The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-23 00:00:00

SPAIN.

Ti4e Eirl of ABERDEEN gave notice that on Mon-
day he should call the a,ten,ion of th© House to the
present state of our relations with the Government of

BE LTI-1 OF TOWNS.
The Earl of GLENGALL, seeing the First Commis
sioner of Woods and Forests in his place, wisla!,d to
ask him if G )vernrueut had any meisure in contem-
plati .n ror extend the Health of Towns Bill to the me-
tror olis?
flh ) Earl of CARLISLE replied that such a measure
was in preparation, but he was afraid he should nut be
able to intr..duce it this session.
TENANTS.AT•RACK•RENT RELIEF BILL.
The Eatl of HARROWBY moved the second reading
of this Bill.
Lird POII.TMAN opposed the motion, remarking
that the only way the tenants of the country could be
relieved from the existing distress was to remodel the
county rase, nod to place the charge of the prisons
and lunatic asylums on the Consolid.tred Fund. The
N,,ble Lord moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be
read a second time this day six months.
Lard WEIARNULIFFE also objected to the Bill, as
did also
L-Td REDESDALE, who thought the Bill was a
most unjust mea.ure.
Alter a few words from the Earl of FIARROWBY in
reply, the original motion was negatived without a di-
vision, and the amendment agreed to.
THE AFFIRMATION BILL.

Lord DENMAN then moved the second reading of
the affirm salon Bill. The measure passed the House of
Commons, and he thought he might venture to say that
no Bill was brought forward with respect to which such
misconception existed as the present. Some Noble
Lords who came down with the avowed intention of:op-
posing it, had not the slightest notion of the evils it
went to remedy, and, of c arse, those to benefit whom
it was intended were those who entertained religious
scruples. Some years ago he brought in a Bill, which
was referred to a Select Committee, and the evidence
given on that occasion was now reprinted and brought
forward, and placed before the house by some Noble
Lord. But the truth was, he did not place the Bill on
that evidence at all, and the opinions then given by the
parties examined bad nothing whatever to do with the
reasons given for the present Bill. The fact was that
those parties were eager for the present measure, and
gave it every support in their power. If he thought
Noble Lords came down to support it, the appearance of
the House would till him with satisfaction ; but he
feared that such was not the case. It was said that a
person in his situation ought not to bring forward so
sweeping a measure for the abolition of oaths ; but
such a supposition was absurd; it had not the slightest
intention to effect such an object, nor would one oath the
less be taker should it pass into a law. The persons on
whose behalf 1 e appeared were those who came often to
courts of justice to give evidence, when they respectfully
declined to take the oath on the ground that it was opposed
to the word of God, and surely a man refusing to take
i
such an oath, did t from the best and most worthy of
motives, and deserved better treatment than to be sent
to gaol as a companion to felons, while very often the
felons themselves escape. What he proposed, therefore,
was, that an affirmation should be taken instead of an
oath; and in support of that, he had petitions from seve-
ral persons, complaining of the hardships they were
exposesto. among whom was Mrs. Watson, who was im-
prisoned at the last Aesiizes at Devon, for refusing to take
an oath; Mrs. Lane Ashbey, examined some years ago
before Baron Alderson, and who afterwards paid the entire
expense of an arbitration (it being a civil case) to which
the case was referred, which amounted to more than a
year's income. He believed there was no instance on re-
cord of a Quaker being prosecuted for perjury, and on
that account, as well as for those he had fated, he did
not believe the fears entertained respectinrthe measure
were founded on any just or sufficient ground. His at-
tention was first drawn to the subject by the acquittal of
a highwa)ro.an in Ireland, who escaped because- the
principal witness refused to be sworn on a book; and he
remembered another case where a glaker, who left that
Society, but who still entertained scruples respecting the
taking of an oath, was actuaHy committed for not giving
evidence. Now, suppose in that dreadful murder case
which occurred lately, a principal witness refused to be
sworn on account of her religious opinions, the person
must have been accoitted, n twitbetanding the opinions
general), and justly entertained of his atrocious guilt.
There was
.a c Ise where the present Bill proposed to give
a remedy, independently of that to be afforded to those
who enter taint deDinscientions convictions. Under all the
circumstances of the case, he should with very great
confidence propose the second reading of the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM felt great pain in being obliged to
differ from his Noble and Learned Friend, but he had
present Bill.
a
great difficulties and doubts respecting the
His difficulty arose not from being asked to
principle, but from being asked to extend. it so much.
If the lawgiver was to listen to the private scruples
of tender consciences on all occasions, there would often
be an end of all law. One man might say, my
conscience is against paying my debt at the expense
of nay children, which is contrary to the commandment.
Another man's natural feeling to save rroperty for his
relatives might, to his understanding, be a sufficient rea-

