The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-18 00:00:00

fixed the maximum and minimum rates. But
if they were inadequate, the loss must be
made up from the county rate, which would he
manifestly unfair.—(llear. ) At this late hour he would not
go into the whole of the arguments. At present the turn-
pikes cost 421. a mile for management, whil,t the high way cost
but 16/., which would create a strange anomaly, and throw
an unjust burden upon many parties. The bill;, as calculated
to throw additional burdens upon the county rat( s. Besides,
the period it had been brought forward was peculiarly ill-
timed. .He should support the ain,ndment.
After a few words from Mr. MANGLES,

Sir GEORGIE GREY said, after the endeavours of
the Governments of the last fifteen years to
legislate upon this matter was not ♦ery encouraging.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Cockermouth advised
the withdrawal of the Bill, yet he said the county with
which he was connected would never be satisfied
until a sweeping change took place (Laughter.)
The opinion of the House had been folly taken with re-
spect to the Bill, and that opinion was averse to it.—
(Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill was to combine
the management of the highways and turnpikes, but
if the House were to agree to the second reading of the
Bill pro forma and refer it to a Committee,
the House would in some measure commit itself
to the opinion that combined management was desirable.
He thought he would not act fairly to the House if he
allowed this Bill to go to a Select Committee, because
if lie rightly collected its opinion, it was adverse
to the principle of the Bill.—(Hear.) He thought
therefore, the best course to pursue would be to withdraw the
Bill, and in doing so he felt bound to state that he could not
hold out any hope that the Government would bring in any
other measure upon the subject.
The order of the day for the second reading of the Bill was
then discharged.
INDICTABLE OFFENCES (IRELAND; BILL.
This Bill as amended was further considered and ordered to
be engrossed.
SUMMARY CONVICTIONS BILL. _

The further considerations of this Bill was postponed till
to-morrow.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.

The Committee on this Bill was postponed till to-morrow.
AFFIRMATION BILL.

