The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1834

motion as could be relied on ; and the same observation
would apply to the case of deaths, though not perhaps with
equal force. As far as related to the members of the
Church of England •he was inclined to believe that the
present system of registration would be preferred to that
now proposed to be adopted in its place. The present
system of registration kept up the spiritual connection
which ought to subsist between the minister and his con-
gregation ; and for his (Sir R. Peel's) part he should object
to any measure the tendency of which would be to discon-
tinue that connection. There was another point on which
he thought the promoters of this bill were bound to furnish
the house with some information, and that was as to the
probable expense which would be incurred in carrying this
measure into effect. Day after day committees of that
house were employed in cutting down the public and local
expenditure of the country, but how could the county rate
or any other rate be reduced if bills of this description, im-
posing new burdens, were accumulated, as had been the
case of late ? On principles of toleration the Protestant
clergy should be suffered to keep the registries which they
were now bound by law to keep, if they were willing to do
so, and if the members of the Established Church were
satisfied with the present mode of registration surely it
would be unfair to fix new burdens upon them. He (Sir
R. Peel) was convinced that the mode of registration
proposed by this bill would not be half so satisfac-
tory to Protestants as that which existed ; and therefore,
although he attached very great importance to a general
registry of this nature, he must object to any measure
which might have the tendency of undermining the regis-
tries kept by the clergy of the Church of England. He
was satisfied, however, that no person belonging to the
communion of that Church would avail themselves of the
new law, even if it were enacted ; and therefore it would
be as well at once to limit it to Dissenters, and other per-
sons who had no registries of their own. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROUGHAM said that the bill was intended not
only for the relief of Dissenters, but he might say of the
whole community. When he introducd it, he stated that
it was not meant to interfere with the registries kept in
churches, or the fees consequent upon those registries pay-
able to the clergy. This was apparent in the first clause.
There was no intention whatever to disturb the existing
law relating to the registration of baptisms and burials ; on
the contrary, the act of the 52d of George 111., under
which such registries were kept, would remain in operation.
Sir R. PEEL asked if it were proposed to make any
alteration in the mode in which marriages were now re-
gistered ?
Mr. BROUGHAM was understood to reply in the ne-
gative. At present there was no record of births and
deaths, and the great object of this bill was to supply that
defect, which was severely felt in cases of title and other
proceedings in which reference to those events was made.
He thought that such a record would be a great benefit to
the community at large, and therefore hoped the committee
would agree to the clause.
Sir R. PEEL—Then it would seem that the statute of
the 52d of Geo. 111. was to continue in operation, not-
withstanding this bill passed into a law. This fact in itself
created an almost insurmountable difficulty. By the 52d
of Geo. 111. the clergy of the Church of England were
bound to produce the books in which the registries were to
be kept, and that being the case, where was the necessity
of this double expense ? But there was something, he must
say, very anomalous in having two sets of registries. The
registry of baptisms and burials was to be kept by one
party, while that of births and deaths was to be kept by
another, but would not such a system lead to endless com-
plexity? The person who made a search would have to
consult two distinct authorities, and if those authorities
happened to disagree, or did not tally exactly with each
other, what would be the consequence ? In such a case,
and it was one likely enough to happen, where would be
the advantage of either registry ? Such a mode of regis-
tration would, to say the least of it, be a most cumbrous
proceeding, and therefore, however willing he was to admit
that there ought to be a record of births and deaths as well
as of baptisms and burials, he could not give his assent to
that which, even if adopted, could lead to no beneficial result.
Mr. BARING observed that the whole merit of a re-
gistry of births would depend upon the fact of the child
being named in the entry ; for without the name the entry
would be unintelligible. What information, for instance,
would an entry furnish which stated that Henry Thompson
and Mary Ann, his wife, was born on such a day. The
registry of birth and baptism must, to be worth anything,
be contemporaneous acts. (Hear.)
Mr. PEASE said that although he belonged to a body
who would not give up the mode of registration which they
had adopted for any other, he still thought that a correct
record of births and deaths was desirable. The 17th clause
would remove the difficulty which had been raised with re-
spect to the name of the child.
Mr. GOULBURN said that a double registry was cal-
culated only to embarrass the investigations of titles. Evi-
dence of birth derived from one source and of baptism from
another would involve titles in such difficulties that it would
be impossible to get over them ; but if the registry was to
be kept by the same party the objection to which he alluded
might be got over.
Mr. CARTER was understood to approve of the clause.
Sir R. INGLIS said that he believed the members of
the Church of England would prefer the system of regis-
tration now provided for than to any other that could be
proposed. It might be very well to provide registries for
those who required them, but certainly there was no occa-
sion for doing that which was wholly uncalled for. His
right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel) had asked a question- re-
specting the expense which would be incurred in carrying
this bill into effect ; and he (Sir R. Inglis) should like to
have that question answered.
Mr. E. DENISON was understood to say that he disap-
proved of the bill, and thought that even if it were adopted
it could be of no possible advantage to the public.
Lord J. RUSSEL stated, in reply, that the register to
be proposed should not be in any way the same as that now
kept in churches, but a sort of civil register for general pur-
poses of information, which he thought could not be better
collected than through the means of the tax officers
throughout the country. It had been asked how much
such a system of registry would cost the country. He
believed it might pretty confidently be estimated not to ex-
ceed 60,000/. or 70,000/. per annum.
After a few observations from Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Hume,
Mr. Finch, Mr. Verner, and Mr. Briscoe.
The ATT()RNEY-GENERAL said that registration
would be altogether useless unless it was done upon the
authority of some one personally acquainted with the fact.
He admitted that the present measure was imperfect in
many respects, but still it was certainly a great improve-
ment upon the system that had hitherto prevailed.
Lord ALTHORP made a few observations in support
of the bill, which were generally inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. WARBURTON was favourable to the general
principle of the bill ; and as to the objections made to its
impracticability, he would say that two years would be
enough to carry it into full operation.
Dr. LUSHINGTON liked the principle of registration,
but he could not say that he was so favourable to the de-
tails and the minor registries pointed out in the present bill.
They were calculated to lead to jealousies, disputes, and liti-
gation. He would prefer one large comprehensive measure.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was a friend to such a
general measure ; but in the absence of that measure he
would not cast away the advantages of the present with its
particular registries, and even its imperfections. The citi-
zens of London availed themselves of the old inconvenient
London Bridge until the new one was erected.
The clause, after some conversation, was carried with
some verbal amendments.