son for claiming exemption. But there was no end to
the difficulties that might beset tender consciences.—
(Hear, hear.) He doubted very much whether it was
the duty of lawgivers to provide for all these exceptions.
It was in vai❑ for his Noble and Learned Friend to say,
that unless a man's conscience would enforce truth, the
mere kissing of a piece of leather would not do it, be-
cause it was well known that many men would not scruple
to tell an untruth, who would greatly scruple to swear
to it. But independently of these objections, the Bill
was very badly drawn. The Noble and Learned Lord
here entered into a verbll criticism of the Bill. He
would take every security for obtaining truth in the
administration of justice. This Bill applied to all per-
sons, to jurors amongst others, and he thought that the
exempting of the oath in the case of jurors would give
facilities to some persons to take a factious view of any
subject. With regard to affirmations, the result of his
experience was that in the case of Quakers their evi-
dence upon affirmation was often not so satisfactory as
others. He thought that more persons would scruple
to speak falsely under an oath than after an affirmation.
He would not make any motion up the Bill, but he could
not help expressing his doubts and feelings upon the
Bill.

Lord CAMPBELL said that if he thought the legis-
lature had gone too far in this direction he would humbly
ask it to stop; but this Bill, in tact, hardly went a Hee
beyond the existing law. This Bill, instead of tending
to abolish judicial oaths, tended to take away many of
the blemishes now existing upon judicial evidence. The
question was, were there not individuals, sincere Chris-
tians and good citizens, who conscientiously believe
that they ought not to take oaths? In point of fact, had
there not been such individuals? Within his knowledge
there were such individuals. Was it not desirable for
their sakes that they should be relieved from the possi-
bility of being committed to prison with burglars and
felons? Suppose a murder or great crime had been
committed, would it not be right to offer every facility
for the discovery of the crime? He was surprised at
his Nob.e and Learned Friend's experience concerning
Quakers.
Lord BROUGHAM said he was speaking of Sepa-
ratists.
Lord CAMPBELL—WeII, that included Quakers.—
(Hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend would go back
and place himself with those who, in the reign of Charles
the Second, were opposed to all relaxations in regard to
judicial oaths. Many persons might believe it contrary to
religion to take oaths. Why should they not be allowed the
same privilege as Quakers? The evidence given by
Quakers, in his experience, was most downright earl
most sincere. Why should not Members of the Church
of England have the same indulgence that was conceded
to Quakers? This Bill was in the right direction. It
was a safe and salutary measure, and he hoped their
Lordships would give it their sanction.
Lord BROUGHAM explained, but was unintelligible
in the gallery.
The Duke of ARGYLE said, he was desirous of ex-
plaining in a few words why he supported this Bill. He
thought it needful to give effect to the rights of indivi.
dual conscience. It was impossible to allow political
opposition to assume the form of religious scruples. Cer-
tain Dissenters had refused churchrates, because they
objected to the application which the State might make
of them after collected. If that was admitted, the au-
thority of the State was at an end.—(Hear, hear.) It
might be contended that the scruples of these persons
should also be respected, but he thought that there was
no difficulty in drawing the line where such scruples
should not be permitted. But there was another class.
Those whose perverted minds entertained opinions so
absurd and fanatical, that they could not in regard to
them depart from the ordinary course OT law. Happily
these cases were exceedingly rare. Neither of these
classes were referred to by this Bill, nor would they be
benefited by it. They had already been obliged to admit
the existence of conscientious scruples in the case of sects,
and to alter the law in order to enable them to give
evidence on affirmation, and the question now was,
whether they would give the same right to individuals
that they had granted to certain sects.—(Hear, hear.)
It was not incumbent upon those who advocated the
claims of these individuals to argue these claims in de-
tail. The onus lay with those who resisted them. They
were bound to give some valid and tangible reason vs hy
the right should not be thus extended. If they had
granted such a privilege to bodies of men who held cer-
