The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-07 00:00:00

AFFIRMATION BILL..

Upon the order of the day being read for resuming
the adjourned debate on the third reading of this 8111,
Mr. LAW rose, amidst loud cries of "Divide,
divide," and said if the measure were passed it would
at once defeat all the beneficial influence exercised
by our courts of justice.—(Hear.) Where there
was not a substantial reason to the contrary, the de
fendant and plaintiff, both in a civil and a criminal court,
had a right to the testimony of any witness who could
speak to the matter in hand, upon a most solemn assur-
ance of his veracity in giving such testimony. That a
man was to present himself attested to have a good cha-
racter by one witness and a good' half-crown, and that a
plaintiff was to be deprived of the benefit of his testi-
mony, was ridiculous.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading of the Bill 73
Against it
Majority for the third reading
On the question tha.,. the Bill pass,
Mr. NEWDEGATE submitted if this Bill was good
it tended to the abolition of all oaths—(Hear, hear)—
and the sooner all oiths were abolished toe better.
Mr. LAW said this was a measure which struck at
the root of the testimony given in a court of justice,
which went far not only to relieve thoe who might pro •
fess 'tender consciences on that tuject, and to Ore ge-
nuine and true tes'..imuay its a*co-art of ju.,tice, but it
went and carried with it. an expresion of opinion by the
House of Commons, that evid- nce given under a le.s.sacc-
atm than that of an oath was entitled to equal weiget
with evidence given on oath.—(Hear, hear.) He was
quite satisfied that "thc.se who were canccried in
tee administration of public justice would feel that
that was a blow struck at the heart of that jusice.—
(Cheers.) This he knew, that the mosth4rdened criniirrNl
had frequently shrunk rom giving that testimony upon
oath which might release those who stood beside him
in the' dock from the consequences of conviction,
who had before that test was applied distinctly
alleged that the men who sto d V him were
not the companions of his guile.—(Bear, hear.) An
matinee occurred not long ago. A party was charged
with the commission of house-breaking in connexion
with two other individuals. The d ,fence was an alibi.
The party pleaded guilty, and solemnly asserted that he
was not one companion of the men who stood beside him.
The prisoner, however, evinced the greatest reluctance
to take the oath, but when he did take it he swore thit
the parties were nut those who were with him; but
nothing could elicit from him who the parties were.
Again, he had seen a change in witnesses when
reminded that they were making a solemn declaration,
and to be careful what they said, and the truth was re-
luctantly elicited. They had absolved many sects from
taking oaths, they hart done .10 whether right or
wrong, but he saw no reason why thee
with whom this Bid prof:-seed to deal, who were
members of the Church of England, should hay? the
same privilege extended to them.—(Hear, hear.) But a
person knowing that his testimo4 would affect some one
whom he wished to serve, would give his testimony more
loosely than if under the solemnity of an oath.—(Hear,
hear.) Why a man's • life - might be taken
away on testimony adduced without the security of an
oath. But he put it on h; odder grounds. Juries would
be constantly afikPd, " Will you give the same weight to
the testimony of an ucsworn witness as to that of
one given on oath—the testimony of one the
principles of whose church- recognised the taking of
oath.;" and the results would show the force of such an
argument. Experience, which extended over a period of
twenty years in the immediate administration of justice,
induced him to call upon the House not to agree to the
dangerous principle invelvod in the 1111.—(-tear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said his experience at the
31 insion•bouse and the Gal th offices led him
to the belief that the principle they were about to intr
duce would be fraught with the utmost danger to the
proper administration of j+istice. H. had di tided against
the Bill, and he should do so again if an opportunity were
afforded him.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the passing of the Bill
Against it
Majority .

The Bill WAS aCeorilingly pasaed.
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (IRELAND)

BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill,
when the wnole of the clauses were agreed to without
tai cussion.
_ _

The House then resumed, the Bill was reported, and
ordered to be read a third time on Friday.

AFFIRMATION BILL.

