The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-23 00:00:00

TEIE POOR-LAW BILL.

General JOHNSON gave notice, that on Tuesday
ne;;t ho would move for certain returns connected with the
Po n..1,1w Bill—first, the number of union workhouses
erceteci uudci• the New Poor-law Act, their cost,
the sums of money which have been already bor-
rowed, and from what sources the rate of interest,
the nature of the security given, the principal sums which
had been repaid, and the law expenses attending such secu-
ri!ie3, with the amount of the sums annually levied under
the denomination of the Poor-rates, and the amount of the
sums paid fur the actual relief and maintenance of the poor
in each Union—the amount of salaries, law expenses, and
in die id ual charges, the expense of salaries and other charges
of the Commissioners, with the names of the AssistantCom-
mii.s!oners, and the salaries and expellees incurred by each--
th,; returns to commence from the passing of the Act up
to ti►e Ist of January last, distinguishing each year.
THE ARMY AND NAVY.

Sir E. COD RI NGTO N said that on a former occasion
when the Navy Estimates were before the House, a Com-
mission was appointed to examine into the condition of the
officers of the Army and Navy. He found that inquiry did
not extend below a certain rank, and wished a copy of the
Commission should be laid before the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, if the Gallant Admiral gave
notice, he should have no objection to grant it.
Sir E. CO D RINGTON then gave notice of a motion
for Monday next.
Mr. C. WOOD gave notice that, on Monday week, he
would move the Navy Estimates.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. FOX MAULE moved the Order of the Day, for
the second reading of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.
Captain GORDON did not rise for the purpose of op-
posing the motion ; although there were many altera-
tions in, it, there were by no means any improvements
upon the Bill of last Session.—( Hear.) All parties
were agreed on the propriety and necessity of having good
and sufficient prisons in all parts of Scotland. There
were, however, several alterations in the Bill which he did
not apprbve of, and he hoped the Honourable Gentleman
would consent to have the Bill divided into two parts.
Mr. F. MAULE had considered the proposition made
by the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, but he did not think
he could consent to it. The case of Scotland was totally
different from that of England. In England the country
gentlemen had devoted themselves to the state
of the prisons, and had spared no expense in bringing
these establishments to perfection. The system of
Visiting Justices was one of the best that could be
adopted, in order to place those prisons on a proper
and correct footing. In Scotland they have done
nothing of the kind ; they had a system which was con-
fessedly and notoriously a disgrace to that country.
When the Hon. Gentleman said it was hard that Scotland
should be made the scene of experiments with respect to
ticsilent system, he should recollect that the Central
cardin Scotland would have a power of discretion,
end that they would remain subject to the controul
a the Secretary of State, which controul would be

- -
subject to the revision of that house. He con d not
consent to divide the Bill into two parts.
Mr. PRINGLE protested against the statements of the
Hen. Member for Elgin, that the counties of Scotland had
done nothing for the improvement of prisons, and that great
strides had been made in England to effect that object.
great sums had been laid out by the counties of Scotland,
and all of them, more or less, had made great exertions.
He would refer to the report of Mr. Hill, to show that
large sums bad been laid out in the improvement of pri-
sons, and that the prisons were in good order.—
(Hear; hear, bear.) If the Honourable Member for
Elgin would consent to divide his Bill into two parts,
there was no doubt but that it would be carried through
both Houses of Parliament, to the great satisfaction of
Scotland ; and he wished to see this question settled at the
earliest possible period.—( Divide, divide).
Sir GEORGE CLERK was sorry that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Elgin was not disposed to adopt the suggestions
that had been thrown out. He wished to see some impor-
tant improvements made in the state of the Scotch prisons,
but be did not think the Hon. Member was warranted in stat-
ing that nothing had been done by the Justices of Scotland.
By the former state of the law the whole expense of build-
ing prisons was thrown upon Municipal Corporations. He
was ready to support that part of the Bill which made it
compulsory on the country to contribute their fair propor-
tion of the expense of building prisons in Scotland. He
thought however that it was unnecessary that the building
of penitentiaries and large prisons should form any part
of the Bill. The Noble Lord opposite had stated that it was
the intention of the Government to call upon Parliament
for a vote of money to erect penitentiaries in England,
and if such a course was necessary for England he could
not see why it should not ha adopted for Scotland. If
such expel imenta were necessary they ought to be made at
the public expense.
Mr. F. MAULE said that the great object he had in view
was to place persons who had to undergo a long sentence to-
gether.
