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

been Carried too far, with respect to those who had
what he would call elastic consciences—(Great cheering)
—and who professed a disinclination to submit themse'ives
to an oath in courts of justice. Such being the case,
was the House by its measures to attempt to persuade
men to feel conscientious scruples ?—( Hear, hear.) Was
the House to say to them they were men of no great re-
ligious scruples, but could they not find out something or
oter which they felt disinclined to swear to ? If the House
introduced Bills to meet cases like that, they might find
ragged recruits among those whose statements were not
to be believed upon oath ; but they might depend upon it
they would not meet with support from the respectable
Hart of the community.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
He (Mr. L.) did not believe that the Hon. Member for
Lambeth had the feelings of the conscientious part of the
community in his favour.--( Hear, hear.) Honest men in
this country did not desire such ease to their consciences,
_._( Hear, hear.) There had been too many of such
6' liberal" measures—( Hear from the Liberal Members)_.
miscalled liberal—which were more mischievous.—(hoar,
from the Opposition.) This measure would change the
whole system upon which the administration of justice had
hitherto proceeded. So far from saying it was a matter
of hypocrisy to act under the obligation of an oath in a
Court of Justice, he (Mr. L.) considered that all
the solemnity of an oath was barely sufficient to
carry out the objet of public justice.—( Hear. )
An experience of more than twenty years convinced him
that the impression on the minds of honest and intelligent
Juries, derived from the middling classes of society,
was not affected by these liberal sentiments of irreligion.
They did not desire such a measure as this. He was per-
suaded that Juries would attach upon questions of life, of
property, or what was more valuable than all, of repute-
tion--that jueies would attach much more credit to testi-
mony given on oath than to evidence given without
that obligation.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He could not
but think, however, that these scruples had been
carried quite fay enough already. The Quaker
had long been considered, and justly, as a rare exception
to the rule, for their objection to taking the oath was in
fact the key of their creed; but the indulgence which had
been extended to the Quakers bed been carried rather too
far in regard to ether :wets, and this Bill, in fact, extended
it to cases in which no real objection existed.—( Hear,
hear.) He should be dishonest in the discharge of those
judicial du. ies which he was called upon to flelfil elsewhere,
if he did not declare his eonviction that this Bill would
erelersoine the foundations of society, by injuring the ad-
ministration of justice—(Cheers from the Oeposition)—
and he was satisfied he was speaking the language of the
enlightened, of the educated, and of the conscientious
middle clqeses in this country, when he affirmed thet this
Bill was as much opposed to their feelings as to honesty_
that it was in fact a measure of entire miechief.—( Cheere.)
Dr. LUSHINGTON said he had listened to the speech
pf the Hop. and Learned Recorder with very great regret.
...4 Hear, hear, from the Liberal Members.) It was not
in that manner that measures affecting the consciences
of large classes of her Mai+ sty'e subjects ought to be dis-
cussed —( Hear.) And this was the first time in his poli-
tical experience that he had hoard the Quakers, the Mora-
vians, and the Separatists, spoken of as persons of elastic
consciences.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the
Liberal Members.) Those sects might be mistaken
in their theological opinions, but, in their moral
conduct—in their obedience to every obligation, to honesty
and good faith, they were moat exemplary—( Hear, hear)_
and when it was attributed to them by the Honourable and
Learned Recorder that they were persons of elastic con-
sciences—which meant a disregard of sacred obligations—
which meant not being bound by moral duties and opinions
of right or wrong—he ( Dr. L.), knowing their sacrifices--
knowing their sufferings—knowing their long endurance
-for t one ience-sake, was bound to appeal to the House,
and to the country, whether the statement of the Hon.
and Learned R: corder was not calumnious ?—( Loud
Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) Now with
regard to the question before the House. How stood
the law at present ? A person refuses to take
the oath. Wnat is to be done? Commit him.
