigations
had not been concluded. Rewards had been offered, with
the approval of the Government, for the discovery of the
chief perpetrators of the outaages.
CLOSING PUBLIC-HOUSES ON SUNDAYS.
Mr. SQAMES moved for leave to introduce a Bill to
compel the closing of public-houses on the Sabbath. He
should be glad to know from the right hon. gentleman the
Secretary of State for the Home Department if he might
rely upon his support ?
Mr. PACKE moved that leave be not given.
Sir G. GREY said it was rather unusual to oppose the
introduction of a bill ; he should not oppose the introduc-
tion of the bill, but at the same time he could give the hon.
gentleman no hope that he should support the second read-
ing except very materially modified.
Mr. BAINES hoped the hon. member (Mr, Packe)
would not take so unusual a step as to oppose the introduc-
tion of the bill, which was promoted by many estimable
people and supported by innumerable petitions, signed
by hundreds of thousands of the people. (Hear, hear.)
The plan proposed by the bill worked exceedingly well in
Scotland, and the Royal Commission that had been issued
had reported in favour of its operation, It did not follow
that the bill would pass in the present form, it could be
materially amended in committee, and the hen, gentleman
anduther opponents of the bill would have many opportu •
nities of opposing it. (Hear, hear,)
Mr. ROEBUCK intimated that in consequence of the
unusual and extraordinary course adopted by those who op-
posed the bill, he should move, when it was in committee,
that every club be shut on the Sabbath. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
Mr. HORSFALL said the present law was full of incon-
sistency. They prohibited the sale of bread and other
edibles on the Sabbath, but yet tolerated the sale of intoxi-
cating liquors, which were not necessaries of life. (Hear,
hear.) The constituency he represented (Liverpool) were
very generally in favour of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
The house then divided, when there appeared.—
For the introduction of the bill
Against it
52
Majority
—B9
Leave was then given to introduce the bill, and it was
accordingly read a first time.
THE GAME LAWS.
Mr. W. FORSTER then moved for a select committee
to inquire into the operation of the laws relating to game,

and to report whether, in their opinion, any, and if any,
'what, alterations are required therein. The hon. member
supported hie proposition in a long and elaborate address.
Lord ENFIELD seconded the motion. Ha supported

the second reading of the poaching bill of last session, but
opposed its third reading ; and, as an instance of the oppo •
sition the bill met with in that house, he instanced that
thirty divisions took place with reference to it. He referred
to the debate of last session, and to the arguments used in
support of it, and observed that the bill was so changed in
its progress through the house that he could not support its
third reading, and was anxious for an inquiry into the sub-
ject. The lovers of sport, the ratepayers, the farmers, the
police, and the general public were interested in the ques-
and it was for their benefit that he supported the pre-
e,pat motion. He had no desire to see an old English pas-
time degenerate and die out, but he did not wish to see it
supported at the expense of the ratepayers, who had to
supply, as it
had been said, police as amateur watchmen
PTA preservers.
Mr. THOMPSON moved, as an amendment, "That, in
the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the appoint-
hicnt of a select committee to inquire into the operation of
the game laws should be postponed until further experience
shall have been obtained of the working of the Prevention
of Poaching. Act, 25 and 26 Vie., c. 114." He said that to
legislate first and inquire after was opposed to general
opinion.
To justify such a course, the hon. gentleman
should have shown that such mischievous results had en-
sued since the passing
of the Act as to call for inquiry.
(Hear, hear.) He was neither surprised nor disappointed
to find that the hon. gentleman had no proofs of such mis-
chievous results ; and, as he was far too acute am an not to
see how much his case would have been strengthened.iuf he
m
could have brought them forward, they ht ass
e
that, as he had brought none forward, they could not be
, procured. (Hear, hear.) On the other hand, there were
several striking results in favour of the act, considering the
short time it had been in operation. The chief constable
for York informed him that four regular poachers had
abandoned poaching altogether, and the remaining known
poachers there exercised their callings less frequently than
before. In Knaresborough, which was a small town,
though famous for its breed of poachers—(laughter)—the
superintendent of police informed him that the new Poach-
iutz Act had lessened the depredations of poachers in that
division, and that several notorious professional poachers
bad abandoned that calling, and taken to as honest mode of
living. (Hear, hear.) He had received the same kind of