Mr HAWES said the object of the Right Honourable
Bart. was to saddle on the general taxation of the country,
the expense of erecting those prisons which the Scotch
land-owners had fur so many years neglected to do—
( Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition benches.) He
begged pardon. The object of this Bill, undoubtedly was,
to erect certain prisons at the expense of the land-owners
of Scotland; with the view of amending the system of
prison discipline. This had been constantly opposed by
Hen. Gentlemen opposite—(Cries of " No.") He recol-
lected then opposing this Bill last year, and he recollected
that the great landowners threw out the Bill in the House
of Lords. It was proposed by the Hon. Gentlemen near
him, and advocated by many on the same side of the House,
and the only opposition made was by Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite, on account of the little paltry assessment on their
property."—( Cheers.) He wished it to go forth to the
public, that the object sought was to assess Scotland to the
amount of 30,000/ in one year, which would not be Id. in the
pound, and on that account an opposition was made to one of
the most useful measures ever brought forward.--( Cheers. )
The report of Mr. Hill had been referred to in order to
show how much had been done for Scotland, but that
report showed exactly the reverse, fur it stated that the
different recommendations which had been given had been
wholly neglected, and when this Bill was brought forward
it was met with decided opposition by tic Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, every delay was thrown in the way of the Bill,
and when it got into the Lords how was it treated ? Did
they meet the Bill on its merits? No. It was referred
to a Select Committee, and there the whole inquiry was
cushioned.—( Cheers.) The Report on the table of this
Iluuse contained the most flagrant instances of injustice.
The county of Aberdeen had been referred to as a kind of
pattern county, but chat said the Inspector? The gaol
was built in a very substat tial manner, but not with a view
either to the employment or the separation of the prison-
ers. It was built in the middle of the town, and there
were no means of inspecting the prisoners without their
being cognizant of the fact. (An Hon. Member said it was
not worse than Newgate.) He was not one of these who
defended Newgate, for he had always denounced it as a dis-
grace to the Corporation of London, but he suspected it
would be found to be an excellent prison compared with
many of the Scotch prisons. In many of them every
species of irregularity was carried on, and the prisoners
could even communicate with persons outside the
Ile hoped the Under- Secretary would press this Bill, and
that the Scotch counties would be obliged to build and
support their prisons.---( Hear, hear.) They were asked
to do more than what was done in the English counties.—
( Cheers from the Opposition.) The present assessment
in Scotland was far less than in the English counties. In
many of the latter it was not less than 3d. or 4d. in the
pound, whilst there it was not more than Id. He ear-
nestly hoped that the Under- Secretary would not be inti-
midated by the opposition which which was now offered,
and that the country would perfectly understand that this
was neither more nor less than a refusal on the part of the
Scottish landowners to do that justice which had been done
in every other part of the country.—( Cheers. )
Lord STORMONT thought the Hon. Member oppo-
site could not have paid any attention whatever to the Act;
for if he had, he could not have been so totally ignorant of
all its provisions. All parties were agreed as to the defec-
tive state of the prisons ; but there was nothing which the
landowners wished so much for as a good and substantial
system of prison discipline. The landed interests of Scot-
land were not opposed to the objects of this Bill, as far as
the improvement of prison discipline went; but they were
opposed to being charged with the expenses of experimental
prisons.
Mr. HAWE S said the Noble Lord could not have read
the Bill, for there was nothing about building Peniten-
tiaries in it ; it only gave a general power to erect such
prisons as might be necessary under a General Board.
An HONOURABLE MEMBER. on the Opposition side of the
House, said, that ahe landed gentlemen of Scotland
considered it was injudicious that the general prison
system and the local prisons—objects which were quite
distance, and which would work better separately,
should be united.—(Hear, hear.) The aspersions which
had been cast upon the landed interests of Scotland
on this subject were undeserved, The Bill which had been
introduced last session on the question did not reach the
Loris till August, and their Lordships felt that it was a
Bill of too ranch importance, and requiring too much eon.
sideration to be passed then. The Bill which was now be-
fere the House was varied from the Bill as it came from
the Lords in several important respcot:-,and on all
these points the Bill ought to be opposed in this House,.
The LORD ADVOCATE said the provisions of the
Bill had been misunderstood. The two objects which had
been combined would be better carried into execution to-
gether than separately, and the union so far from increas-
ing would ditninieh expense. No imputation was attempted
to be cast upnn the landed interests of Scotland on this
subj, ct, nor was it to be denied that in some counties the
prisons were in better order than in others. But it ,could
not be denied but that in general the prisons of Scotland
were in a most disgraceful state, and were the means of
increasing rather than diminighing. crime. It ought not,
however, to be argued from the increase of convictions
that crime bad increased because the improvement in the
law tended to increase the number of convictions. lint
without casting any imputations upon one party or the
other, let all Scotch Members join in a hearty endeavour
to pass the Bill in as good a condition as possible, and to
remove the national dizgrace with regard to the state of
the Scotch prisons.—( Hear, bear.)
