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 Bill,
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, *as 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. NEWDEGATE 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 true testimony in a court of justice, but it
went and carried with it en expression cf opinion by the
House of Commons, that evidence given under a less sanc-
tion than that of an oath was entitled to equal weight
with evidence given on oath.—(Hear, hear.) He was
quite satisfied that those who were concerned in
the administration of public justice would feel that
that was a blow struck at the heart of that justice.—
(Cheers.) This he knew, that the most hardened criminal
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 stood by him were
not the companions of his guilt.—(Hear, hear.) An
instance cccurred 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 not the 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 not 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 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 be 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 unsworn 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 in the immediate administration of justice,
induced him to call upon the House not to agree to the
dangerous principle involved in the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said his experience at the
Mansion-house and the Guildhall police-offices led him
to the belief that the principle they were about to intro-
duce would be fraught with the utmost danger to the
proper administration of justice. He 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 passiag of the Bill
Against it .
Majority .

The Bill was accordingly passed.
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (IRELAND)

BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill,
when the whole of the clauses were agreed to without
di: 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 face that the title of this Bill had not
been 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
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 take his oath of it,
buthe believed the question had not been 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- 1
draw his objection, 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
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 fer 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
eonferrence 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 had enjoyed the benefit of legal coun-
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 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 supporAio view of the matter. Two Bills
brag Wei Urblit.iced for the same purpose, but
the ddolidjof thestivilfll3\was intended to promote a com-
p 547Ftrafranchilemee,c throughout the whole country,
awl with-Ws he could slot at all agree. The other Bill
*as introduced tr_ Ole- Lord Chancellor, and he trusted
that he should not lse deviled guilty of presumption in
following such an stability. He had adopted a great
nureber,of the earlier clibees of that Bill, and in doingso
he might-v.o42ex be-feerraed of plagiarism than of want of •
consideratqpn.—=tertas of" Hear, hear.) The Chancellor's
Bill propotilfd that the cost of enfranchisement should fall
equally ppm the landlord and the tenant, This he

thought unjust, and he bad 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 get 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 copyholds was objectionable. He had no hesi-
tation, therefore, in asking the House to assent to the
second reading of this Bill.
Mr. HEATHCOTE 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
joint 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 Fish 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 himself.—(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, and as depriving the lord of the manor of many
of his just rights. No 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
had failed to show. On the ground of the impblicy 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 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. AGLIONBY 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 should
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
bo read a second time that day six months.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... 80
Against it ... ... 55
Majority ... ... —25
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be crmaiitted.
TENANTS AT RACK-RENT RELIEF BILL.
On the motion for the considertion of this Bill as
amended.
Mr. SPOONER moved that the whole rate, instead
of half the rate, pa) able for the erection of lunatic asy-
lums, be deducted from the rent.
The motion was agreed to, and the report received.

HIGHWAYS (ANNUAL RETURNS) BILL.
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committcd.

SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL.

On the rn tion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. WILLYAMS thought the measure mischievous
and unnecessary, and moved that it be read a second
time that day six months.
Mr. MACKINNON said the Bill had twice passed the
House of Lords, and he saw no reason why it should
not be read a second time now.

Mr. THORNELY did tot think the whole subject of
smoke nuisance throughout the country could be dealt
with in one general Bill. It would be much better to
leave the management of the smoke to the municipal
authorities of each town. _ _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked that the
suggestion could be carried out in Committee.
Mr. BRIGHT had always opposed this Bill, believing
that general legislation on the subject was impracti-
cable. 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. KUNTZ would be glad to support this Bill if he
thought it could be practically carried out, but the cir-
cumstances in which manufacturers were placed in va-
rious parts of the country were so different 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 read a second time.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

The order of the day for going into Committee of
Supply was read, and the Committee postponed till
Friday.
SHEEP STEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill, and
with some desultory observations, which would be perfectly
unintelligible to our readers without a copy of the Bill
before them, in the course of which Mr. Grainger, the
Attorney-General, Mr. Keogh, and several Members
took part, the Bill passed through Committee.
WAYS AND MEANS.

The Committee on Ways and Means was postponed.

SILVER COINAGE.

The Bill for regulating the silver coinage then went
through Committee without opposition, and was ordered
to be read a third time on Friday.
VENTILATION OF MINES.
Mr. AGLIONBY, in the absence of •Mr. Duncombe,
who was prevented attending the House from ill health,
obtained leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the
better ventilation of mines and collieries, for the protec-
tion of the lives of the persons employed in and about
the same, and to make other provisions relating thereto.