On clause 14, respecting the registry of births, deaths,
and marriages, being read,
Dr. LUSHINGTON said that he thought a small fine
would be a most desirable substitute for the pro-
posed punishment for concealment of births. (Hear.)
Horrid cases occurred at present respecting the conceal-
ment of births, especially illegitimate ones. He knew of
the case of a young lady of high rank who was confined at
seven in the morning and appeared at her father's dinner
table in the evening, in order to lull all suspicion of her
condition. (Hear, hear.)
An Hon. MEMBER thought there should be additional
evidence of births besides those of the parents.

Mr. BERNAL, though he did not like the bill as a
whole, yet he would take it, in the hope that a better in
time would be introduced. It was not practicable to get
much evidence in cases of births, especially as regarded the
poor ; and to require it indespensably would in some cases
be attended with injury.
The clause was agreed to with some verbal alterations.
Several clauses were then agreed to.
On the question that the first blank in the 17th clause
be filled up with the words " five shillings" being proposed,
Mr. ESTCOURT moved that the sum be reduced to
half-a-crown.

On this amendment the committee divided, when there
appeared—__ _

For the amendment 55
Against it 73

Majority
Clauses to No. 21 were carried with sundry amendments,
and without any division.
Clause 22 was postponed, in order to its being placed
after flause 28,
The clauses from 23 to 29, with some verbal amend-
rnents, were then agreed to.
The other clauses of the bill were then agreed to, the
house resumed, and the report was ordered to be taken into
consideration on Monday.

CUSTOMS ACTS.
Mr. P. THOMSON moved that the house resolve itself
into committee on the Customs Acts.
On the question that the Speaker leave the chair,
Mr. LYALJ4 objected to this, as he had an order of

the day which stood previous to that of the right hon. gen-
tleman.