Mr. PRINGLE said the increase of crime was proved
by the assgreeatation of the number of indictments, and he
was well aware that where in 1812 there were 12 indict-
ments, there were now upwards of 60.
Mr. GILL ON said the objeetion to the Bill upon the
score of expense came with a very bad grace from the
country gentlemen of Scotland, who had so long enjoyed
an immunity from this expenses of the criminal jurisdiction
of the country, the greater portion of which, and all the
most important cases,were carried on at the public expense.
He was sorry that last Session a similar Bill had been
opposed upon some paltry pretext with regard to the
mode of laying on the assessment. The Conservative party
had long suffered the abuses in Scotch prisons to go un-
remedied, and now that the Government made an attempt
to remove those abuses, the Bill was met by every pea-
sible objection, and he was afraid it would meet eventually
with the same fate in soother House as it had last Session.
The Bill was then read a second time, as was also the
Bankrupt' Estate (Scotland) Bill.
The House basing resolved itself into a
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER
moved a grant of 2,000,0001. for the Tr4nsfer of Aids
Agreed to.

AFFIRMATION BILL.

Mr. HAWES moved a Committee on this Bill.
Mr. G OULB URN then rose, and said he would sta'e
the reasons which, in his opinion, ought to arrest the
further progress of this Bill. If anything could have con-
firmed the bad opinion which he had entertained of It at
the first reading, it was an observation which in the last
debate respecting it had fallen from an Hon. Friend of his
—that it was a Bill equally intended for the benefit of
Members of the Established Church and Dissenters,-this
observation clearly convinced him that the nature of the
Bill was but imperfectly understood. He was aware it had
become a fashionable doctrine, now-a-days, that oaths were
altogether unnecessary in the administration of justice, and
Ithat solemn affirmations might answer equally well, To
that doctrine he was entirely opposed—but of all the means
which bad been devised for carrying that doctrine into effect,
none could be more objectionable than that proposed by
this Bill, via., leaving it to every person to determine
whether he would give his evidence on oath or not,-,-
( Hear, hear.) Such a measure was not only opposed to
all precedent, but tended to derange the administration of
justice, and to promote hyptocrisy and fraud.—( Hear,
hear.) It was perfectly true that in fornieryeara the Le-
gislature had granted indulgence to Moravians, cauakees,
and Separatists, and allowed them to take the affirmation
instead of the oath ; but these were cases of known recog-
nized religious sects; and it would he easily known ormas-
.
certained whether any person belonged to them or not.
But thie Bill put it in the power of any person, upon ti.e
pretext of a conscientious objection, whether truly or
falsely, to e!aim the exemption:i and was not this opening
the door to 11.% oc:rise and fraud, when any person who
thought he had an interest in his testimony being diseredifed
might be allowed to give his evidence merely on affir.
'nation, and this tended neeeaorily to throw discredit on the
administration of justice. No man eofild go into a Court of
Justice without observing that public opieioe attached
to false testimony on oath, a much higher degree of ogilarg
than to a mere false affirmation. And this feeling ope-
rated equally on the minds of the witnesses. who would
often make false statements upon affirmation, which they
would not dare to do upon oath. Now let the House sup-
pose the case of trial in which it should be absolutely np,
cesaary to call witnesses, some of whom might be Willing
and others unwilling to give their testimony ; and let it be
supposed that one individual had the strongest motives to
discredit perhaps his own testimony, would not this Bill
give him the greatest opportunities of doing so. For
while one,-', individual would have solemnly sworn before
God to tell nothing but the truth, the other, the dishonest
party, • Yrnght say, I
-am entitled by law to make
a verbal declaration ; and, being permitted to do so, hp might
recklessly proceed, having no feeling of sacred obligation#,
to overthrow the statements of other witnesses, and to con-
tradict
his own. When the passions were inflamed against
any individual, might not a malicious witness, under the i

shelter of this Bill, make statements to injure the rights
character, and property of another? Therefore, in the
case of witnesses, this Bill would have the effect of encou-
raging the dishonest witnesses, and deprive even truth of
its due weight when coming from the lips of a sincere per-
son. But this was not all. Were persons to he at liberty
to have their option to swear or declare that they would
administer justice between the parties coming before them ?