Mr. LAW called the attenti!,n of the House and the
Speaker to the fact that the title of this Bill had not
begin agreed to, and submitted that an irregularity had
been committed that could not now be remedied. The Bill,
indeed, had been ordered to be sent up to the Lords
wi,tieut any title.
The. ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that al-
though other business bad intervened since the passing
of the Bill, the title might now be added as a matter of
form.
Mr. MILES would be glad to know from the Speaker
himself if the question, that the title be agreed to, had
been put.
The SPEAKER replied that his impression was that
it had, and he was justified in that impression by the
Clark, who had a distinct recollection of the circum•
stance. _ _ _

Mr. BOUVERIE said he could not take his oath of it,
buthe believed the question had not b ,en put.—(A laugh.)
The SPEAKER said, at all events the Bill had not
been signed by the clerk, and therefore it was not too
late to add the title.

Mr. LAW, under these circumstances, would with-
draw his objection, and allow the title to be added, and
the matter dropped.
COPYHOLDS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Mr. AGLIONBY, in moving the s.-cond reacting of
this Bill, excused his being the promoter of it on the
ground that he tried in vain to induce the Govert.ment,
in whose hands it ought to be, to take up the subject.
The Bill was founded on the recommendatiop oifal, ltt)d
Com-
mittee which fully considered the matter inB4
who repeated, that if such a measure would only have
tale effect of relieving the poor copybolders of
the country from the extertion to which they were
;object under the existing law, it would be a sufficient
justification for passing it. The present law restricted
building and agricultural improvements in those parts
of the country where the copyhold system pre-
vailed, and that was another reason which
had induced him to introduce the Bill. He re-
gretted to see that the Right Honourable Baronet the
Member far Tamworth was not in his place, because he
attended that Committee most assiduously, and expressed
his views in a very liberal and statesmanlike manner. He
hoped that the system for voluntary enfranchisement
would receive some encouragement. The property
held under the Church had been especially open to the
conferrence of this benefit, but a very small portion
of the very large property held under the most
objectionable tenure of p ecclesiastical jurisdiction
had been volunurily enfranchised. Nine years
had already elapsed since the plan of voluntary
commutation had enjoyed the benefit of legal c.,un-
tenance, and but little property had been placed in the
improved position which the Legislature contemplated.
and he thought that it was high time that sumo change
should be accomplished. The Hon. and Learned G. n-
tleman then read some considerable extracts from the
report of the Commissioners, and then proceeded- to
say that his chief ground arose out of the recom-
mendations which would be found in that re-
port, and he thought that little further was
necessary to support his view of the matter. Two Bill.
had already been introduced for the same purpo-e, but
the second of these Bills was intended to promote a com-
pulsory enfranchisement throughout the e :tele country,
and with this he could net at all agree. f he other Bill
was introduced by the Lord Chancellor, rued he truated
that he should not be deemed guilty of pi e,umption in
following such an authority. lie baJ adopiA a great
number of the earlier clauses of that Bid, and in doings()
he might rather be accused of plagiarism than of want of
consideration.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.) rhe Chancellor's
Bill proposed that toe cost of enfranchisement should fall
equally upon the landlord and the tenant. This he

thought unjust, and he had therefore omitted it. The
other clauses were in perfect accordance with the usual
and recognised principles in similar matters. He would
now state the reasons why he wished to carry out this
very important measure. The first of these was the
impossibility of retaining these tenures. The House
was not to suppose that he was a violent or an
interested partizan. He was the copyholder in
three different manors in Cumberland, and the
tenures were so disgusting that he
.should be
_glad
o t quit of them. The present system pre-
vented the free use of skill. and capital for the im-
provement of land, and it was the cause of positive
distress and ruin to hundreds of families. To be sure
Cumberland was in a worse condition in this respect
that other parts of the country, but every where the te-
eure of copyholds was objectionable. lie had no hesi-
taion, therefore, in asking the House to assent to the
second reading of this BM.
Mr. HEATHCOTE thought such a measure as thi:
was better in the hands of Government than in those of
any private Member of the House. This Bill was an
extremely one-sided measure; it was compulsory upon
the lord of the manor, and not upon the tenant, who had
joint interests. Was it right where two parties bed a
joint interest for one to force the sale of the property,
without the consent of the other? He thoueht the Bill
was in many respects a very unfair one, though he had
no wish to divide the House upon it.
Mr. TURNER was very well disposed towards '
any es elleiaatured change in the law relating to
the .tenure of copyholds; and he would now inti-
mate that unless her Majesty's Ministers brought
forwatd some measure with a view to remodel and
improve the Courts of Equity in this or the
ensuing session, he would feel is his duty to introduce a
Bill haviue, that end himt,elf.—(Hfar, hear.) The Hon.
and Learned Member (Mr. Aglionby) had complained
of the fines leviable on copyholds; but he (Mr. Turner)
would ask, did not the owner of a copyhold
estate purchase subject to those fines, and was
not his purchase money so much the less in consi-
deration of those fines?—(Hear, hear.) He considered
the present Bill objectionable as holding to a one-sided
tenure, and as depriving the lord of the manor of many
of his just rights. No such measure of this kind ought
to be passed exclpt upon the ground of general policy,
a case in support of which his Hon. and Learned Friend
had failed to show. On the ground of the impolicy of
the interference of Parliament by commission, he hoped
the House would reject the Bill, and begged, therefore,
to move that it be r'ad a second time that day six
months.—(Cries of "Divide.")
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he felt it his
duty to support the Bill. It embodied some of the pro-
visions of a Bill introduced last session, but not carried,
which had been approved of "by the Lord Chancellor,
and seemed likely to work well.