tein opinions almost hereditarily, and in consequence of
those brought up in the midst of a particular sect, he
thought they were much more called upon to allow it in
the case of an individual who, by an earnest study of the
Word of God, had come to the conscientious conviction
that he ought not to take an oath.—(Hear, hear.) He
asked if they would subject such men to persecution, for
such it was?—(No, no.) He repeated it was persecution
to deprive man of civil rights on account of conscientious
religious convictions. When they admitted sects and
excluded individuals, they were not only persecuting the
letter, but acting inconsistently. Nothing could be more
absurd than the present state of the law. They admitted
Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, to give evidence on
affirmation. What was a Separatist ? Could any define
the exact meaning of the term ? Nobody knew. But
apart from this there was no check against
the law being misapplied. The law did not
require any proof that the persons who claimed this
privilege really belonged to the bodies they said they did.
All that was necessary was for them to say they be-
longed to one of the three sects named, and their evi-
dence was at once admitted. There was the further
gross absurdity, that any person who might have once
belong. d to these seets, though he might have been ex-
pelled for misconduct, and have ceased to have any con
nexion whatever with them, was still admitted to give
evidence on affirmation, while men of good character
and strong religious convictions were sent to prison be-
cause they refused to take oaths.—(Hear, hear.) He
admitted that there was no great pressure on their Lord-
ships in regard to this BM, and he knew also that it was
said their Lordships never passed any progressive or
ameliorative measures, unless there was either a strong
pressure from without or they Mile backed by large ma-
jorities from the other House of Parliament. He would
nut admit that such was the case, and he was anxious
their Lordships should pass the Bill, because, in his
opinion, it was not only founded on justice and provided
fur the free exercise of the rights of conscience by in-
vi fuels, but also because he was anxious their Lord•
ships should pursue a generous course, and add one to
the other examples, in which they had already, without
extreme pressure, improved the laws and the institutions
of the countrv.—(clear.)
Lord ABINGER opposed the Bill. The experience
of all those engaged in the profession of the law was that
the sanctity of an oath was the very foundation of the
proper administration of justice, and believing that this
Bill would impair that defence ce our institutions, he
could not consent to its passing. At present it was ad-
mitted that the administration of justice in this country
was superior to that in any other nation, and he had
heard no reason to induce him to interfere with it.
The Earl of WICKLOW said the Noble and Learned
L (Brougham) woo had so übly opposed the Bill, had
omitted to conclude with the motion which would have
been its appropriate conclusion. He rose, therefore, to
supply the omission, by moving that the Bill be read a
second time that day three months. They had fre-
quently had similar Bills under their consideration, and
he must say, that upon that occasion he had not heard
any new arguments adduced by the Noble and Learned
Lord who had moved the second reading. As to the
grant to sects, he thought that stood upon a very dif
terent footing to the case of individuals. If the Noble
and Learned Lord could have shown that any consider-
able sect or b ely entertained these notions, and came to
that House, praying to be allowed to give evidence
on affirmation, he would not have opposed them.
But this Bill was, in fact, a Bill to do away with
oaths altogether. —(Hear, hear.) He saw no reason why
such a wholesale alteration should be made to gratify a
few individuals. The Noble and Learned Lord could
not, from all his own experience, show more than five or
six persons who carried their refusal to take oaths to
such an extent as to go to prison; but if this Bill was
passed they would have hundreds of thousands refusing
to take oaths.—(Elear.) He had looked over the evi-
dence taken by their Lordships' Committee, and he meant
to say it was exceedingly meagre. The clerk to the
Central Criminal Court, since 1834, could not specify a
single instance in which imprisonment was inflicted,
though he said he had heard of such cases. Two other
witnesses, who gave evidence against oaths, went the
further length of objecting to affirmations also. He
thought there should be no solemn asseveration whatever