A conversation arose as to the propriety of government
orders having precedence on Wednesday, in which Mr.
Hume, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. P. Thom-
son took part. The house ultimately resolved itself into
committee.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that at that hour of the night
he would not take up the time of the house for more than
a few minutes. He thought that it would be more conve-
nient if he, on that occasion, simply stated what was the
subject matter of his resolutions, and if those resolutions
were agreed to it would be his duty to bring in a bill
founded on them, and it would be better to take the dis-
cussion at one of the stages of the bill than go at any length
into the subject at present. He proposed in the present
stage simply to state the nature of two or three resolutions
which he had to propose, and on which a bill would be
founded, and also to state some other resolutions imposing
a change of duty on certain articles. It was very well
known to many hon. gentlemen that last year the question
of the duties on dried fruits was brought under the consi-
deration of the house by his hon. friend the member for the
city of London (Mr. Grote). His hon. friend made a mo-
tion for the reduction of the duty on currants. He (Mr.
P. Thomson had opposed the motion in the first place in
consequence of the state of the revenue, and because he
knew that his noble friend (Lord Althorp) could not spare
a portion of income equivalent to the duty on currants,
and also because he thought that it was inexpedient to
take up a single case, as he felt that if they reduced
the duty on currants they must make a correspond-
ing reduction of duty on other fruits. He had told
his honourable friend (Mr. Grote) at the time that
it would be his (Mr. Poulett Thomson's) duty, at as
early a period as possible to propose reductions in the
duties on the articles in question. It was therefore with
the greatest pleasure that he was able to inform the Com-
mittee that he was able to propose a reduction of the duty
of currants to the amount of one half now paid. (Hear.)
And joined to this resolution he should propose a reduction
in proportion in the rated duty to an ad valorem duty on
raisins, prunes, and other dried fruits imported into this
country. (Hear.) Besides this, he had to state that one
of the resolutions which he had to propose applied to an
article the reduction of the duty on which had been much
pressed on his Majesty's Government, and indeed there
was then a motion in the book to that effect by his noble
friend the member for Yorkshire : he (Mr. Thomson)
meant the duty on olive oil. Every hon. gentleman at all
acquainted with the manufactures of the country knew that
olive oil was an article of great importance, and was much
used in connection with machinery. He need hardly say
that it was in conformity with his principles that they
should have it at as cheap a rate as possible. It was clear
also that he could not reduce the duty on this article with-
out making a corresponding reduction on articles of a simi-
lar description. He therefore accompanied his proposition
for the reduction of the duty on olive oil with one for the
reduction of the duty on cocoa-nut oil and palm oil. It had
been pressed on him to take the duty off this article alto-
gether, and his own feelings would induce him to afford
the manufacturer the raw material at as cheap a rate as
possible. In the first place, however, they had to
consider the amount of revenue which his noble friend could
allow to be reduced ; and secondly, that it was not right to
take off the duty on this one article without taking off the
duty on similar articles, which would involve such a sacri-
fice of revenue as it would not, under present circumstances,
be desirable to make. He thought, then, that by reducing
the duty one half he should confer a great benefit on the
manufacturers of the country. (Hear, hear.) He had also
to state to the house that if the resolution for this reduction
were made, it was intended in a bill that he should have to
propose that the duty on olive oil should not be taken off
with regard to that article when it was the produce of the
Two Sicilies, unless his Majesty, by an order in council,
directed that it should be done. By this clause he would
reserve to the King in council the right of reducing the
duty on the article coming from this part of the Continent
when he thought it expedient to do so. There had been
for some time negotiations going on between the two Go-
vernments as to a greater commercial intercourse between
this country and the Two Sicilies, and he was sorry to
have to state that he did not find that there was a disposi-
tion on the part
.of the Sicilian Government to remove
restrictions on our commerce, or to impose reasonable
duties. He thought that this country had reason to com-
plain of such treatment. Therefore he did not feel it to
be his duty to recommend to the house immediately to re-
duce the duty of articies arriving from that country. At the
same time he was prepared to admit the principle that the
interest of the consumer should be looked to in our com-
merce with foreign countries ; but he still thought that it
was expedient under particular circumstances that there
should be such a power in the hands of Government as he
proposed. There were some more articles on which he

intended to propose a reduction in the amount of duty, on
certain articles which did not to any considerable extent
involve a question of revenue. The articles he alluded to
were the produce of our West India Colonies. He need
hardly say that he thought it most desirable to reduce as

low as consistently could be done the duties on articles
from these countries, but in consequence of the reductions
he had proposed on many articles from these countries, not
much remained for him to do. The chief articles on which
he proposed to reduce the duty were plantains, liqueurs,
pickles, pimento, and matting. It might appear to many
hon. gentlemen that the articles the duty on which he pro-
posed to reduce were trifling in importance. This he did
not think was the case. The fact was, however, that with
the limited sum which his noble friend (Lord Althorp)
could sacrifice for this purpose, he (Mr. P. Thomson) was
forced to make reductions on those articles by which the
greatest good could be done, and of course he was limited
in the amount of the reductions when he endeavoured
to extend the benefit over the greatest surface. The
apparent sacrifice from the reduction of the duty would
be 150,000/., although from the increased consumption
he did not think that the loss would be so great ;

yet he made an allowance to that amount. V He
begged hon. gentlemen not to suppose, because some of the
articles on which he proposed reduction of duty were ap-
parently of trifling importance, because they were hardly
known to them by name, that it was not worth while to
reduce the duty on them ; on the contrary, he could state
that the reduction of duty would be of very great benefit.
He could refer on this point with great pleasure to what
had been done within the last two years ; but at that late
hour he would not trouble the committee at any length with
going into details. He could not, however, abstain from
mentioning some striking instances of the advantages that
had resulted from the reduction of duty—sometimes almost
prohibitory—on certain articles probably scarcely known to
many hon. members, and showing how much the consump-
tion had increased in consequence of such reduction, and
also the great benefits which had resulted to the commercial
classes generally since this change. He hoped the com-
mittee would permit him for a few minutes to allude to the
beneficial change that had taken place in consequence of
the reduction in articles in 1831 and 1832, and this would

show how much might be done by a judicious reduction of
duties. In 1831 he was much taunted in consequence of
the long list of articles on which he proposed to lower the

duties, and a great many of them Were stated to be
merely medical drugs. Hon. gentlemen, however, forgot
that many of these were mixed up with the manufactures of
the country. He was asked how he imagined that he should

be able to afford relief by merely reducing the duty a
halfpenny a pound on some drugs. Several of these small