The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-15 00:00:00

scruples against the taking of an oath to make a solemn
declaration. He congratulated the house that so far as
regarded its members the Government intended to in-
troduce a bill that would enable a member to go to
the table of the house and take an oath which would
not violate his ccinscience. His desire was that the
witness should be allowed to make the declaration
simply on statine• that he had a conscientious objection
to taking an oath. Within the last few years many oaths
had been abolished which were formerly taken by the
Excise, in the Bank of England, and by pawnbrokers
and others in matters of trade. In consequence of bills
emanating from the House of Lords, a vast number of
unnecessary oaths had been swept away from the
statute-book, but it was in the power of Parliament to
carry this much further. The members of the House
of Lords, from time immemorial, used not to be put on
their oaths on the most important questions affecting
the life of a brother peer ; but they had the power of
saying simply, "On my honour, guilty," or "Not
guilty." Now, in the progress of legislation and civi-
lisation, why should not the community at large have
the power of giving verdicts or of making affirmation ?
The bill which he asked leave to introduce might be
said to consist of two provisions. One was, that any
person presiding in a court of justice as a judge should
test a witness whether he ought to be sworn, and if the
witness had conscientious objections to taking an oath,
he should be allowed to make a declaration, and, if he
made a false declaration, he should be subject to the
penalties of perjury.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON was ready to admit that there
were many occasions when a declaration might be safely
substituted for an oath, but he could not agree with his
honourable friend to abolish the oath in judicial cases.
However, a bill had been introduced in another place
which was precisely the same in principle as this, with
the single exception, that it left to the Court to decide
whether the objection to take an oath was conscien-
tiously entertained or not. Re confessed he preferred
that bill, as it placed a just restraint on the witness
which this bill did not contemplate ; but at the same
time he should not object to the motion for leave to
bring in the bill.
Mr. HUME concurred with the noble lord, and hoped
the bill would not be pressed forward until they had
the Government bill before them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would explain
the object of the bill in one word. (Hear.) It
would enable all parties who in the opinion of the
court really entertained conscientious scruples to the
taking of an oath, to substitute a solemn declaration ' •
but before a person could claim the relief which the bill
afforded, he must have satisfied the Court that his objec-
tions were both sincere and conscientious.
Mr. DRUMMOND opposed the introduction of the

The house then divided, when there appeared
For the motion
Against it
Majority --1
Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill.
LAW OF TREASON IN IRELAND.

Mr. WHITESIDE moved for leave to bring in a bill
to assimilate the law and practice existing in cases of
treason in Ireland with those in England and Scotland.
In the reign of William 111., when our religious liber-
ties were established, there was introduced an act to give
certain advantages to persons accused in this country of
treason which had never yet been extended to the sub-
jects of the Queen in Ireland. Previous to that time,
however, a wise and merciful practice had prevailed of
giving a copy of the jury panel to the prisoner ; and in
the reign of George 111, the accused got permission to
be defended by counsel, By the statute of Anne a copy
of the indictment, together with the list of the jury and
a list of the witnesses, was to be delivered to the pri-
soner 10 days before the trial ; and at the Union those
privileges were extended to persons in Scotland, the
preamble of the act stating that it was just that the laws
should be identical in all parts of the United Kingdom.
He (Mr. Whiteside) was one of the counsel for Mr. Smith
O'Brien, and he had no hesitation in saying that if the
same laws had prevailed in Ireland as in England,
the prisoner would have been acquitted. They had
struggled to obtain a copy of the jury panel and a
list of the witnesses, but both were very properly
refused by the Whig law officers, on the ground
that the statute of Anne did not extend to Ireland.
One of the principal witnesses against Mr. O'Brien was
a person named Dobbin, who was not an informer, but
a spy. This person was entirely unknown to the legal
advisers of the prisoner, and, of course, his counsel had
to do what his countrymen often did, namely, to draw
upon their imagination for the facts, and to cross-
examine the witness at hazard. At the conclusion of
the case, and when the Lord Chief Justice was charging
the jury, a witness arrived, named Dalton, who said
that Dobbin had proposed to him to get up a sort of
little Titus Oates' plot, and to give false information
respecting the prisoner. Mr. O'Brien's counsel imme-
diately applied to the court to permit this new witness
to be examined and confronted with Dobbin. That was
accordingly done, and the Chief Justice told the jury
that if they believed this new witness they must discredit
the evidence of the spy. (Hear, hear.) The house
would remember that the life of ,John Frost had been
saved upon a technical point relating to the delivery of
the jury panel and the list of the witnesses ; and he
should like to have it explained why they should have
one law for a Welsh linendraper and another for an
Irish gentleman—one law for Win. Smith O'Brien and
another for John Frost ? (Hear.)
Viscount PA.LMEItSTON admitted that it was de-
sirable for the same law to prevail in Great Britain and
in Ireland, and he should not oppose the motion.
Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill.