The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.---Yesterday.
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 he 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 li,u 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 seeunded the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL alluded to a motion on
the paper by the hon. member tor 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. wake affirmations in civil cases ;
.ind 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 Ist and 2d Vict., 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
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 jtirymen, 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 tha 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 behoved 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 scure 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 t,uiliA 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 wise 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 iu passing—which permitted the application of affir-
mations to criminal as well as civil proeeedings— 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 excedingly well. One Irish
member at the time sharply opposed his measure, on the
ground that it was not needed ; whereas the provisions
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. INGHAM 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 rewards 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 sho.uld 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 it
by a single witness, and he Objected to take au oath on ac•
count of his religious scruples, whereas such testimony
could be freely adduced in our Courts in India, based
upon laws passed by that house, would that be just or
proper. (Hear, hear, and divide.) He read cases show.
ling that people entertaining conscientious scruples against
the taking of oaths because they were unbelievers, held
that they were bound by honour to tell the truth ; also a
county case, where the son of a baker in Norfolk refused
this oath because he was not a believer, but as the judge
refused to take his testimony, and the witness seeing that
his 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 96
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 reauing 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 immeuse nutnber of letters from various
parts of the country, from magistrates, scientific writers on
crime, and governols et prisons—communications so nume-
rous that he could not possibly acknowledge them all—all
speaking favourably of the iipplicaton of whipping to cases
of an incorrigible nature, (Hear, hear.) It was said
that juries would not convict if they knew that an
offender would be subjected to corporal punishment. Now
in this country he conside.-ed that juries would, in their
verdicts, follow the bent of public Opinion in the matter.
(Hear, hear.) In his opinion he considered that a aecdnd
conviction of garotting with murderous violence should be
punished with death. Surely corporal punishment could
of be too severe a punishment for a man wbo, in the dark-
ness of the night, sprang out of his hiding place, like a
tiger from his lair, and not only robbed, but brutally ill-
treated his victim. (Hear, hear,) The right hon. baronet
the Secretary of State for the Howie Department seemed
opposed to the application of such a punishment to such
offenders.
Sir G. GREY explained that if flogging was made
imperative cases would occur in which it could not be ap-
plied. He preferred that the punishment, if the bill were
agreed to, should be optional with the judge.
Mr. Al): ERLEY said where criminals were found to be
in too delicate a state of health to undergo the punishment
of flogging, of course it would not be inflicted.
Mr. HADFIELD moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months, on the ground that corporal
punishment would brutalise mankind, and unnecessarily
eo, as other and equally effective corrective punishments
could be devised. The other evening a noble lord (Rayn-
ham) unsuccessfully sought to introduce a bill to promote
domestic telicity by flogging the husband who assaulted his
wife—(laughter)—but the house very properly rejected his
measure. The punishment of flogging was not much re-
sorted to in the prisons of the country. The
honourable gentleman read statistics in support of
his assertion, and testifying that the practice was gradually
getting into disuetude. On inquiry, he believed that the sys-
tem of tickets of leave, though now so much villified,:would
be found to work well, and be the means of restoring, at
least, 90 in 100 to their homes and friends, and to a future
life of labour and respectability. In the case of the sill
he
boy Oxford, who sought notoriety by firing a
Queen, probably a good horse whipping would have been a
pistol at t
sufficient correction. (Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. HIBBERT said as he found, from experience, that
penal service was not a sufficient deterrent to the commis-
sion of crime, he should support this bill, considering that