Why the oath of a juror was the only security that the
public had for the faithful discharge of his duties. It was
the protection the innocent party unjustly accused had to
look to; and it held cut to the guilty the consolation
that he should be proceeded against with justice.—( Hear. )
Now this Bill would permit a juror to come into the
box, and say that he had an ojection to an oath, and had
made a declaration on a former occasion. The de-
claration would in this case be also admitted ; but what
confidence would the person to be tried have on the con-
science of such a man, who might perhaps be known to the
party chiefly interested as an unscrupulous characterl---
( Hear, hear.) Some Hon. Members might have pecu-
liarly literal views about dispensing with oaths, But the
general feeling of the public was that oaths were inva-
riably more binding than declarations, and it was clear
that individuals whose life, property, and character were zt
stake, would have more confidence in a tribunal bound by
oath to do justice than in one made suspicious in conse-
quence of being bound only by the form of a declaration.
True, the Bill said that a man telling a falsehood after
making a declaration would be punishable as a
perjurer. But if it should be found that one
of a Jury had, after making a declaration, not
acted honestly, was the verdict of the whole
tribunal to be in consequence impugned, or were
they to punish a man for perjury after the person he
had condemned had been hanged ?—( Hear, hear.) There
would be frequent contingencies under the Bill. It would
render the proceedings of the law less efficacious, arid its
result always doubted. The House were bound to consult
no doubt the feelings of those who bad to submit to a tri-
bunal as well as of those who composed a tribenal.—e-
(Hear, hear.) And as an oath was generally considered
to bind jurors stronger than a declaration there ought to
be no choice left. It wee. said the B;11 was absolutely
called for for the sake of freedom of con:ei?!lePr But the
freedom of conscience was made by this Bill a question of
three shillings and sixpence.—( Laughter.) The man who
could pay three shillings and sixpence would have his con-
science respected, and his affirmation admitted; the poor
man who could not raise the pence would have no rcspept
paid towards his scruples.—( Hear, hear.) This distinction
would indeed afford a roost dangerous privilege to those
who could afford to pay for it.—(Cries of hear, hear,)
The administration of justice would not in any way be ha-
proved by the penalty of perjury, which was imposed by
the Bill for a false affirmation. How under the Bill was
any one to be convicted of the crime? A person might go
into any Court in Westminster Hall—into any Ceert of
Quarter Sessions—nay, in any Session in any Borough in
England, and register the fact that he had an objection to
take an oath; be then goes to another, and distant part of
the country, and claims the advantage of the Act. Who was
there there to detect him Who was there to know
whether he had ever registered or not. The Bill did ho
more than make a new crime. If it was so bad in the
case of witnesses, how much more objectionable when
the Bill came into operation with respect to ju-
rors ? Suppose any one convicted before a Jury
who had taken advantage of the Bill, bow was
it in his power to tell or to find out whether
all, or any of them, were not perjured under the Bill ?
The remedy, in fact, was no remedy at all—the faults of
the Bill remained unmitigated. If the House bad any re-
gard to the rights of property belonging to themselves or
to any one of their fellow-suteeets, they would resolutely
refute to pass the Cheers.) The Hon. Member
for Ipswich the other evening, alluding to him, said he
opposed the Bill from some indefinite fear of the Fsta.
blished Churcls—he did not at all argue the question upon
such a narrow ground, for he believed it would be equally
dangerous to persons of property, whether Churchmen or
Dissenters. If the members of the Established Church
maee such a declaration, they could not be sincere in their
profession, and they must be acting either ignorantly or
fraudulently. Being a member of the Church, he had
confessed that all vain and rash swearing was to be
avoided, but a man might lawfully swear when the Magis-
trate required him, in a case of charity or truth. The
Bill might be a snare to the weak Churchman. At
all events he believed it would be a curse to the
country, and therefore he would move that the
Bill be committed that day six months —(Cheers.)
Mr. HA W E S, before proceeding to remark upon the
speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, would like to be
informed which of the Thirty-nine Articles he had been
reading. The Right Hon. Gentleman took great objec-
tion to the Bill because it would interfere with the due
administration of justice. But did not he know—the
country knew—that a Bill similar in its principles had re-
ceived the sanction of the Chief Justice of England—it had
also received the sanction of two or three Judges, and he
could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that there were
many distinguished lawyers in that House who were pre-
parted to support its principle. Surely he might oppose
such authority to that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, who
of course had no practical knowledge of the subject. He
had not quite fairly stated the case as it stood at present,
for now a Quaker, a Moravian, and a Separatist, might all
make affirmation ; not only so, but aay person who has
been a Quaker, or any one who was able to say that he
belonged to the persuasion of the Quakers. That was the
Legislation of the House of Commons, sanctioned by the
House of Lords very recently. In place of the abun-
dance of declamation with which the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had favoured the House, would it not have been
much better for him to have given one instance of the
evil working of any one of the above exceptions? The Right
Hon. Baronet, the Member for the Oxford University,
I said, upon the passing of that Bill, thee every one would
call himself a Separatist, and the evils would be enormous.
