The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-19 00:00:00

ment ; and in fact their officer was recognised by the
Bistbs, Deaths, and Marriages Act.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL objected to the clauses. The
general purport and policy of the 13:11 was, that the regis-
ters of Dissenters should be placed in a general office,
where they might be consulted by any persons, but these
clauses proposed that the registers of one particular sect,
the Society of Friends, should be separated from all the
others, and placed in the depository of their own offices.
If that was acceded to, all the other Protestant Dis-
senters would have just ground for claiming the same
privilege.
Mr. BAINES said that, although at first disposed to
support his Hon. Friend (Mr. Stewart). yet he thought
dome was such force in the observations of the Noble
Lord, that he would advise his Hon. Friend to withdraw
the clauses.
Sir CHARLES STYLE then moved that the follow.
ing clause be added :—" And whereas divers registers or
records cf births or baptisms, marriages, deaths, or burials,
to be deposited in the General Register Office by virtue of
this Act, contain also entries appertaining to other matters,
and it is expedient in such cases, for the better preserva-
tion and more evident authenticity of the whole, that the
several parts thereof should not be separated from each
other : Be it enacted, That every book containing any
resister or record to be deposited in the General Register
Office by virtue of this Act, shall be kept entire in the
General Register Office, and every person shall be en-
titled, at the times and subject to the regulations made
end appointed as aforesaid for other searches in the said
registers or records, to search any part of such book on
payment of the sum of one shilling, and to have a certified
extract of any entry- in such book, not being the entry of a
birth, baptism, naming, dedication, burial, or marriage, on
payment of the sum of two shillings and sixpence, and of
the additional sum of threepence for every seventy-two
words contained in such extract, and every such extract
may be produced and used as evidence in all Courts and
places, in like manner and subject to the same provisions as
certified extracts of entries of births, deaths, or marriages :
Provided always, that this enactment shall not give any
greater validity as evidence to any such certified extract
than now belongs by law to the original entry in the book
in which the sonic is made."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that there were great
objections to the clause as framed by the Hon. Gentle-
s:lan. With respect to that part of the clause which stated
that it was desirable the books should be kept entire, it
was impossible to accede to that inasmuch as many parts
of the book had been separated from the others. It would
be absurd, therefore, to enact that the book skould be
kept entire, the mutilation having already taken place.
With respect to the other parts of the clause, before he
pronounced any judgment upon them, he should like to
know what the opinion of his Learned Friend the Attor-
ney-General was with respect to them.
The ATT 0 RN E Y- GENERAL considered the clause
totally unnecessary, because there could be no doubt where
entries had been made there would be no objection to a
search being instituted. He trusted therefore that the Hon.
Baronet would withdraw the clause as unnecessary.
After a few observations from Mr. HUME, the Clause
was withdrawn.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day
for the committal of this Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET objected to the Bill being pro.
ceeded with further at the present late period of the Ses-
sion, es it was quite clear a Bill affecting the whole Ma-
gistracy of England could not be forced through that
House at the present time. He wished to know what
clause it was the intention of the Attorney-General to
strike out, as upon that depended the course he shoul
adopt relative to the Bill going into Committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was his inten-
tion to strike out the 32d clause.
Sir E. KNATC H BULL would ask the Noble Lord
whether in such a House, and at the present period of the
Session, it was advisable to proceed with so important a
Bill? A great number of Members who acted in the
Commission of the Peace, were unavoidably absent from
London, who, if they had been in town, would have taken
part in the discussion of the Bill. Ile hoped, therefore,
the Noble Lord would postpone the Bill to another
Session.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the subject of the present Bill
was one in which some amendment of the law was required.
It was very easy for Hon. Members to say why should the
Bill be proceeded with at so late a period of the Session—
but he would ask whether there had been an opportunity
of proceeding with it sooner. In former Sessions, when
he had been anxious to press forward Bills at
an early period, he had been met by Honourable
Members, asking why they should be pressed on
before the different estimates. As to what the
Hon. Baronet had said about Members being absent,
that was their own fault, and was no ground for postponing
a measure of great importance upon which there was no
need for party discussion or vexatious oppeeition. He
trusted, therefore, that the House would proceed with the
Bill, and not treat it as a measure that was altogether con-
temptible.
Colonel WOOD did not think Hon. Members on that
side of the House, considering that it was then the 18th of
July, ought to be reproached with not attending in their
places. He would, therefore, suggest that the Poor-law
Continuation Bill should have precedence of the Summarc
Jurisdiction Bill, and that the Bastardy clauses should by
taken into consideration in the Committee on the Poor-
law Cottinuation Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL should oppose the clause
unless it was proposed to go into the whole of the amend-
ments, which was at the present time impossible. He
should therefore move that the Summary Jurisdiction Bill
be proceeded with, and he thought that the clause
would he with greater propriety introduced into that Bill,
as it proposed to give additional powers to the Magistrates
in Petty Sessions.
