The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PRALIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—This Day.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
SECOND READINGS,
The foll3wing bills were read a second time :—Athenry
Ennis Junction Railway (Extension of time) ; Manchester
and Milford Railway; Southampton and Netley Railway,
TUNBRIDGE-WELLS AND EASTBORNE RAIL-

WAY BILL.
The order for the second reading was discharged.
AFFIRMATIONS BILL.
Sir J. TRELAWNY moved the second reading of this
bill, and, in doing so, explained the present state of the law
with respect to oaths in courts of justice, which he described
as very defective. He did not desire to abolish the taking
of oaths, believing that their retention where parties had no
objection to take them would be useful, though ho might
show from holy writ that men were told to " Swear not at
all," but to go just now into a disquisition on the policy of
retaining judicial oaths would be probably beside the ques-
tion. As the law stood, a witness who had conscientious
scruples against oath taking was allowed to make
an affirmation in lieu of an oath, but a juryman
was compelled to take an oath. The present condition of
the law with respect to oaths was full of anomalies. He
quoted the opinion of Mr. Gladstone, Sir G. C. Lewis, and
others, in favour of guaranteeing to the public perfect free-
dom in matters of religious beliefs. The law, as at present,
favoured sceptics who looked upon themselves as privileged
persons exempted from attendance in courts of justice. No
less than 83 petitions were presented in favour of this
bill in 1861, alone, and public opinion out of doors was
greatly in its favour. He saw no reason why the bill
should not be read a second time.
Sir C. DOUGLAS read the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL alluded to a motion on
the paper by the hon. member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon),
to move that the bill be read a second time that day six
months, and as that hon. and learned gentleman was not in
his place he should submit a similar motion to the
house. (Hear, hear.) Had the measure simply sought to
assimilate the law of Scotland with that of England and
Ireland with respect to affirmations, he should not have
opposed it. To the first clause he had no objection ; but
the second one was most objectionable. The Act of William
111. permitted Quakers to make affirmations in civil cases;
and the law in this respect remained unaltered until the
reign of Geo. IV., when an act was passed permitting
Quakers and Moravians to make affirmations in cri-
minal proceedings. Subsequently in that reign Sepa-
ratists were admitted to enjoy the like privilege.
The let and 2d Viet., the Common Law Procedure Act of
1854, and the act of the hon. member for Southwark (Mr
Locke), somewhat extended and defined the nature of the
affirmations. The privilege of affirmations given under
these acts was based on the belief that the persons were
simply actuated by some religious scruples, and not by
complete scepticism. The bill would, if adopted, introduce
a complete change of principle, and not merely, as the hon.
baronet assumed, a slight extension of the present law
with regard to the present oaths. The law was ample for
every reasonable purpose. He had never heard of any in-
convenience to jurymen from not being permitted to take
affirmations. If the bill simply extended to jurymen, its
purpose was too small ; but if he gathered its purpose
rightly, it would refer to oaths taken by hon. members at
the table, by officers of the Inland Revenue, and by ap-
praisers in swearing to the value of goods on which a
seizure had been made. The 2d clause, which the hon.
baronet said was similar to the one adopted in India, would
obviously create great difficulty, and completely
alter the old law, for which there existed no
real necessity. The great object in civil and criminal pro-
ceedings was to elicit truth, and he held that the bill would
introduce greater inconveniences than now existed in the
endeavours of the Courts to elicit it. It often happened
that witnesses made a feint of not kissing the book in
order to avoid some portion of the solemn obligation of an
oath ; but a person capable of doing this would be per-
mitted by the bill to escape altogether the consequences of
giving false testimony. Little or no benefit would accrue
from the passing of the bill. (Divide, divide.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said it was a very melancholy circum-
stance that whenever it was proposed to alter the law
it was invariably opposed by practising lawyers. (Hear, and
laughter.) Practising lawyers, for instance, opposed the
recent alterations in the bill with respect to amending the
commercial law, and thank God without success. (Hear,
hear.) Theirs was a craft, and their object was not
so much to improve the science of law as to make it
yield honour and profit. (Hear, hear.) When a man
who was a,genuine sceptic was asked whether he believed
in a future state of reward and punishment, and answered
"No," he told the truth. (Hear, hear.) And if another
said he did, but in truth did not entertain any such belief,
they would admit his testimony, though he had obviously
told a lie. He supported the bill, because he believed it
would admit good testimony that was now shut out. Un-
believers were not all unjust or dishonourable men, and if
their testimony was abnegated a great injustice might
ensue to society.