Now he had never heard any complaint that any one
claiming the privilege were other than they professed. The
Right Hon. Gentleman made his greatest objection to the
fee imposed by the Bill. Now would he help him (Mr. H.)
to strike out that clause entirely ?—(Cheers.) It had be en
inserted for the purpose of pleasing the other side of the
Woe; and lie was willing to improve the Bill by striking
out that olatize. He hoped to have the support of all those
who so loudly cheered the Right Hnn. Gentleman on this
subject in getting rid of the objectionable clause, Could
the Hon. Gentleman state a case which had occurred be-
fore him either asJudge or Juror, where Quakers or Mora.
vians who had claimed the exercise of affirmation, had not
been equally believed ? He asked him to give a ease where he
had found an affirmation discred:ted, nor did he believe lie
could show the course of justice had been impeded by using
an affirmation instead of an oath ; but if the course of jus-
tice was likely to be impeded, the Hon. Gentle-man ought
to introduce a Bill to repeal the indulgences already
granted. The lion. Gentlemen could not assign a reason
why a oonecientieus Churchman should not have the same
privilege as a Quaker now enjoyed. guppQsa In the (nee
of the murder which had lately occurred in Ireland it could
be proved by one witness who declined to take an oath,
was he not right in saying that he would be allowed to af-
firm, and would not the House soon have heard of some
special 13111 to enable him to give evidence in orch.,.r that the
murderer might be convicted? If a person conscientiously
objected to take an oath be was shut out of all professions
—the whole of that class were excluded from civil rights
because the House chose not to relax the law in their favour,
which they had relaxed in favour of others. He wished to
call the attention of the House to some alterations which
he proposed to make in the Dill in order to render it
more unobjectionable. The principal alteration was in the
3d clause, and made it a positive misdemeanour for a per-
son to affirm falsely, which should render him liable to an
imprisonment fur sie months. He wished to introduce
another clause, that any person making such affirmation or
declaration wilfully, might be convicted of perjury. lie
hoped the House would see that this Bill did not deserve
the character given to it by the Right Hon. Gentleman,
and that it was nothing more than a pledge to carry out to
others the same indulgence, which had beer, recently
granted to certain sects.—( Hear, bear.)
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the- fallacy of the state-
ment of the Hon. Member for Lambeth was in supposing
that a man capable of dishonesty would be equally capable
of perury. He would appeal to any man wha had been in
Court of Justice, whether there was not a reluctance to
;wear falsely. Swearing falsely was a crime, even in the
judgment of the most profligate, essentially distinct from
speaking falsely. lie did net pretend to measure the re-
lative guilt in the eight of God, but there was practically
the greatest difference between that which men would
speak and say, and that which they were called upon to
swear. But this was not confined to the lower classes.
He felt that whatever indulgence might be given to them,
none could be claimed for educated men ; but in educated
men, and even in those who had sat in this House, there
was a great distinction in what they would state and what
they would swear. He would mention an instance of one
individual, who gave evidence In a Committoe-of this House,
and in a Committee of the other, and when a distinction in the
statements was observed, he said one was conversation, the
other was an oath. That was in the case of an intelli-
gent and well-educated man, and happened oontinually.
He could state on the authority of one of the most learned
Judges in the country, what happened in his presence be-
fore he filled that high situation. It was in the ease of an
appeal before the Commissioners of the Property-tee, many
years ago. A gentleman stated that he had no return
whatever to make—that he had no property. He was sub-
jected to much examination before the Commissioners, and
his memory was assisted by reference to a mortgage.
" Have you no rportgege ?" was asked. He said " No,
none at all." He was then asked, f` drill yoii tale poet-
oath you have no mortgage ?" He said, " if it comes to
that, I'll make a return." The return he made- was to
the amount of 4,0001. a year. He mentioned theatre show
that the dietinetion made between an oath and a declaration
was found to bestrong ht the eaee of peregee of educetioniand
if so
caseerery in thoseamanwhowould
were o
seethandoe
teitwe'retfaL (Ha
moreeiri, hear.ke
ryi3
be
He regarded this as an attempt to do away with oaths
altogether, for if eleie gilt passed, another year would not
elapse before some sweepin,, measure woela he ieieeduepq
to get rid of them. They bad now given greater Con-
pessions than had ever been given to men in any society.