and ii would be found that the framework of the

had been prepared in this spirit, for there was no form
of affirmation contained in it. He asked their Lord-
ships, therefore, if they were on such grounds prepared
to alter the law, and incur all the risks of passing such a
measure. With respect to the opinions of the profession,
the parties who would be most immediately affected by
this Bill were those who came before the inferior courts,
and not those with whom the Noble and Learned Lord
maaistrates in the inferior The 000poinrtisonwaosfagtahiensijutdhgeesabaonlid
came into contact.
tion of oaths. Looking at
the whole of the case, he
confidently
appealed to their Lordships to support his
amendment.
admitted that no new
arguments had been adduced in favour.n ofon the measure,
Lord DENMAN replied. He
and be must add, he had heard no gw
As to the argument that only five or six caseses against it.
ri
sonment for refusing to take oaths could be citielPte.
would remind the House that thousands had petitioned
against what they felt to be an injustice and a severe
species of persecution. As to the mischief which it was
said would ensue if the Bill passed, he had shown clearly
the futility of such objections; and with respect to the
opinions of the profession, the Bill came up to their
Lordships after having been fully debated in the House
of Commons. 21 members of the profession took part in
these &bates, 18 voted in its favour, and three or four
against it; and among these 18 were included many of
the most eminent men in Westminster Hall, and

thoroughly acquainted with the administration of justice.
It was said that the Bill was not founded upon experi-
ence ; on the thought, he thought it was so founded, and
that the opposition to it was based upon specuktion.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared for
the second reading—
Content ....
Non-content..

10
34

Majority against
The Bill was consequently lost.
Their Lordships than aojourned.

-24

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 22.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at five minutes to Four
o'clock.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—
Edinburgh and Gllsgow Railway and Edinburgh and
Glasgow Union Canal (Amalgamation, or Sale, or Lease
of the Union Canal to the Railway Company) Bill.
Windsor Extension of the Windsor, Staines, and South-
Western (Richmond to Windsor) Railway (with power
to the London and South-Western Railway Company to
subscribe) Bill.

York and North Midland Railway (Deviation and
Abandonment of part of the authorised Lines of Railway
between Market Weighton and Beverley, and Copman-
thorpe and Tadeaster) 8311.
The reports of Committees en the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—

Eastern Counties and Norfolk Railways Amalgam&
tion Bill.

Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Con•
solidation and Amendment of Acts) Bill.

ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES.

Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from certain
solicitors in Lincoln, praying for a remission of the at-
orneys' certificate duty.
BEER SHOPS.

Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition from Devon,
complaining of the great increase of beer shops in that
county.
Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from Wool-
wich, against the establishment of beer-houses.
ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from
solicitors at Ulverstone, in Lancaster, praying for the
remission of attorneys' certificate duty.
COUNTY COURTS.
Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from Bridport,
praying for an extension of the jurisdiction of the county
Courts.

PALACE COURT.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from
John Brown, a market gardener, now a prisoner in
Whitecross-street prison, for a contempt of the Palace
Court regulations, complaining that that court, by a
legal fiction, has a power to imprison for debts under
201., which no other court possesses, and that he has been
imprisoned for the non-payment of a debt of 61. 65.,
which it is not in his power to pay.
DUTY ON PAPER.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from a body of work-
ing men, complaining of the injurious operation of the
taxes on paper and the newspaper stamp duties in
checking the diffusion of knowledge.
AFFAIRS OF ROME.

Mr. ANSTEY said, in thedocu;Tswhich had been
laid before the House with respect to the affairs of Rome,
a letter from her Majesty to the Pope, expressing her
sympathy with him, had been omitted, and he wished to
know whether the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had
any objection to lay it before the House?
Lord PALMERSTON said the letter of her Majesty was
in the usual terms, and expressed her regret that the events
alluded to had occurred, and that it would be a matter
of great satisfaction to her to learn that the differences
between the Pope and his subjects were amicably settled.
That letter was not included among the printed docu-
ments, but the Government had inserted all the papers
which they thought necessary to lay Lefore the House.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether her Majesty's
Government were responsible for the letter.
Lord PALMERSTON was understood to answer in
the affirmative.