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

for a copy of any communication made upon the subject by
Lord Clanricarde to the Irish government.
COERCION BILL.

Mr. O'CONNELL said he wished to put another ques-
tion to the right hon. Secretary, but not seeing him in the
house he would make it the subject of a notice. He be-
lieved the Coercion Bill which the noble lord at the head
of the Govomment obtained leave to bring in yesterday
was introduced against the wishes and the recommendation
of the Irish Government. He now gave notice that he
would to-morrow move for copies of any communications
made by the Irish Government to his Majesty's Ministers
upon the subject.
On the motion of Mr. HUME various returns were or-
dered connected with the Merchant Seamen's Society.
Mr. HODGES presented a petition from the parish of
Sedloe, in Kent, in favour of the Established Church. They
wished, at the same time, that every fair indulgence should
be extended to the scruples of Dissenters. The hon.
member presented similar petitions from Chifney and River-
head.

Mr. BAINES presented petitions from various Metho-
dists and other congregations in Leeds, praying that com-
pensation might be given for the wanton destruction of pro-
perty which occurred in the West Indies.
Captain ELLIOT presented a petition from Kelso-on
the subject of intemperance ; one from Gallashiels, com-
plaining of the heavy duty on coals ; from Hythe (as we
understood) praying for the separation of Church and
State ; and from the schoolmasters of Kelso praying for
remuneration.
Mr. P. THOMSON presented a petition from various
persons in Manchester against alterations in the Lancaster
Courts.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from Brecon against
the application of public money in payment of church rates,
and from another place for a free trade in corn.
Lord NORREYS presented a petition from a parish in
the county of Norfolk against the admission of Dissenters
into the Universities.
Mr. PEASE presented a petition from certain ministers
of Methodist congregations at Stockport against the union
of church and state ; and another petition from persons
employed in steam navigation, praying that they might be
admitted to the benefits ofthe Merchants Seamen's Society.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL brought in a bill to
empower his Majesty to enable certain companies and asso-
ciations to sue and be sued in the names of their officers.
Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on
Wednesday next.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL also brought in a bill
to amend the law relative to wills, &c.—Read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday next.
In answer to a question put by Mr. O'Connell, the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that this latter bill would
apply to Ireland as well as to England.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.
Lord J. RUSSELL mos ed the further consideration of
the report of this bill.
The bill was then recommitted.
After a short and unintelligible conversation in com-
mittee,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that a registra-
ion of births of Dissenters was necessary even to Protest-
ants and to all persons who had or might be left property.
Without a proper and legal registry of births, marriages,
and deaths, it would be in many cases, and in cases where
Protestants and every other sect might be concerned, very
difficult to decide in a court of law to whom property be-
longed. In the course of his practice he had seen in courts
of law forgeries and many other expedients resorted to to
obtain property, all of which would have been prevented if
there had existed what this bill contemplated, namely, a full
registry of births, marriages, and deaths.
Lord SANDON objected to that part of the proposed
measure which enjoined a penalty even on the poor man
unless it was found that he registered within a certain pe-
riod. Besides this pecuniary punishment, he considered it
harsh that a family should be disturbed at a time when
death had brought them under affliction, and that they
should be put to the cruel inconvenience that would result
from this bill.
Lord ALTHORP said that the bill was brought in
because the present mode of registration was extremely de-
fective. The principle of it would be to cause the collec-
tors of taxes to receive the registers, which were to be
supervised by the surveyors of taxes, and transmitted by
them to a general Registry Office. This seemed to him the
most convenient mode of registration. He saw no reason
whatever why the machinery of the bill should not work
well, and he considered that this was the very best mode
that had yet been suggested for the purpose of the registra-
tion of births.
Colonel DAVIES said that he quite agreed in the im-
portance of the bill, but did not see any objection to pro-
ceeding with the discussion of it at that time. He should
have preferred it if the duty of keeping the parish register
had been thrown on the clergyman or the parish clerk than
on the tax gatherer. He thought that by this means the
register would be taken greater care of, as it would be
locked up with the other documents belonging to the
parish.
Mr. BAINES thought that there would be many ob-
jections to such an arrangement as was proposed by his
honourable friend (Colonel Davies). One of the chief ob-
jections to the arrangement of the noble lord (Lord J.
Russell) was that it created an appearance of dependence
on the church.
Dr. LUS H I NGTON had not expected that the bill
would have been proceeded with during the present session.
He agreed with the Attorney-General as to the absolute
necessity of some general registry of births and marriages.
He could state from his own experience that the present sys-
tem was productive of the greatest inconvenience to the
country at large, and he was therefore willing to lend his
assistance to any measure which would remedy the defects
of it, so that there should be a complete register of births,
marriages, and deaths. At the same time he was bound to
state that it appeared to him that the question was replete
with difficulties, and it required the greatest deliberation on
the part of the house, both as to its principles and details, to
apply a remedy. He doubted whether the measure before
the Committee would in its present stage attain the ends
in view. If, however, his Majesty's Ministers and the
house thought there was time in the present session to
frame the bill in such a way as to overcome all the
difficulties which might arise, he would concur in carry-
ing it into effect, and would render every assistance for
that purpose, but it would be most objectionable to at-
tempt to carry any measure into effect which was not
almost perfect. He thought it most desirable that they should
have a registry to refer to in cases of difficulty ; but the
present bill admitted the registry as evidence in cases in
which he believed that it would not be altogether prudent.
He agreed also that the machinery contemplated by the
bill was too expensive, and doubted whether the conse-
quence would not be the keeping a number of registers, and
thus diminishing the security. He would not oppose pro-
ceeding with the bill, but would wait till it came out of
committee, when he should be able to judge whether the
measure was sufficiently improved to be carried into effect.
He thought that the advantages of a registry were so great
that he never would agree to a measure for the purpose,
unless it could be easily carried into effect, and at the same
time afford security.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY was most anxious that the mea-
sure should be carried into effect. He thought that the tax-
gatherer was the best person who could be selected in each
parish to keep the registry, as he was generally an intelli-
gent man. He would be in constant intercourse with the
collector, to whom he could refer in case of difficulty, and
the collector would be able to refer, if necessary, to the
Board.