To the opinions ef bodies in respect of oaths, there was no
nation now existing which ipagigepece, equal tp these
already on our statute-book had been conceded. 3414`p
they prepared to go further than beyond the grounds et:
sects and associations, and to give to the caprice of any
individual the same indulgence? If not, they were utterly in_
consistent with themselves in Claitplpa liberty of conscience.
He believed that civil society had never existed, lied never
been kept together without some sanction of an oath. In
some countries even a belief in the existence of a God had
Peep roeietained by the observance of an oath. The pre-
sent. Pill would tend to weaken the great principle, that
appeals tp God had been retie6giiised as nezest''y p a civil
state of society. He urge the House to 'foibear adopting
the principle oontained in this Bill• If this Dill were
passed in two years' time they would be called on to pass a
Bill to relieve the country from the intolerable burtheu of
any oaths at all. He felt it necessary to oppose this Bill
in the present stage, regretting that he had not had an
oppqrtnnity of opposing it in that stage in which the
pociOe could be toot Ifeg4irtelv opposed.
Mr. GIBSGN 'begged fee makd 1-eruarks en whathad fallen from the Hon. Medi* for he University 'of

team,*seidgez igdßthehtlloi. Gentleman Hon.i A-eemnbeerrarfenr (Mr. G 0
the University o
lhad ventured to take up, when he suadlib°
his
,speech by attacking uo rnn)f a
( N
that he thought the Bitg
to the protection to extend
Of,,xvinfoerrd. a position
occasion
conscientious scruples, they were as
nlucli
commenceG ibst;:) l
ought
ea of Members of the Established Church,
eny other member of the community.
The Right Hon. Gentlemen had attacked that position,
to
as if a Member of the Church cf England could not
which,
entitledfro t l
as '
remain a Member of the Church, if he objected to an
oath.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr Gibson) knew many
Members of the Church who went to the Communion,
who participated in the services, and who told him
that they conscientiously believed the taking of an
oath was inconsistent with their duty towards their
God.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Geet. would not find
one Bishop in the Church who would concur with
him in the oeitii9tl th?,t: was essential for a mere le:mate
to adhere strictly to every article of the -tiherch of
England.—( Cheers.) The Archbishops and Bishops of
the Church had differed, and who was to be the infallible
eepeunder of those articles ?—( Cheers.) Where there
was this wide limit for tlie eerclse of conscientious
scruples, it did appear to him to be monstrous that the
Churchman should not have the same privilege extended to
him that Was to iatliVidieela who belonged
to other sects c teli
ectsl;ofd the community. —( Hear, hear,
hear.) With regard to what had fallen from the
Hon, Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxfolels,
the truth. 140 eddeessed to this
his whole argument appeared to
tbouotathhes•a(ltmogr.ctoheibr..
Tha position,tueigtihltat h
es some personstee
di d
no4obajdeQqcaltlettiiztlin
many
oases a very
But why was
mode of strengthening
s
the conscience, by ;h0 aid of religii3ussaactioo to with-
est ohficti didntrimenoeodat
Because
s eoHfa en
enforcingt uhg hw ta
a
stand temptation, and not to deviate from the path of truth—
but in order that an oath should have that effect it was es-
sential that the oath should be in accordance with the consci-
ence, for if .het oath was forced upon the conscienec-,if it
was compulsou—it ceased to have that binding effect, and it
added to the very hypocrisy which the Hon. Gentleman
said would he the effect of this Bill.—( Cheers.) There
was another position which the Hon. Baronet had main-
With considerable fritlfless, bet be eeeily
hardly think. it was a tenable position. He was astonished
' at the Right Hon. Baronet maintaining it, because it ap-
peared to him ( Mr. Gibson) that a man who would affirm
falsely, but who would dread en oaths was inibeeeci.td tix
siipCrstittoua, not a religioßs ref,lingt and that there was
no morality in it.—(Loud cheering.) They were
bound as a Legislature not to take advantage of mere
peenipiges ieflitences, If they endeayottred to repress con.
scientious actions—to punish a roan for acting accordieg,
to his conscience—that was, to send him to prison if he
would not take an oath, when he believed taking an oath
tees inconsistent with his duty towards God—they might
be protecting eonselenee, Out would he doing a great evil.
