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

AFFIRMATION BILL.

Upon the order of the day bt.iag read for resuming
the adjourned debate on this third reading of this Bill,
Mr. LA W 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.
Pendant 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
ratter 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 that the Bill pass,
Mr. NE WDEGATE submitted if this Bill was good
it tended to the abolition of all oaths—(Hear, hear)—
and the sooner all oaths were abolished the 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 those who might pro-
fess tender consciences on that subject, and to give ge-
nuine and truo testimony in a court of justice, but it
went and carried with it an expression of opinion by the
House of Commons, that evidence given under a less sanc-
tion than that of an oath was entitled to equal v.ttigiit
with evidence given ou oath.—(Hear, hear.) He was
quite satisfied tl at these who were eceicEltned in
toe administration of public justice would feel that
that was a blow struck at the heart of that justice.—
(Cheers.) This he knew, that a most hardened criminal
fro quently shrunk from giving that testimony upon
oath which might release those who stood beside him
in the duck from the consequences of conviction,
who had before that test was applied distinctly
alleged that the, men who stond by him were
not the companions of his guilt.—(Hear, hear.) An
instance occurred not long ago. A party was charged
with the commission of house-breaking in connexion
with two other individuals. The defence was an alibi.
The party pleaded guilty, and solemnly asserted that he
was nut tie 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 that
the parties were nut those who were with him; but
nothng 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 had done so whether right or
wrong, but he saw no reason why those
with whom this Bill professed to deal, who were
members of the Church of England, should have the
same privilege extended to them.—(Hear, hear.) But a
person knowing that his testimony 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 bo taken
away on testimony adduced without the security of an
oath. But he put it on broader grounds. Juries would
be constantly asked, " Will you give the same weight to
the testimony of an ursworn witness as to that of
one given on oath—the testimony of one the
principles of whose church recognised the taking of
oaths; and the results would show the force of such an
' argument. Experience, which extended over a period of
twenty years iu the immediate administration of justice,
him to call upon the House not to agree-to the
poer ifficee nsc el
led
dt
himthe
Mansion-house and the G
dangerousinlueed principle involved in the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman
SIDNEY said
aid his
police ex.
to the belief that the principle they wereadnge
about to
toointro-
duce would be fraught with the utmost the
proper administration of justice. H. e had divided 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
—4
Majority .
The Bill wes accordingly passed.
AT fORNIES AND SOLICITORS (IRELAND)

BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill,
when thw whole of the clauses were agreed to without
rdir cussion.

The Reuse then resumed, and the Bill was reported,
and ordered to be read a Third
vtime on Friday.

AFFIRMATION BILL.

Mr. LAW called the attentien of the House and the
Speaker to the fact that the title of this Bill had not
been agreed to, and submitted that an irregularity had
been committed that could not now he remedied. The Bill,
indeed, had been ordered to be sent up to the Lords
without any title.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that al-
though other business had 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

Clerk, who had a distinct recollection of the circum•
stance.

Mr. BOUVERIE said he could not talkie his oath of it,
but he believed the cpiestion had not b^t n 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 objl ction, and allow the title to be added, and
the matter dropped,
COPYHOLDS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

Mr. AGLIONBY, in moving the second reading of
this Bill, excused his being the promoter of it on the
ground that he tried in vain to induce the Government,
in whose hands it ought to be, to take up the subject.
The Bill was founded on the recommendation of a Com-
mittee which fully considered the matter in 1841, and
who repeated, that if such a measure would only have
the effect of relieving the poor copyholders of
the country from the extortion to which they were
subject under the existing law, it would be a sufficient
justification for passing it. The present law restricted
buiWieg and agricultural improvements in those parts 1
of the country where the copyhold system pre-
vailed, and that was another reason which
had induced him to introduce the Bill. He re-
eretted to see that the Right Honourable Baronet the
Member for Tamwortb eves not in his place, because he
attended that Committee most assiduously, and expressed
his views in a very liberal and statesmanlike mann( r. 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 ecclesiastical jurisdiction
had been voluntarily enfranchised. Nine years
had already elapsed since the plan of voluntary
commutation bad enjoyed the benefit of legal ceun-
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 some change
should be accomplished. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman then read acme considerable extracts from the
report of the Commissioners, and then proceeded to
say that his chief ground arose out of the recom-
mendations which woielcl be found in that re-
port, and he thought that little further was
necessary to support his view of the matter. Two Bills
had already beets introduced for the same purpose, but
the second of these Bills was intended to promote a com-
pulsory enfranchisement throughout the whole country,
and with this he could net at all agree. The other Bill
was introduced by the Lord Chancellor, and he trusted
that he should not be deemed guilty of presumption in
following such an authority. He had adopted a great
number of the earlier clauses of that 11111, and in doing so
he might rather be accused of plagiarism than of want of
consideration.—(Cries of" Hear, bear.) The Chancellor's
Bill proposed that the cost of enfranchisement should fall
equally upon the lar:dlerd 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
to gtt 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
than other parts of the country, but everywhere the te-
nure of copy holds was objectionable. Be had no hesi-
ta'ion, therefore, in aeleng the House to as-
sent to the second reading of -this Bill.
He begged leave to move the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. 11EATHCOTE thought such a measure as this
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
joins interests. Was it right where two parties had a
joint interest for one to force the sale of the property,
without the consent of the other? He thought 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 well-matured change in the law relating to
the tenure of copyholds; and he would now inti-
mate that unless her Majesty's Ministers brought
forward some measure with a view to remodel and
improve the Courts of Equity in this or the
ensuing session, he would feel it his duty to introduce a
Bill having that end himeelf.—(Hear, 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, end as depriving the lord of the manor of many
' of his just rights. Nu such measure of this kind ought
to be passed except upon the ground of general policy,
a case in support of which his Hon. and Learned Friend
bad 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 read a second timo that day six
months.—(Cries of "Divide.")
Tl'e ATTORNEY-GENERAL said ho felt it his
duty to support the Bid. It embodied some of the pro-
vi,ions of a Bill introduced last session, but not carried,
widen had been approved of by the Lord Chancellor,
and seemed litely to work well.

Mr. A ILIOYBY reLli d, and expressed a hope that
illembe!s would assent to the second reading, arid
defer th„ir objccrions until the Bill wss in Committee.
Mr. TURNER withdrew his amendment, and should
reserve his obj!'c:ions until the Bid was in Committee.
The amendment wss consequently withdrawn.
Mr. G. BERKELEY said, if !he Hon. Meraber would
divide he should du so, and begged to move that the Bill
be read a second time that day six months.
The Muse then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 80 -
Against it ... ... 55
Majority
The Bill was then read a seccnd time, and ordered to
be c!!mmitted.

TENANTS AT RACK RENT RELIEF BILL.
On the motion for the cunsidertion 01 this Bill as
amended.

Mr. SPOONER moved that the whole rate, instead
of half the rate, payable for the erection of lunatic asy-
lums, be deducted from the rent.

The motion was agreed to, and the report received.
lIIGEI WAYS (ANNUAL RATING) BILL.
The Blil was read a seco►.d time, and ordered to be
committed.