The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-29 00:00:00

Member net to withdraw the Bill, but to adjourn the dis-
eussion with the view of a general measure being intro-

(laced on that subject.
After a few words from Mr. EWART and Mr. Rictraan
PoTraa, the introduction of the Bill was postponed till

the 15th of April.
FACTORIES BILL.
Lord ASHLEY said, that having observed by the votes
that the motion of the Hon. Member for Lancaster was
deferred, be begged to ask that Hon. Member when he

intended to bring it on ?
Mr. PATTEN bad no intention of postponing his mo-
tion. The notice was inserted in the votes without his
consent, and he believed by mistake.
Lord ASHLEY said that m ,ny Hon. Members, who
felt interested in the subject, were absent,...under the sup-

_ . .
position that the motiun was deferred. He himself had
been on the eve of leaving town, and remained only he.

cause he had understood that it was by some mistake the
notice had been inserted in the votes. He suggested to
the Han. Member the propriety, under the circumstances,
of deferring his motion.

After some discussion, Mr. PATTEN agreed to defer
his motion till Tuesday next, on the understanding that
Lord Ashley should not move the second reading of his
Bill on the same subject previous to that time.

GAME ACT.
Mr. LEONARD moved for l.ave to bring in a Bill to
repeal the ith clause of the last Game Act ; and to enable

all tenants to shoot over the lands in their po,session, un:

less retrained by a special agreement to the contrary with
the landlord. The clause, as it at present stood, was the
occasion of much injustice and hartiship to tenants. He
knew of several instances in which it had acted, not only

contrary to the intention. of the lion. Member who intro-
duced that Bill (who, he regretted, had not a seat in the
present Parliament), but frequently contrary to the con-
ditions on which the leases were taken. One instance

within his knowledge occurred in Hertfordshire, which
was attended with peculiar hardship. A gentleman had
taken a farm under the express condition that be should
have the exclusive right of shooting over it; and, at the
time of making the bargain, he mentioned that he would
not give the rent for which he bound himself upon any
other condition. By the practice of that county, however,
there was no clause to that effect in the lease, and the only

manner in which it was made to appear that tenants had
the right to sport over their lands, was, when there was
nu clause inserted reserving the right to the lanolord—the

omissiun of such a clause being considered as conferring
the right upon the tenant. Sonn afterwards the Gain,•
bill pawed, and took from tenants all right to sport, un-
ki.s they had an express condition to that effect in their
leases. i'ho consequence was, that this gentleman was
_ _

,kpriv*d of his just right. But that was hut one of many
simil4r instances of injustice. He would allow that that
!Reuse was not liable for the insertion of the clause of which

he complained. It was introdoced in the other House,
with the belief and expectation that that House would
never pass it. The whole Bill was disagreeable to the
great proprietors in the other House, and they had hoped
that, by the insertion of such a clause, they might get rid
of it altogether. They were, however, disappointed, for
the Bill, as it contained much undeniable good, was not
rejected on account of one objectionable clause. But it
was not in justice to the tenant alone that he wished for
the repeal of that clause. He was sure it would be found
necessary to do justice to the landlord oleo, as it would do
away with all ambiguity, and allow him to retain the
tight of sporting where he wished ; while it would put it
beyond doubt whether he had the right or not. The
Hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a
bill to the effect above stated.
Sir E• KNATCHBULL seconded the motion.
Mr. HEATHCOTE said that the Came Act bad not
been found to have the effect anticipated by the proposer•
of it. Crime had increased to a most alarming extent
since the passing of that Act. He thought that the ques-
tion should, at all events, be postponed.
Mr. BARING concurred. With respect to tile ques-
tion about the increase of demoralization, it was rather
difficult to assign the cause, for both the Game Act and
the Beer Bill had been passed in the same session. He
was himself inclined to lay blame on the Beer Bill.
The question being put,
Mr. WILLIAM BROUGHAM said, that the House
would certainly do well to revise the Bill, bat ought to
retain the principles of it. The atrocious offence of poi-
soning game, for instance, ought to be punished as a
misdemeanor, instead of by fine. The Hon. Gentleman
then related an instance of dreadful destruction which he
had witnessed of a friend's property in this way :—A boy
who had been discharged, revenged himself by poisoning
a vast quantity of pheasants. For his (Mr. William
Brougham's) own part, he would decidedly say, that in his
capacity of a Magistrate, he would certainly rather trans-
port any man for seven years who bad been guilty, of such
an atrocious offence as this, than for petty larceny. fie
considered the former an offence of the greatest enormity.
Mr. FAITHFUL was perfectly astonished at the decla-
ration of the Hon. Member. It did not appe tr to him that
there was any more moral guilt in poisoning a pheasant
than in shooting a sparrow. The came laws appeared to
him as most unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical ; they were
a protection to the rich, and an injury to the poor ; and
they ought to be altogether repealed.
Mr. AGLIONBY denied that there could be any rob-
bery of the poor in the matter of game—for the good rea-
son that they had no property in it. Game he considered
to be the property of those on whose lands it was fed, and
he did not see that anybody had any more right to rob a
man of his game than of his poultry. He would be the
last to wish to deprive the poor man of an iota of his
property or rights, but he did not see that they had the
slightest property in game.
After some few words from Mr. HEATHCOTE and Mr.
LENNARD, the Bill was ordered to be brought in.
LAW OF LIBEL.