For what ? For taking a conscientioes scruple, which various
Acts of Parliament had decided to be just and laudable in other
classes of persons—for scruples which might indeed be erro-
neous, but which he (Dr. L.) would not decide upon, as lie
would not, like the Hon. and Learned Recorder, whom he
could not accuse of tolerance—( Hear, hear)—make himself a
judge over the consciences of others.—(Cheers.) Well, the
party was
ject was to procure his evidence in a Court of Justice, and it
was altogether frustrated by his refusal to take the oath. But,
supposing that after having been committed, the person was to
come back and express his willingness to take the oath, what
would be thought of the conscienti,,usness of a person who first
came into Court saying that he had a conscientious ob-
jection to take the oath, and shortly after said, " nere
is such wonderful yirtue in the authority of th e tip-stuff,
that now I am willing to take the oath. "---(Hear2 hear.)
(WHheya
rs,uhcheaar.p)ers
Evenonssamtldthbee
present
thet,ll
col,
mightduresseta—ke
%lipleirtenr
the oath in what form he liked i and he (Dr. Lushington) re-
membered an instance of a person of the Methodist persuasion,
who required In take the oath upon the Old Testament only,
and was allowed to do iio,---( Hear, hear.) And at the Queen's
trial, when the question as to the form of taking the oath was
mooted, Lord Tenterden said that a witness might be sworn in
the manner most binding on his own conscience, and that it
was impossible ts., eo further.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
But the Nellie add Learned Lord added one further observa-
tion which had struck him (Dr. L.) very forcibly at the time,
and had made a deep impression upoil thoesands since —that
1 when a man was sworn, h, whate-*4 form he imprecated Divine
vengeance on his head. To. was felt so strongly in Scotland,
I that about NIT keen years ago when the form of the oath was
that the person knelt down and taking the Bible in his hands
prayed God that if he swore falsely, all the curses in that Book
I might fall upon him—,it was represented to the then Lord-Ad-
\vocate, and he declared that he thought the objections
reasonable, and altered the form.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
It would be the grossest impolicy, and the most perfea injus-
thee, to suppose that they might not remain good members of
lie Church of England, be..ause they dissented from some of
their articles.--( Hear, hear.) A more dangerous doctrine
never could be promulgated respecting the Church of England,
than that Steffy men who partook in her communion—that
' every ffia,n who professed her doctrine, because he did not
not happen to coincide in one opinion, ought to be excluded
from the pale of that Church ; it would, ill his opinion, go in
direct violation of the epieiod of all the most celebrated divines
since the time of the Refoi mation. —( Hear, hear.) The
palicy of the Church of England was not to thrust out
of her pale individuals who conformed to all her main
points ; but allowances ought to be made for th se
i differences which constantly would occur among honest
and enlightened minds.—( Cheers.) There were persons not.
I belonging to those sects who seriously suffered from their con-
, scientious feelings. He would give one instance, that of a
gentleman residing in one of the midland counties, who, Lavine
lost hie siter, because entitled to 4,04/. He, however, would
pot take the oath, and paid the debts out of his own nocket,
and the property went to decay. There would be such eases,
and was no remedy to be offered ? Independently of the ques-
tion of the jurors' obligation, to take an oath in fulfilling many
of the offices cif lift, waa a great and serious objection. It was
i gated that jurors had a conscientious regard for oaths, oe in
I other words. that they gave conscientious verdicts according to
their belief ; but then it did not follow that a change in this
respect would prevent them from being honest men.—
, (Loud cheers,) He was aware that in the administration
1 pf illative they frequently met with an utter disregard to truth.
But he further believed that the main-stay with respect to the
i lower class of witnesses was not so much the oath they took,
as the tear of the consequences if they were proved guilty of
being forsworn.—( Cheers. )
Mr, SHAW would shortly state his reasons for voting
against the Bill. With respect to Juries, in cases of doubtful
evidence they would be disposed to lean to that party whose
evidence had been given upon oath against that party whose
evidence had been given without that sanction. He had heard
Jurors express great objections to persons who had not taken
an oath. Suppose the Hon. and Learned Gentleman oppo-
site to be engaged as counsel in a cause, and that he
had to cross-examine a witness, and it was put to him whetherhe
would have the witness sworn, or let him give evidence on his
bare assertion, how would lie act? lie (Mr. S.) had no
doubt. that, looking to:mankind in general, and particularly to
the Irish people, he would say, let him be sworn by all means.—
(Hear, hear,) Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that evidence
might be lost because they could not constrain a person to take
an oath ; but the question was., were they to endure that rather
than submit to a greater evil ?—(Cheers.) They could not
meet every possible conscientious objection. Then it was said
let every person be sworn according to the form most binding
on his conscience. To that he agreen, but the question was
not about the form of the oath but whether it should be dis-
pensed with altogether. There might be a few who had these
conscientious scruples which cases might be met by such legis-
lation, but it was of the abuse of such a law that he was appre-
sive • and if they were to legislate to meet these scruples, they
would open a door to more unscrupulous persons.—(Cheers.)
Lord MORPETH said it must be admitted that it would be
desirable to relieve cpnscientious scruples, and prevent the pos-
sibility of such a striking and affecting case as that which had
been mentioned by the Hon. and Learned Member near him
(Dr. Lushington). The question was whether there were
stronger countervailing objections on the other side. He, so
far agreed with the opponents of the Bill as to admit that there
were cases in which the dishonest would shrink from per-
jury', but could they not attach to the snaking a false
affirmation the same penalty ?—( Hear, heart He He did
not see that the statement made by the Learned Recorder, re
speeting the observation of juries, that certain witnesses had
not taken an oath, was much in point. They naturally observed
upon a positive injunction of -the law not being attended to.
'I he same observation would apply, in not making a solemn
affirmation, as it did now in not taking a, s'llOrcite Oath. Then
they had the additional seceeity which was provided by the pre-
liminary formal assurance which the person was to -give of his
eouseientious repugnance to take an oath, and it would turn
out that such a formal assurance would net be given
by any persons whose general conduct and known
opinions did not correspond.—( Hear, hear. ) go was
not prepared to say that some of the details rnig,ht not require
modification, and tile sehele
eeiSM 0 Ow M could' not be con_
tetnplitted without wee slight miegivings.--4 Cheers from the
Opposition.) Bilt when a discussion was raised on the prig:
ciple of the Bill, he felt constrained to-give his vote in a way
in which it would afford ease to consciences, which it might suit
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite to call elastic,
but which he (Lord M.) contemplated iii a far different
light, as excercised, whether hy Quakers, Moravians, or Sepa-
ratiqs, er qiii orris else, who attached a more literal meaning
tdan he did to a positive precept of the New Testament.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, though he might come to a very
different conclusion from that of the Noble Lord, yet he could
not come to it without the same misgivings and tsoulats which,
the Noble ;lord expel-jeered, but lie was bound to decide be-
tel-een the eeinffictinig advantages and dangers if this measure.
anti he ?op.(' the balance to be against the further progress of
the Bill,---(Chepr4.) He thought his Hon. and Learned
Feiend had been misunderstood when it was supposed he had
applied the term elastic conscience to the Quakers, Moravians,
and Separatists.—( Hear, hear.) If he were correctly under-
stood he (Sir ii, Peel) mtilit disclaim all participation in that
remark,-(Chesirs.) So. far as he had any connection with
there, either in a public or private capacity, he never found men
more disposed to act upon the principles of Christian and moral
oblinticin than the biasses to which his Hon. Friend had
alluded.—(Loud cheers.) But it had been assumed in
the course of the debate that they were about to place the mem-
bers of the Church of England on precisely the same footing as
the classes referred to. He contended they were not going to
place the members of the Church of ;gland ell the same
footing. Thp, rres4rupti4is •-,;,ral. that au individual who be-
forigeif to the sect either of the Quakers, Separatist!, or Mee-
Wens, belonged to a sect, one of whose fundee--
was an objection to an oath : -wee '
the members e`