Mr. P. WOOD moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN opposed the motion. The Bill had, it
was true, a most plausible title. but he thought
its principles were most pernicious. He thought the
Bill involved a dangerous principle, and likely to prove an
impediment in the way of administering justice. He was
one of those who felt that oaths properly administered were
well calculated Ito secure truthful evidence, and, except in
the case of parties who entertained objections to
the taking an oath on the ground that it
was opposed to the tenets of the sects to
which they belonged, no one ought to be exempted from
doing so. Lately they had seen in courts of justice Pro-
testants and others objecting to the taking of an oath, for
which they were properly punished, but the Hon. and Learned
Gentlemen, by this Bill, declared that snch parties, although
uau ll) LLIC a, 1.1,1 w In Lilt. ,111.11C11 aw luteu uauin !vv.,
in accordance with the Scriptures should be allowed to make
affirmations, providing they were people of good character.
But how was it to be decided that their characters were
good
et
er
rt isfi cwa teer se of v
egoodry
doubtful? character
passed, it would in
ustice and prevent the
inae givenn3s?, a
itHde
caseso wtphaoer fndt tieeefnset
hahta at
whosedtthi hfee they
echnshi
Bill
truth being arrived at. The Bill provided that every
person liable at present to take an oath, should have
power to go before a magistrate and prove he was
of good moral character, and he should be entitled
to a certiticaie, enabling him ever afterwards to be
heard upon affirmation instead of an oath? Now, would not
such a legislation, besides impeding the progress of justice
and truth, tend to demoralise many branches of society. The
man who took an oath felt more disposed to tell nothing but
the truth than the man who did not; but pass this Bill, and
that great mral influence would be destroyed, and many vin-
dictive and dishonest people would have an opportunity of
swearing away the lives and properties of their victims with-
out being liable to a prosecution for perjury.— (Hear, hear.)
He bad stated to the House the principles and provisions of
this Bill. He would have done so at an earlier period had
not indisposition prevented him, but he did trust that those
who bad charge of the administration of justise in this
country would oppose the exercise of the principle which it
involved with the whole of their influence. The Hon. Gen-
tleman concluded by moving that the Bill should be read
a third time this day six months.
Mr. PAGE WOOD regretted that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had not given his opposition in an earlier stsge of the
Bill, as the principle by the second reading had been af-
firmed, and its details had been recognised by the discussion
in the Committee. In the time of William 111. the Quakers
had become a very considerable body, and they had then
been exempted from taking the oath of allegiance; and by
the 7th and Bth William 111. they had been rtlieved from the
necessity of taking an oath in civil cases. S 3 the
matter remained until the time of George IV.,
when an alteration was made as to criminal affairs.
But although so long an interval bad passed, it bad not
pessed without serious objections. In a case tried before
Lord Mansfield, for the recovery of damages—a qui tam
action—an action, therefore, in the nature of a criminal
proceeding—he had laid it down as a principle
that the affirmation of au individual, who was a Quaker, ie
criminal as well in civil proceedings.—(Hear, hear.) He had
himself presented several petitions both from the Mora.
vians and the Separatists. The former of those bodies of
Dissenters had been readi y relieved, and if the latter
there were only three congregations in England, four in
Scotland, and sixteen in Ireland. Now, it was a fact, that
each of these congregations only consisted of three indivi-
duals, so that in a community consisting of nine in England,
twelve in Scotland, and forty-eight in Ireland, the whole
of the relief was granted. Yet, notwithstanding these facts,
relief was denied to those persons who had conscientious ob-
jections, were subject to grievous penalties. A person
had nothing to do more than on his stepping into the wit-
ness-box to say that he bad been a Quaker, or he had
been a Moravian, and he was immediately exonerated from
all the liabilities which this Bill was intended to remove.
Was there ever a greater premium for dissent? There was
a sufficient proof that the only persons who were at all
likely to be affected by this Bill were those who acted
from conscientious motives, and not those who entertained
but few scruples respecting the sacredness of an oath. The
fact was, that the public were the losers, for they lost the evi-
dence frequently necessary in judicial iliquiri s, and the right
decision was thus frequently lost in matters of the last impor-
tance. The Honourab e Member then referred to several
cases in which the criminal was acquitted and the wit-
ness committed, because the latter had conscientious
scruples to taking an oath ; and was that a state of the
law which the House was prepared to sanction?—(Hear,
hear.) One was that of a cabman who was charged
with running over and causing the death of a person, but
the only individual who saw the occurrence not taking an
oath, he was committed and the prisoner dismissed.—(Hear,
hear.) He also alluded to several civil cases, in which
the result was precisely the same viz., a wit-
ness being committed and the action being lost ; and
asked if such a state of things ought to be allowed to exist
in a civilised country?—(Hear.) It had b en stated by an
Hon. Members that persons affirmed things which they
would not swear to upon oath, but to that he would answer
that there was not a single instance on record of a person of
a bad or villainous character refusing to take an oath, whilst
there were many instances of persons of good character doing
so, and of giving their evidence upon affirmation.— (Divide.)
Mr. HENLEY said it he had previously entertained any
doubt with respect to the propriety of the Bill, it
had been removed by the speech of the Hon. Member for
Oxford, who, he thought, had not brought forward one
single answer to the objections which had been made to it.
A great many persons made statements more loosely and
highly coloured in merely stating them than in making
them on oath. Under the sanction of an oath they gave their
testimony more carefully. Why did they not exempt persons
from serving on juries who did not like to serve? He could
sce no distinction between them and persons who did not like
to take an oath. If the Hon. Gentleman's Bill should become
law, the Noble Lord, the Member fir the City of London,
might withdraw his Parliamentary Oaths' Bill altogether
from the consideration of the House. He did think,
taking the balance of conveniences and incon-
veniences, respecting the taking of oaths, if they
recognised the principle of this Bill, they might as well
do away with the taking of oaths altogether.—Cries of "Di-
vide," in the midst of which the Hon. Member resumed his
seat.)
The gallery was then, at a few minutes before six o'clock,
cleared for a division, when there appeared—
For the third reading ... 70
Against the third reading 46
Majority for the Wild reading ... —24
The Bill was then read a third time, but not passed, it
being Six o'Clock.
The House then adjourned.