The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-07 00:00:00

score
leal 9 expense, too, he objected to the plan, as it would
t'n In the necessity of imposing a burthen on parishes for
Ilaintennace of a registry-office. But, after all, his main
8., because,
to the Bill were religious ones. Ile objected to the
442. because, for the first time, it separated the form of
„,0111" the child from the rite of Christian baptism—a rite
the had been obset ved and respected since the existence of
eerz,-inhunric_ll. He ctbjected to it also because it went to tempt
of ,
.L.sses of the people, consequently, to forego the rite
it olptism; and, finally, he objected to the measure because
te.aled to bring the regularly ordained Minister of the
cht jr'la of England to the level'of the ambulatory Minister of
etrueLtuating congregations ; and because it would have the
th e t degrain and gin, into contempt a portion of
ser vice ofd thg e Church of "England, which bad always
li~tl,l,erto been retarded as sacred and essentially necessary.
Dr. LUSHINGTON denied that the effect of the measure
1"1,1 be to discourage. the members of the Church of Eng-
-1,111!1 from having their children baptized, and the only coin-
a!nts which he hail heard of to warrant such a supp
. osition
eome .row St. Giles's, or some such quarter. The Bill
relied to the registry of births. and did not in any manner
queet the ceremony of baptism, which, beinga religious cere-
otrd."Yt was not intended to be interfered with by the provisions
A.I this measure. He utterly denied that the object of the
id Was to afford relief to the Dissenters. He considered the
tlatstion embraced in the Bill to be one of great national im-
portance, and to those-who understood anything about the
it:ge"lties which were experienced in the tracing of pedigrees
advantage would be too manifest to need explanation. At
!resent searches connected with the tracing of pedigrees
"ere not only most expensive, but in the great majority of
Itfilitta,nees unsatisfactory ; and, for his part, he could not help
dust as
that a proper system of registering births would be
as beneficial to the members of the Church of Eng-
land as to the Dissenters, or any other class of persons in the
—l3lraunity. Although it was required by the Bill that the
~ante should be given at the time of birth, yet there was
iv, thing in the measure which would prevent the parties
tii°,lll altering the name at the time of baptism. He did not
tnic that the objections of either the Right Hon. Gentle-.
Zan the Member for the University of Cambridge, or the
°a• Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford.
ere valid objections; and, looking at the whale of the Bill,
jal
(Dr. Luihington) did think there was no reason why it
440u1d not be proceeded with.
After a few words from Dr. BO W RING,.
POTT E 12.enti rely: approved..of the object which the
measure was. intended.to effect.
Th 21.1% EST CO URT observed that in most cases the clergy.-
‘'7a before baptism inquired as to the age of the child, and
411°‘ . were its parents. That,
:however, was. not, he knew,
sufficient to render .the registry of baptism evidence of. birth;
1,
r'°t if the Legislature would enable the clergy to • register
:til.eireumstances at the period 44 baptism the object which
,', eY bad in view would be ascertained without the compli-
e'ted machinery of this Bill, which he agreed would operate
a discourage the members of the Church of England from
having their children baptised.
air. PEASE deemed such a registry as that proposed ab-
.tolutely necessary, and therefore the measure should have his
'llPport.
Mr. BAINES denied that the Bill would impose any trou-
:Tv on the heads of families. The information might be taken
Y a servant, and therefore the objection on that head ought
t° have no weight. Neither would the Bill operate so as to
tliscourcge baptism.
After a few observations from Mr. GOULBURN,
The Committee then proceeded with the Bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to. An objection having been
raiser,' to clause 3, its further consideration was postponed.
Clauses 4 to 26 were then agreed to.
Clause 27 was then proposed, which provides for the ex-
rnses of registration by imposing a certain charge on the
Parish rates. A discussion ensued, in which
. Mr. TREVOR declared that this%xpense, which was ob-
vl°‘lsly for a national object, ought not to fall on the parochial
fe n'ls. but on the Consolidated Fund, and pressed his opposi-
011t0 a division, when there appeared—
For the •original clause • 71
Against it
APtiority 43
Clauses 28, 29, and 30 were then passed without opposition.
Clautos 31, 32, and 33 having been agreed to, the Chairman
re„
yerted progress.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
"%se ad;ourned at half-past twelve o'clock.