Mr. MILES agreed with the Noble Lord that the
clause would be introduced with greater propriety into the
Summary Jurisdiction Bill; but while he said this he
wished the Noble Lord would give effect to the recom-
mendations of the Committee on this subject, and provide
some cheap remedy for cases of seduction and of breach
of promise of marriage. He agreed with the Noble Lord
as to the propriety of transferring the jurisdiction in these
cases from Quarter Sessions to Petty Sessions ; but he did
not agree with the Noble Lord in objecting to take that
report into consideration, and deferring it for another year.
If the question were not brought forward by the Governs
ment next Session, lie should feel it his duty to call the
attention of the House to the whole subject. The pre-
sent Bill had many advantages. It consolidated all the
laws in existence at present relating to these subjects, and
gave additional powers to the Magistrates which it was
requisite they should possess. But he hoped the advanced
period of the Session, and the smallness of the House,
would impress on the Noble Lord the propriety of with-
drawing the Bill for the present Session ; and if he would
do so, he (Mr. Miles) should be ready to give the Noble
Lord every assistance in bringing in the Bill next Session,
as he did not lock upon it as a party measure, nor was it so
regarded by the House.
Sir THOS. FR EMA NTL E would join- in urging on
the Noble Lord the propriety of postponing this Bill to
the next "cssion. Almost all those interested in this
measure had supposed that it had been abandoned, and
had consequently abstained from instructing their repre-
sentatives on the subject.
Sir EA RDLEY WILMOTT hoped the Noble Lord
would persev re with his Bill during the present Session.
It was not like a measure which had never before been
discussed in that House. A Committee, of which the
Noble Lord had been Chairman, had recommended a
similar measure ten years ago, and a Summary Conviction
Bill had been introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Tamveortb, in the Session following. Ile
himself had introduced a similar measure in 1832 ; there-
fore this was not a new measure, unknown to the country
and the House. The Bill did not give Magistrates the
power of convicting for felonies, it merely changed certain
felonies into wilful trespasses. It was most important, as it
gave a power of bringing offenders to trial immediately after
the commi-sion of the off meta thus preventing the imprison-
ment of youthful offenders before trial, and saving then'
from the contamination of a long confinement in gaol. He
trusted the Bill would be carried this Session.
Mr. SANFORD thought this measure most important,
as tending to save young persons from the contamination
of a long confinement in prison. It was also valuable, as
tending to introduce a general system, and i Wishing fees
to Magis!rates' clerks, paying them by a fixed salary.
Mr. D A RBY said the Noble Lord had omitted to state
why ti is Bill was brought on instead of the Poor-law Con-
tinuation Bill, which he bad understood was to be brought
on after the third reading of the Canada Bill. With re-
spect to the bastardy clauses, all the Noble Lord had done
was to transfer an incomprehensible clause from one Bill
to another. This Bill was very different from the mea-
sure brought forward ten years ago, and he hoped the
Noble Lord would not persist in going on with this Bill.
Mr. LID DELL urged the postponement, on the ground
of the impossibility of the measure undergoing proper dis-
cussion at thin late period of the Session.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained. With regard to
bringing forward this Bill to-night he had understood that
it was on the paper for Friday, when he announced his in-
tention of bringing on the Poor-law Continuation Bill.
lie had given the Hon. Member for Somersetshire his
choice of two days, and he had understood he had fixed
for Friday, but now found it was Thursday that the Hon.
Gentleman had appointed. With regard to bringing for-
ward measures of this nature, respecting the Magistrates
of Counties, he always found himself placed in this duff-
culty. If he brought them forward early in the Session
he was always told not to press them, to give time for them
to be transmitted into the country to be considered,
and when, in accordance with these recommendations, he
postponed the consideration of the measure to a later period
of the Session, he was told it was too late to press the
Bill forward. Perhaps these Hon. Gentlemen would be
so good as to state to him the precise time at which it was
proper to bring forward these measures. He should cer-
tainly press the Bill ; and if it should be postponed, he
would not pledge himself to take charge of it next Session.
Mr. AG LIONB Y was anxious the measure should be
passed this Session, although it would give rise to discus-
sion in Committee, yet he did not see why it should not
proceed in a manner satisfactory to the House and to the
country. It was a measure calculated to do good, and for

the bringing forward of which the Government was en-
titled to the gratitude of the country.
Mr. HAWES hoped the Noble Lord would make an
effort to carry the Bill this Session. It had been too long
delayed already. He would not deny that it gave Magis-
trates the power:of adjudicating in cases of petty felony.
He considered the Bill would prove a most useful public
measure, as it would tend to consolidate the laws relating
to petty offences to a great extent. He hoped the Noble
Lord would persevere with the Bill, and that Hon. Gen_
tlemen opposite, competent as they were to renderassisty-
once to measures of this sort, would benefit the public b
aiding the pa,sieg of the Bill.
Mr. E STCOURT hoped the Noble Lord would no
endeavour to carry a measure of this extensive nature
through Parliament at so late a period of the Session.
This Bill, so far as it related to the proceedings of the
l‘lagistrates, was rather a novel measure, and one that
had not been brought sufficiently under the attention of
Parliament. It would be more expedient to pass a law