The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEB. 12.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at
Five o'Clock.

Lord ELLENBOROUG I-I moved the second reading (as
we understood) of the Common Land Enclourc Bill.
Lord STRANGFORD presented petitions, signed by
3,900 persons, inhabitants and others of Coventry, praying
that any system of education that might be introduced might
be consistent with the tenets of the Holy Scripturc3.
Lord BROUGHAM did not consider that this petition
went further than the Education Bill.

SLAVERY.
Lord BROUGHAM stated that in redemption of the
pledge he gave about a fortnight ago, that he should lose no
time, after the unfortunate Canada Bill should be disposed of
one way or another by their Lordships, in bringing forward that
great subject on nhich he had addressed the House more
than once, and on which he had presented a great many peti-
tions. He now gave notice that, on this day week, lie should
bring before the House the whole subject of slavery and anti.
slavery ; and he moved now, that the House be summoned for
that day.
In answer to a question put by Lord MELBOURNE,
which was not audible in the Gallery,
Lord BROUGHAM said he sho.uld certainly endeavour to
persuade the House to agree with him in an address to the
Crown on the subject of the Slave Trade ; and that he should
also endeavour to prevail on their Lordshif,s to agree with
him in a resolution for a legislative measure of this country for
the purpose of bettering the condition of the slaves during the
period that still continued unexpired of their apprenticeship. He
entertained great hopes of being able to carry both the address
and the resolution, and he should undoubtedly take the sense of
the House on both those subjects. Upon the question of accele-
rating the termination of Negro Apprenticeship, as at present
advised, he should not take the opinion cf the House at
present upon that, though he had a vary strong
opinion upon it, and though he should then take the op-
portunity of stating his views with reference to it.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH put it to the Noble Lord,
whether it would not be better to move the address and reso-
lution on some previous day to that on which the debate might
be expected.

Loiel BROUGHAM said that he should lay them both on
the table on Friday.
Lord STRA NGFORD hoped the address to her Majesty
would include a prayer that an end might be put to trafficing
in slaves on all foreign stations (as we understood) with which
this country was connected.
Lord BROUG HAM said that that would be the very
object of his resolution. There were some papers to be pro-
duced from the Colonial-office, which he hoped would be pro-
duced in a day or two, otherwise he might possibly be under
the necessity of postponing the debate until the Thursday fol-
lowing.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in the absence of the
Noble Secretary of State for the Colonies, moved that an
address might be presented to her Majesty, praying that
certain returns might be ordered to be laid on the table.
PRESBYTERIAN OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the Order of the
Day for the second reading of the Presbyterian Oaths (Ire-
land) Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM-_I hope to persuade your Lordships
to throw out this Bill ; I have the strongest objection to it.
Lord LANSDOWNE—If my Noble and Learned Friend
means really to press his objection to the Bill—
Lord BROUGHAM—I will state to your Lordships what
my objection is—it is not one of detail, but of principle. My
Lords, this is one of those Bills from which arose so much
mischief to the law, and I am surprised that it should have
come from the House of Commons. My Lords, no one will
suppose that I object to extending any relief to persons
of any religious persuasion. My objection to the Bill
is this--that, through ignorance of the law on the
part of those who patronise it, it sanctions this principle, that
the law of oaths is different in different parts of the United '
Kingdom. My Lords the fact is that in England and in Scotland
the law is such at this moment with regard to Presbyterians;
and here, my Lords, I must observe, that the language of the
Bill is—" the people called Presbyterians;" it might just as well
be said, the people called Englishmen, for the Presbyterians
are as much established as the Church of England ; the
Quakers are not established, and therefore they are termed
" the people called Quakers ;" but the Presbyterians are up-
wards of two-and-a-half millions in number—they are esta-
blished by law, and they include several of my Noble
friends opposite, the family of one of whom has been a
pillar of their church for centuries past ; and when the
Presbyterians go to Ireland they are as much Presby-
terians as they are be in England or in Scotland ;
but, my Lords, this Bill gives the Presbyterians the privilege
of making oath by holding up their hands, as if this was not
the law of evidence at this day—as if it had not been acted
upon for a century—at if a Presbyterian had not been sworn
in the Court of Queen's Bench within the last twelve months
in this way—as if a man had not been convicted, capitally, at
Newgate, upon the evidence of a Presbyterian, sworn in this
way—as if in the year 1745 this question had not been
raised at Carlisle on the trial of the rebels, by a Presbyterian
refusing to take the oath in the accustomed way, and being al-
lowed to take it by holding up his hand, and the Judges, upon
being appealed to, decided that he had a right to do so.
The Irish Parliament chose to bring in a Bill in the year 1781,
giving the Seceder; the right of being swore, merely by
holding up the hand ; but this was no relief, it was a right
which they possessed before, and instead of being an
extension of their privileges, it actually abridged them,
for it excluded them from being witnesses in criminal
cases, unless sworn in the ordinary way ; so that if a man com-
mitted murder or robbery in the presence of a Seceder, he was
not competent to become evidence of the fact. There never
had been such ignorance exhibited as in the framing of this Act.
It astonished English lawyers at the time; but what did their
Lordships think of being now call, J upon to enter th,, same boat
with the Irish Parliament, and to give their assent to a mea- I
sure exhibiting equal ignorance and want of knowledge of the

