The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We have been rather amused by the statement in a
reSpectable Sunday Contemporary, that Lady W ham-
cliffe was to be appointed Lady of the Bedchamber to
the Queen. We see no great harm in this addition
to the other incurables on her Majesty's establish-
ment ; and, if there is, we have consolation in the re
flection that it proves the utter disbelief of the Tory
brawlers, and we know none so loud as the Baron of
Wharncliffe, in the prospects of their return to power,
with which they have bemendeavouring to stultify
their pot-companions at the late Conservative dinners
throughout the country. Poor Baron ! the last of
Court country Gentlemen, to be driven to his last ex-
tremity—to accept such crumbs from the Court
Scullery, under a Whig Administration, in despair of
Iris restoration to the Privy Seal under a Tory one !
We can scarcely credit the story—it would be " too
bad." And after all, as our Contemporary says, there
•may be some inconvenience in having wives of
former Cabinet Ministers, and of former Ca-
binet Ministers who still dream of supplanting the
the Government, in too many belchambers at Court.
It is said that the friends of Lord de Roos press his
pretensions for the next vacancy of Lord of the Bed-
chamber. Truly, these Tory Lords and Ladies have
a wonderful itching for the crib and manger ; and to
" turn an honest penny" at the expense of the public.
--Morning Chronicle.
In looking over the Notices officially published in
this journal of Monday last, given under the New Re-
gistration Acts, some peculiarities have struck us,
which we present to our readers. In reference to the
first notice, it does not appear that the present paro-
chial mode of the registration of baptisms is at all in-
terfered with. Nothing is added to the present duties
of the regular clergyman ; he is under no obligation
to make a subsequent declaration of the act of baptism
to any registrar or superintendent registrar. This seems
just and proper, but we think that for want of such
subsequent declaration (though we do not admit the
right to force him to make one), the registration of
births will prove deficient, and the new Act a failure.
With respect to the registration of deaths, there are, it
strikes us, some serious inconsistencies or absurdities
in the notice just published. The notification of
the death maybe given within five days, and must be
given, if called for, within eight days of its occur-
rence, to the registrar ; but among the poor how many
bodies are kept eight, or even five, days before inter-
ment ? We may, we believe, answer roundly, none ;
and yet any clergyman interring a corpse without a
certificate of registration from the registrar is liable to
a penalty of 101. Is every corpse, then, to be kept
beyond eight days, in order that the clergyman may
have the certificate ? No—another condition is an-
nexed ; he will be exempt from such penalty if he give
notice of the interment at the next register-office.
Upon the clergyman, therefore, will fall the whole
weight of a second and most onerous species of regis-
tration—that at the public office, after the usual entry
in his parish register. He must go to the public office
an I state that he has buried a person, of the death of
whom no notice is yet made in what is called " The
National Register ;" for the omission of that notice,
after eight days at the farthest, is a contempt of the
law, and the clergyman is thus -made a general in-
former I His notice or information will be the only
original groundwork for a legal proceeding. The truth
you will afterwards find to be this—that of the millions
of poor who die, no notice whatever will be given to
the register except that which is conveyed by the in-
terring clergyman ; so that at last you get nothing
more with respect to deaths than the parish register
repeated at needless cost to the country, and unre-
warded trouble to the parochial clergy. But now
comes the most -remarkable part of the whole with
respect to both these notices. What punishment
or penalty is to be inflicted or imposed on those
who neglect to go to the register-office to give notice
of the birth or a death of a relative, or connexion, or
alien lodger ? We answer, none ! None whatever
at least is specified in these notices. A false registry
of birth renders the offender liable to a penalty of 50/.1.
But how is no registry at all to be prevented or
punished ? Why, those who neglect registration of
births and deaths altogether are gravely told, " That
persons failing to do that which is by an Act of Par-
liament enjoined are indictable for a misdemeanour,
although no specific penally is imposed by the Act
which they have so disobeyed !" Here's legislation
for you Now, in answer to this assertion we say,
that it is at least very doubtful whether, a statute
being provided in any case, a person neglecting obedi-
ence to the requirements of that statute is indictable
at common law. In the present instance, the statute
creates the offence, and must therefore specify the
penalty, if there be any. Nor is this all. If dis-
obedience to a statute which does not carry its own
protection with it be a misdemeanour, it can only be
punished by personal infliction ; for no one, it is
clear, can take money at will out of a fellow subject's
.pocket for not doing this or that thing ; no one
can in such a case sue for damages. May a poor
man then be cast into prison, or put in the stocks,
because, occupied with his daily labours, he has
neglected to go to a public registry-office to cause the
insertion of the death of his child, or his parent, or the
partner of his toils ? So say our liberal Whig Mi-
nisters and their enlightened followers in the present
enlightened House of Commons. But we say, that
they dare not punish a man or woman corpoteally for
doing nothing—for simply abstaining from any act of
which they have thought proper to enjoin the per-
formance. Every body knows that a much better-
intentioned act, the act of Elizabeth, imposing a fine
for not going to church, became a dead letter from the
moment of its birth. We know that the House of
Lords has corrected many crudities, has rationalized
many absurdities, which have been sent up to them :
they may have let some pass through inadvertence, or
perhaps in order to let the nation see what kind of le-
gislators we were likely to have, if all were left to the
reformed portion of Parliament. Take one of these
acts as a specimen, and the rest are strictly of a piece.
" Some person present at a death, or in attendance
during thelastillness, must, if required, give information
at the registry-office of the district of the following
particulars, videlicet :-1. The day of death. 2.
The name and surname of the person who died.
3. The sex. 4. Age. 5. Rank. 6. Cause of
death." And in neglect of giving such informa-
tion—" They are informed, that failing to do that
which is enjoined by Act of Parliament, they
are indictable for a misdemeanour, though no spei:,
cific penalty is enjoined by the Act which they
have so disobeyed !" " They are indictable !" Who
are indictable ? Sonic person present at a death, or in
attendance during the last illness ! Was ever trash so
base known to issue from a legislative body ? It has
often been our lot to rouse the people of England, on
occasions calling for their indignation or contempt.
Certainly our columns will not be blank when the fu-
tile attempt shall be made, in March next, to give
efficacy to propositions of this nature. With respect
to the Marriage Registration Act and the notice now
given under it, as it leaves the marriages of our Church
where it found them, with only the optional substitu-
tion of previous registration, instead of bans or li-
cense, we shall pass this over briefly. They may 1)6
married in any other way that they please ; but the
morals of the people are purer than those of their pre-
sent governors. How will such marriages be viewed
in society ? Have not Lords Melbourne and J. Rus-
sell begun yet to fine( out how difficult it is to with-
draw the people of England from the trammels of their
Church ? We'will tell them why. They are trammels
imposed by reason, piety, and learning united. Any
other bonds would have been broken by them, like
chains of sand ; but these still enfold them with inex-
tricable links.—Times.

It is right to give praise where praise is due. The
Common Council of London has certainly acted in a
libezal and handsome manner by voting 5001. to-
wards the fund for erecting metropolitan churches.
The requisition which had been addressed to the Lord
Mayor on the subject was signed, it appears, by up-
rds of 50 names of persons of different political
~_.; (- . t
.. andtoretlhiaeious
/ .
(.....-1)4
ometropolitan persuasions.
cor p Thisorati onw. a scrh e ; highlye.
p?..... 1:1 ._:_-it -,', which Mr. Deputy Corney, the mover. of
1--....) f'-41e - 4n6 introduced the question were exceedingly
_.., : lier.tinitLand judicious, with one exception to which
k;iT:- .::.,.;i7tif'..a': I 'presently advert. He said he " was grad-
i