Sir J. FERGUSON briefly opposed the bill.
Sir F. GOLDSMID supported the bill on the ground
that no civil disability whatever should be placed upon wit-
nesses in courts of justice on the score of their religious
belief.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill, and intimated that the
address of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield (Mr.
Roebuck) had materially strengthened his opinion against
it. His experience tended to exhibit that oaths were
indispensable in our courts of justice. The hon.
and learned gentleman had justified the truth of
the saying that when a counsel had no case, he generally
deemed it well to abuse the counsel on the opposite side.
(Laughter.) This was exactly the case of the hon. and
learned gentleman.
Mr. LOCKE adverted to the act which he was instru-
mental in passing—which permitted the application of affir-
mations to criminal as wall as civil proceedings-- and said
it was as stoutly opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, and
on the same grounds as were arrayed against this measure
--(hear)—yet it had resulted exoedingly well. One Irish
member at the time sharply opposed his measure, on the
ground that was not needed ; whereas the provisions which
he sought to apply to England were certainly at that time
in force in Ireland. (Laughter.) He would support the
present bill, because he confidently believed it would admit
much valuable testimony into our courts of justice at pre-
sent excluded.
Mr. INGRAM strenuously supported the bill.
Mr. CONYNGHAM said the opponents of the bill pro-
ceeded on the assumption that there were no moral punish-
ments in this world, arguing that unless a person believed
in a future condition of rawer,' s and punishments, his
testimony would be valueless. Considering that abstract
religious opinions should constitute no disability in persons
coming before the courts to give evidence, he should give
his earnest support to the measure. (Cries of " Divide,
divide.")
Sir C. DOUGLAS explained that the law passed for ap-
plication to India admitted, on affirmation, testimony of the
most valuable and indispensable nature. For instance,
if the Attorney- General were to be grossly assaulted.
in going down the Strand, and he could only prove 1
by a single witness, and he objected to take an oath
testimony
nony
ac-
count of his religious scruples, whereas
in India, based
could be freely adduced in our Courts
t b
upon laws passed by that house, would wlldreandatcaseesjusbstowor.
proper. (Hear, hear, an.l.
ing that people entertaining conscientious scruples against
the taking of oaths because they were unbelievers, held
that they were bound by honour to tell
i th
Norfolk
truth ; lso a
where the son of a baker n refused
county case,
this oath because he was not a believer, but as the judge
refused to take his testimony, and the witness seeing that
hie ,father's interests would thus be injured, he gave
way and took the oath. (Hear, hear.) Cases of this kind
showed the necessity for the bill. (Divide, divide.)
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 9G
Against it
Majority —46
The bill was consequently lost.
DISEASES PREVENTION (METROPOLIS) BILL
The second reading of this bill was postponed for a week.
SECURITY FROM VIOLENCE BILL.

Mr. ADDERLEY, in moving the second reading of this
bill, explained that the recent violent assaults upon and
robbery of unoffending people rendered it requisite to apply
to them the provisions of the act passed to punish offenders
who might, for the sake of notoriety, assault her Majesty,
namely, the punishment of whipping. (Hear, hear.) He
had received an immense number of letters from various
parts of the country, from magistrates, scientific writers on
crime, and governors of prisons—communications so nume-
rous that he could not possibly acknowledge them all—all
speaking favourably of the application of whipping to cases
of an incorrigible nature. (Hear, hear.) It was said
that juries would not convict it, they knew that an
Now
offender would be subjected to corpo wyal Punishiliden t.
in their
in this country he considered that juries p 2
verdicts, follow the bent of public opipionin- the matter.
(Hear, hear.) In his opinion he considered that a second