law ? He would show them how this Bill had been framed,
in order that they might see in what manner Bills were passed
through another place. When men professed to be lawgivers,
it was not too much to expect that they should know a
little of what the law was with which they meddled.
Their Lordships would see that the person who sent the Bill
up to this House never could have read the preamble of it. It
professed to give a greater relief to Seceders than they now en-
joyed. It was true that the relief which it had been intended to
confer upon the Dissenters had:been ineffectual, but that, as be
before explained, was owing to the Act of 1781. Now the Bill,
when it stated that it was expedient to extend to Seceders fur-
ther relief, gives them that which was no relief at all, but, on
the contrary, restrained the limited privileges which they pos-
sessed. If ever there was a measure sent up to that House
which exhibited such hopeless blundering, such total incapacity,
or such ignorance, it was this preposterous and ridiculous piece
of legislation.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that if be had not
been interrupted by his Noble and Learned Friend, he should
have adverted to the law in England and Scotland as re.
spected Seceders, and to any variation which existed between
it and the law in Ireland. It was undoubtedly true, as
stated by his Noble and Learned Friend, that in
England and Scotland Presbyterians were sworn in
the way most agreeable to their own feelings; and this would
have also been the case in Ireland, but for the Act of 1781.
That Act took away from the Seceders of Ireland the privilege
of being sworn in criminal cases, like the Presbyterians in
Scotland. Now this bad given rise to very greatin-
convenience, and it was absolutely necessary that
some Legislative measures should be resorted to, to
remedy the evil. As an instance of it, he would
refer to the case of Dr. Cooke, who refused to be
sworn, unless in the manner of the Scotch Presbyte-
rians ; the effect of which was, that his evidence could
not be received, and a verdict was returned totally different
from what would have been found, if he had been exa-
mined. Here was a very great abuse to be done away
with, and he was quite ready to confer with the Noble
Lord as to the best means of remedying the evil, whether by
repealing the Act of 1781, or proceeding with this Bill. He
did not care which, provided it effected the object which they
had in view ; and for this purpose was quite willing to postpone
the second reading of the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he should be most happy to
concur with his Noble Friend in any arragement by which
effectual relief could be given to the Seceders. He hoped the
time was not far distant when the Noble Lord cn the Wool-
sack, and other Noble Lords, would make up their minds on
the measure. He thought the proper course would be, to move
that the Order should be discharged generally.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no objection to with-
draw the Order for the present.
Lord BROUGHAM observed, that by adopting that
course it would afford an opportunity to Lord Plunkett of be-
ing present, as that Noble Lord intended leaving Ireland in
a few days.
The Order was then discharged.
REDUCTION OF POSTAGE.

The Duke of NORFOLK presented a petition from Bath,
praying for the reduction of the rate of postage.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 12.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
Mr. Montague appeared at the bar with the annual re-
turns from the Bank of England, according to the Statute.
On the motion of Mr. SHEPHERD, the Warminster
New Roads Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1838.