information from Hull. The police of the West Riding
reported that since the passing of the act there had been a
decrease of the number of persons summoned, and that oti
the whole the act had worked well. Now these returns
were wonderfizlly consistent in favour of the successful
operation of the act. At the same time it should not be
forgotten that the act only bore the date August 7, 1862,
and therefore that it was only in operation Nome seven
months. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, bearing in mind that the
decision of the Lord Chief anstice, to which reference had
been made, was only given on February 4, it might be said
the act was not two months in operation. (Hear.) If then
the committee was granted, either their conclusion must
be based upon the effects which had come to light within
the space of two months, or they must ignore the most re-
cent legislation on the subject, although they were quite
aware that legislation was working most satisfactorily.
Great stress had been laid on the question whether game
ought to be made property or not; and no doubt that was
one of the most important considerations that would
come before the committee. But the Act passed last
session had a most legitimate bearing upon the question.
because by it, for the first time, game was placed under the
partial protection of the law. Surely, then, time must be
allowed for them to judge whether that act went far enough
towards the making game property. Undoubtedly the law
respecting game was in a very anomalous state; it was too
well known to be so to country gentlemen. (Hear, hear,)
The law recognised the possession of game, it licensed the
killing of game and the sale of game, but it stopped short of
making game property, and in that way it created a privi-
ledged class of plunderers. (Hear, hear.) The distinction
was most impolitic, for thereby the police were trained up
to protect a particular class of offenders, who, if this branch
of their trade were cut from under them, would naturally
take to some other department of crime. He trusted he had
said enough to prove that it would be premature to appoint
this committee until time had been allowed to counteract
the indications which had been afforded that the act of last
session was working well. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PAULL, who throughout his observations was met
with cries for a division, was understood to explain to the
house that he had not fulfilled his assurance of introducing
a bill making game property, in order that he might first
see how the act of last session worked. He thought it was
undesirable that the question of the game laws should be
reopened until ample time had been allowed for that purpose.
Sir G. GREY, who likewise rose amidst cries of "Divide,"
said that, having last year stated that he would willingly
assent to the appointment of a select committee for the consi-
deration of the game laws, if it should be moved for in the
course of the present eession, he felt bound, in redemption of
that pledge, to support the motion of his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Bradford. And, indeed, when he looked at the state in
which the question was, he must say that such inquiry was
not only reasonable, but it was called for. In the year 1828
the House of Lords appointed a select committee to inquire
into the operation of the game laws, and the result of their
labours was most beneficial. They recognised a sort of quali-
fied property in game by allowing it to be sold by licensed
dealers ; and, on the other hand, they allowed any one to
obtain a certificate to sell game. Subsequently the Night
Poaching Act was passed, which contained several severe
provisions against armed night poachers, and under that
Act many convictions annually took place. Looking to the
state of the case at present, the fact struck them that a large
proportion of the crime of the country was due to the in-
fringement of the game laws. (Hear,) In the year 1857
there were of charges before magistrates for infringement of
the game laws in the day time 3,567 cases, and of night
poaching 1,883 cases; altogether 5,450 cases, against 10,135
in 1862. Well, that state of things demanded the most
serious attention of the house. (Hear.) In 1845 a com-
mittee was appointed to consider the operation of the game
laws, mainly on account of the great increase of crime in
connection with the game laws. But that reasoning ought
to be much more powerful nowadays, because of the un-
doubted increase in the number of those offences ; an increase
owing, as he was bound to declare, to the over-preservation of
game, a practice which could not be too strongly reprobated.
(Hear.) He must say he looked back with the greatest satis-
faction to the opposition which he offered to the bill of last
session, an opposition which led to the most essential modi-
fication in certain arbitrary and unconstitutional provisions
which it embodied. At the same time he admitted that the
Act, in the shape in which it passed that house, was calcu-
lated to prove a useful measure in many respects. But it
had not succeeded in breaking up those large gangs o
night poachers in the county of Cheshire, the suppression of
which was one of the specific objects of the introduction of
the bill, On the other hand, poaching had been all but
put an end to in the county of Warwick; and it surely
was proper for the house to inquire how such opposite re•
sults had been brought about. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE considered that it would not be be-
coming the dignity of the house to revise their decision of
last session before the law had had anything like a fair

Lord A. CHURCHILL was understood to suggest that
licences should be withheld from game preservers.
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the committee 157
Against
Majority —l9
CHANGE OF NAMES.