He had not heard one single argument alleged by the
Right Hon. Gentlemen, the Members fur the Universitis
of Cambridge and Oxford, that really shook the strong
position which bad been taken up by the advocates for thia
Bill, and he should give it his support.—(Loud cheers. )
Mr. O'CONN ELL would follow the Hon. Member for
Ipswich with great reluctance, fearing that he should
weaken the very admirable speech that had been just made.
Hear.) He should not have risen at all, but that there
was one view of the case, which the Hon. Gentlemen bad
not taken up; it was this, that the Bill was intended not
only to velieve the conscientious scruples of the witnesses,
but was intended to give the benefit of the testimony of
conscientious men to the party litigant.._( Hear, hear. )
It was not solely for the benefit of the Quaker that he was
allowed, but it was fur the benefit of the party who might
be injured if the Quaker did not depose. It was for the
benefit of the public, of the prosecutor, and of the pri-
soner, and he had seen cases in the course of his profession
which would illustrate what he was contending foe. Thirty
years ago, in the city of Cork, an attorney's clerk was
indicted for forgery. His defence was that he was author-
ised to put the name to the paper. He ( Mr. O'Connell)
was his Counsel, and had produced a respectable Quaker,
of the firm of Harvey, Gibbs, and Harvey, to prove facts from
which the Jury might infer authority. That respectable
gentleman came forwind, but refused to take the oath, and
the man was convicted. The Quaker gentleman went
the next day before Mr. Justice ll.iy, who tried the cause,
and there made an affirmation to the facts out of Court
which saved the plan's life, but which would have ac-
quitted him had that evidence been given in Court.
There was another case in which he was counsel, and
which related to a literary gentleman who had since ac-
quired considerable property. He would not give the
name publicly, but would mention it to any one in pri-
vate. That gentleman was indicted for a horrible crime
imputed to him by a female. At the time at which it
was stated he committed the crime imputed to him, he
was dining in his own house with a Quaker gentleman.
The Quaker was produced, he violated his conscience,
took the oath, and proved the facts. He said the honour
and character of the gentleman were at stake, and he
would take the oath. The gentleman was honourably
acquitted, prosecuted the prosecutrix, and then produced
the Quaker to sustain his case, but the Quaker refused to
take the oath the second time. He said he had
on the former day chosen the lesser evil for the greater,
but he would not do it again.---( Hear, hear, from Mr.
Goulburn.) There was a cheer.—( Laughter.) Why, In
consequence of that, one of the most abominable perjurers
that ever existed, was acqui• ted.—(Cries of "Hear, hear,"
from Mr. Goulburn.) " tlear, hear I" That was to avoid
hypocrisy, and the individual Quaker who was called, only
sacrificed his scruples in order to clear the character and
save the life of a young man. Was that a situation in
which any man ought to be placed? This Bill was a step,
therefore, towards showing respect for conscientious feel_
ings, and he must say, that the Bill was opposed by those
who opposed every step towards the progress of religious
freedom—(Cheers)—and upon what grounds? Why
upon the sanctity of an oath. Was it possible that
Gentlemen could forget, that in our Courts of Jus-
tice there was only a particular class of witnesses,
for whom they had the sanctity of an oath. A Chinese
was examined before one of the Recorders in Ireland, a
few years back, and he broke a saucer; whereupon he
went on and gave his testimony. Well, in that case they
had the sanctity of breaking a saucer.—( A laugh.) The
Mahommedan was sworn in his own peculiar fashion ; the
Jew was aworn on the ancient Testament; the Quaker
was not sworn at all ; and the talk of an oath being neces,
sary to sustain social order and civilised society, appeared
to him to be the strangest thing that could be imagined.—
( Hear, hear.) Then they were told by the Hon. Baronet
that no society was ever formed without oaths being
sanctioned. Did the Hon. Baronet ever he of pennsile
vania,
where there was 4 moral people wbo would not allow
an oath to be taken by any body ? The Hon. Baronet
had really been making calculation, he had been making
a kind of barometer of immorality—he had almost said
rascality. The Hon. Baronet had Said there were some
man who told lies who would riot take an oath. What
an admirable class of persons they were to convince a
Jury. Then he said there were a set of persons who
affirmed anything, but would not swear—what an Q4col-
- ground was that for refeeing to legislate on the sub,
jest l But this bed been put so well by the lion. Member
for Ipswich, that he would not pursue it further.