Sir FRANCIS VINCENT moved for a Bill to alter
and amend the law of libel. The first thing he should
desire, would be the repeal of that part of the Six Arts,
and of that Bill brought in subsequently, which ciimpelled
all persons publishing pamphlets, &c., to enter into bonds
themselves, and find securities. He would also do away with
all ex-officio informations ; he would make libels a sub-
ject for action or indictment, and not en arbitr ,ry ex-
officio information—a proceeding originated in the tyran-
nical Star Chamber, by which any law officer might keep
out of the way any person whom he thought objection-
able. He should also desire to protect proprietors, pub-
hailers, and printers from being responsible for acts over
which they can show they had now power of control or
prevention. At the same time it should he required of all
such persons to deliver up the name of the author of the
libel complained of. He would also include in the same
exemption all booksellers and venders, for the inadvei tent
sale of a libel. He would have the justice of an alle-
gation left in all cases to the sole judgment of the Jury.
He would have the Counsel for the defendant allowed to
be heard last. In the event of a verdict against the de-
fendaut, the prosecutor should be obliged to insert the
verdict and the principal points at least of the case, in six
daily or weekly papers, as is done in France ; in order
that those who had real the libel in the original paper,
should see its refutation in the verdict of the Jury.
The question being put,
The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose merely to say that
he was not inclined to oppose what should appear to be
the opinion of Parliament.
Leave was 'he', given to hrinz in the Bill.
PAROCHIAL REGISTRATION.

Mr. WILKS moved for leave to appoint a " Select
Committee to consider the general state of parochial re-
gistries, and the laws relating to those registries, and the
registration of births, b iptisms, deaths, and burials, in
England and Wales." This was a subject of the highest
importance to all classes and denominations. In 1497,
Cardinal Wolsey introduced a number of excellent regu-
lations with respect to registries, which were still in pre-
servation, but in which many improvements might }et
be made. In the reign of El:sibeth, a Parliamentary
measure enacted that there should he a summary made of
all parochial registries, for the purpose of ascertaining the
precise parochial statistics of the country. The year 1552
was the time of the origin of baptismal registration. In
the Protectorate a new system had been introduced, of
which experience had shown the convenience and excel-
lence, namely, that this registration should be a civil,
and not an ecclesiastical regulation. It was a principle
of that system that the clergy might he present, and, if
they pleased, make it a religious ceremony ; but the re-
gistry of marriages and births was to be a civil regula-
tion. After the restoration of Charles 11. this system was
abrogated. No further alteration was made till the Act
of the 6th and 7th of William and Mary, by which the
duty was imposed on the people of registering births,
marriages, and deaths. This was compulsory, and the
object of it was that a correct registration should be pre-
served in each parish. The parishioners were compelled,
live days after the birth of a c:.ild, to notify that to the
authorities. By the 52d of Geo. 111., Lather alterations
were made. The Bill then brought in purported to be for
the retistration of births, baptisms, marriages, and deaths;
but, by an alteration made in it in the House of Lords,
that Bill, when it became a law, was tumid not to contain
one word about births. He mentioned this as a proof of
the crudities of our legislation. The schedules of that
Bit
were altered in the House of Lords, and births excluded.
It seas, therefore, only a register of baptisms and mar-
riages and deaths, and not of births. Yet this Act way
fir only I undation for the security of property. By the