Mr. AGLION-BY replied, and expressed a hope that
Hon. Members would assent to the second reading, and
defer their objections until the Bill was in Committee.
Mr. TURNER withdrew his amendment, and sho.uld
reserve his objections until the Bill was in Committee.
The amendment was consequently withdrawn.
Mr. G. BERKELEY said, if the Hon. Member would
divide he should do so, and begged to move that the Bill
be read a second time that day. six months.
The House then divided, when there app2ared—
For the second reading 80
Against it ... ..• ••• 55
... Majority ... ... —25
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be ctmteitted.
TENANTS AT RACK-RENT RELIEF BILL.
On the motion for the considertion of this Bill as
mettle&
Mr. SPOONER moved that the whole rate, instead
.f half the rate, p4yable for the erection of lunatic asy-
lutns, be deducted from the rent.
The motion was agreed and the report received.
HIGHWAYS (ANNUAL RETURNS) BILL.
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
c ~Lrtitttd.

SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL.
On the motiou for the srcond reading of this Bill,
Mr. WILLYAMS thought the measure mischievous
and unw,cessary, and. moved that it be read a second
time that dal- ,ix months.
Mr. MACKINNON said the Bill had twice pissed the
House•of Lords, and he saw no rei&ou «hy it should
not hf? read a second t;me now.

1 -
Mr. THORNELY did rot think the whole subject of
imolte nuisance throughout the country could be dealt
with in one general Bin. It would be much better to
kive the manageoain' of the smoke to the , municipal
au' htrities of f art) t.,,Art
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked that the
suggestion eoWd be csri i, d out in Committee.
Mr. BRIGHT had *always opposed this 1111, believing
thatgeneral legislation on the subject was impracti-
c,ble. Such measures as these were really sentimental
and imaginary, and could be of no possible use if passed
by the House.
Mr. BROWNE gave it as his opinion that a general
measure like this 'ought not to be agreed to till science
had discovered some remedy for the smoke nuisance.
Mr. MUNTZ would be glad to support this Bid if he
thought it could be pr tctically carried out, but the cir-
cumstances in whic', manufacturers were placed in va
rions parts of the country were so clitt!rent that it was
absolutely impossible to deal with all cases by one ge-
neral measure.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
In favour of the second reading .. 72
Against it ... ... ... ... 37
Majority in favour of the Bill —35
The Bill was then rrsd a second time.
COMMI r fEE OF SUPPLY.

The order of the day for going into Commil tee
Supply was read, and the Committee postponed -till
Friday.
SHEEP STEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Hou•e tni:u i.ent two Committee on this Bill, and
with some desultory ooservaiions, which would be ptlfeetly
unintelligible to our readers without a copy of the Bill
b, fire them, in the course of which• Mr. Grainger, the
At, orney- General, Mr. Keogh, and several Members
took part, the Bill Fussed through Committee.
WAYS AND MEANS.

The CummittE e i,n_Ways and Means was postponed.

SILVEIi COINAGE.

The Bill for regulating the silver coinage then wcnt
through COmmittee without opposition, and was ordered
to be read a third time on Friday.
YEN i'ILATION OF MINES.
_ _

Mr. AGLIONBY, in the ab6enee of Mr. DuncomlP,
who was prevented attending the House from ill hearth,
obtained have to bring in a Bill to provide for the
beet, r ventilation of mines and collieries, for the protec-
tion of the lives of the persons employed in and skill(
the sumo, and to make other provisions rotating thereto,