They had been told by the Hon. Member for Cambridge
that public sentiment went so far that it made people abide
Hear.) Now he could name ono of the
assemblies in the world, in which there were men
Hear)--in
thethat
table,
uabsi see, mebvl ye
r, wheny
person i ta mein-
gbmbyeri;tsahhtteeziasrtnnloacet ti
othons
—(
of property and station--the chosen reprei-entivives of a
calcu-
lated be sworn at
not upon the oath taken, but what party they were
for.—( Cheers.) The word that passed then was, not that
they were sworn so-and-so, but that there was 7 to 4
(Continued cheering.) 1:C: was a mockery, therefore, to
talk of the sanctity of ait oath. An oath taken in the man-
ner he had adverted to ins: eased mischief. —(Cheers. )
What weight, he would ask, could be attached to the
statements of any man that had taken such an oath ?
Hear.) In his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion no mischief
could possibly arise to society by the present bill ; it
would relieve many who had conscientious scruples, and if
it should ultimately lead to the total abolition of oaths, it
would be a consummation devoutly to be wished, for there
week] then be a greater reverence of the name of the
eternal God.—( Hear, hoar,) If there did now exist a
difference between an assertion and an oath, it was a false
morality that had introduced it. The present Bill was an
additional step in the progress of freedom of conscience
and the trihunal that was constituted would decide upon tha
-weight of the testimony of the party giving it, Had there
any mischief, be would ask, arisen from contrasting the
affirmation of the Quaker with the oath of the Christian ?
They had been told by Holy Writ—" Swear not at all."
Those whp construed that test as hp did, and as the Hon.
Bart. did, felt it right to take the oath, but there wore others
that construed it differently, and who considered that it was to
be construed according to the words, and to be so acted
upon. Were such a class, ae would ask, not to be re-
spected, and their conscientious scruples entertained in
that House? The object of the Bill was to give their
testimony effect without an Oath; and believing that such
an object would lee attended with the best results, he
should give his cordial support to the measure.
Mr. LAW said that the Hon. Member for Lambeth had
particularly called upon Win to state whether he had wit-
nessed any diftrence between an affirmation and on oath
in a Court of Justice. He had not come down with any
particular case, but he begged to offer to the Hon. Member
and to the House the experience of more than twenty years
in different Courts of Justice, both for the administration of
ordinary and the criminal law. He could safely say that up to
n.lth at the safety of the
ttte preeoeuennty
trhoemratihnalyt tdrtib,pr u
depended—that wbieh the blyrtieS of
is
tothe '
liberty of the country depended—be alluded juries
hour the Juries of
of the country—up to the present
country depended—upon which the property, life, and
England had preserved the greatest respect and vPnera7
fioti for an oath. and had acted unda its inftuerice.---
( Hear, hear.) He was quite satisfied that whatever de-
sire of popularity might influence those out of the House
to support such a measure as the present, he was sure that
lac!lnd the feclinqs (If these
i,logaZinsisetnes; of the
ectiu,siie country,vi; b 4
opp?opposedto {lie present
Bill. He had been perpetually reminded by Juries iu,
loci menifeeted a disineli-
t.
ltesp? on coming into the box, II
the administraticin
matters of difficulty and
aattpeanrdtiaenutl particular
upon
1414 to ollserye the formalities.
which justice was ad-
taking au oath. He had always found, too, that
of
"aftell; :11getahwatgs utoitleprWepotilreed4*etos
and to the Jury, was always attended with the best effects,
what value could be and such being the case, he,
which he would shrink
diminish those eanctioris under
ministered. It had been said,
ohnetcvvattrys upon his
at-
tached to the evidence of the man who had ventured to
state that, when he was not sworn,
from when he was? Now he had known several instances
Oath', although hi.; had
ugen:ereOf
where a witness bad bexiet;de
Befiree—
be had known many instaniscen:
eirvehsetif3yueptotn
ehieninn
minded, he had admitted that what he had stated was
false. Revery day his experience convinced him that, how.
emialtelid
tthhleate
ever painful it might be to extract testimoir.
Which -;" b; • t r 'nl a party
-e•e Ler eostite to
an oath was such, that parties, when hound by it,
,
unhesitatinglyl- •e would
gave @visienq
aga-l?st themselves, which
tot have dotes, had it had not been for
the. oath.his opinionthe exce tio
~ • In p n from oaths bad

..ental principles
mat was not the case with
me Church of England, and therefore it could
not be said that they were about to extend to the members of
the Church of England the same privilege as they would confer
on other bodies., What was done in the case of the Separatist?
They exempted Elm from the obligation of taking an oath, but on
what grounds? They required from him this declaration—" In
the presence of Almighty God I solemnly, sincerely, and truly
affirm and declare that 1 am a member of the sect called Sepa-