Mr. ROEBUCK then rose to move an address for re-
turns of the names and titles of the various officers of the
College of Arms in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and
their duties; together with the names of persons who had
applied for grants to change their arms since 1850, and re-
fusals (if any), with reasons for refusal, and the fees that
had been demanded. The hon. and learned gentleman

commenced by laying down as a legal proposition, that
every British subject had a perfect right to take any name,
at any time and upon any occasion he pleased, without leave
or license from anybody, except for the purposes of fraud.
It was true that licences were sometimes granted to change
names, but those licenses were of no more value than a
license would be to walk the streets of London, seeing that
the right to:walk the streets existed long before the licence.
In support of this view the hon. and learned gentleman
quoted the dicta of Lords Stowell, Ellenborough, and
Tenterden, which he declared to be uncontradicted
and then cited the recent case of Mr. Jones, of
Clytha. It appeared that Mr, Jones had two sons, the
first of whom was known as Mr. Jones of Llanarth, and the
second as Mr. Jones of Clythar. The first son wanted to
marry a daughter of Sir Benjamin Hall, and, having
changed his name to Herbert, he did so. The second
wished to become an officer of volunteers, and at this point
it was necessary to bring forward the name of Lord Llan-
over. When his lordship heard that the uncle of his son-
in•law had taken the name of Herbert, he told the young
gentleman that he could not allow him to take that name,
and then stood up very strongly for what he called the
Queen's prerogative—a course of proceeding very remark-
able when they came to consider the antecedents of that
noble lord. (Hear.) There was an old proverb that would
exactly describe the case, but he would not then repeat it,
(A laugh.) However, seeing that every effort had been
used to throw discredit on Mr. Jones in the Welsh news-
papers, he thought the facts ought to be stated. It ap-
peared that an application had been made at the Heralds'
office by Mr. Jones, who said, "I suppose there will be no
difficulty about my changing my name ?" to which it was
replied, " Oh, yes, there will." " Well, but," said Mr.
Jones, "my nephew has taken the name of Herbert."
"Yes, but that was through the influence of Lord Llan-
over," to which was added, " You should learn the law."
Upon that hint he at once assumed the name of Herbert,
without any licence. He wished the house to understand
that there was no question that a man (except for fraudu-

lent purposes) might take any name he pleased without
payment of fees to any person whomsoever ; and from his
place in Parliament, as a lawyer, he would be responsible
for that statement. It might be objected that that was a
very mischievous state of the law, but that was a matter
he could not help. It was the law of the land, and he
appealed to any lawyer in the house to deny it.
He had known a man in Yorkshire to be indicted as
John of the Stile, because living near a stile he was known
by that name. A man might be named John with the
Squint, and his son might be named after him. Suppose a
nice young lady coming into a room was to be announced as
" Miss Shuffiebottom"—(laughter)—it would be a good
thing for her father to change his name. It was said that
" Plantagenet," " Stuart," were
such names as "Herbert,"
usually taken 'by fifth-rate actors and inferior members of
the House of Lords. (Laughter.) But that was a mistake,
for very influential members of the House of Lords bad
changed their names. Men of great titles had taken names
which he thought ridiculous. A man of the great histori-
cal name of Seymour, for instance, had changed it into the
pantomimic name of St, Maur. (A laugh.) The late Duke
of Wellington's name had been Wesley, but while in India
he changed his name from Arthur Wesley to Arthur Wel-
lesley, and the Horse Guards recognised the change in the
next edition of the "Army List." He saw the Secretary
of State for War in his place, and he wished to ask him
whether an officer of the name of Jones had not applied to
him to be allowed to take the name of St. Paul ? His
father's name had been Paul, and he called himself St. Paul.
(Great laughter.) He was told the right hon. gentleman
had refused to allow this officer to change his name, and he
wanted to know upon what grounds, for there was nothing
to prevent Sir Charles Jones from calling himself Sir Charles
St. Paul without asking leave of the right hon. gentleman,
for all the right hon. gentleman had to do as an administra-

tive officer was to obey the law and record the change of
name. He had intended to ask for returns since 1810;
but he was told the record did not go so far back; so
he would merely move for the returns since 1850 ; of the
number of persons to whom Royal licenses had been
granted, together with the names of the suc-
ceesful applicants ; and also the names of those who had
applied but had been refused, with the reasons assigned for
the refusal. It was quite true that the Queen might refuse
licenses, but there was no necessity why any person should
apply for a license. The Queen's name was used, but the
matter rested with the right hon. gentleman opposite and
his subordinate officers. After that he wanted a statement
of the rules by which the
granting or refusing was regu-
lated, and the amount of fees paid into the hands of the
officials. He simply wanted the law to be followed, and
no favour or affection to be shown. (Cheers.)
Col. CLIFFORD defended
en
dthe f ctohuer lae
transaction,teLord
nbyuclieh
he
la
was
beginning
to
do from his personal knowledge
Lno
said ve
hre from
of all the parties and all the facts. The hon, and learned