After a few words from Mr. PEASE, the clause was
agreed to.

On the next clause being put,
Mr. FINCH asked what would be the probable expense
of the registration ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was intended that the
general register should he under the control of the commis-
sioners of taxes, and two or three clerks in addition to the
present establishment would be necessary for that purpose.
He did not anticipate that the annual expense of central re-
gistration would exceed 1,000/. per annum.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 12 inclusive were severally amended and
agreed to.

Clause 13 having been put,
Dr. LUSHINGTON said he wished to ask the hon.
and learned promoter of the bill, how it was possible to re-
concile clause 11 with the clause now under consideration?
There was nothing in this bill which could enable the re-
gistrar to ascertain the fact of either birth or death with
positive accuracy. As the clauses stood, the foundation of
the entry in the registry would be no better than hearsay
evidence, and as such evidence could not be received in a
court of law, it followed that a registry so conducted would
be of no possible advantage. He had not been aware that
it was intended to press this measure through during the
present session, or he should have examined its provisions
with greater care ; but in no point of view ought they to
agree to this clause as it stood. He was now told that a
clause was to be introduced to correct the defect to which
he had alluded, and all he could say was, that in the fram-
ing of any such clause, great care should be taken to pro-
vide that the entry in the registry should only be made on
the information of a party who had means of ascertaining
the fact stated, positively and beyond all doubt.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he felt the full force (":
his hon. and learned friend's observation. The defeat wl,;ic
he pointed out was one which ought to be remed;
e_„and
d, and
therefore he hoped that his hon. and learned fri'nd
assist in framing such a clause as would meet #:ne diffi would
difficulty
to which he adverted.

Sir R. PEEL said that in the case of births it would he
extremely difficult, as they all knew, to obtain such infor-