The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Jur.r• 22.
AFFIRMATION BILL.
(Continued from our Second Edition.)
Mr. EWA RT said it was astonishing the Bill of the-
Hon. Member for Lambeth, being an alleviation for the
members of the Church of England, should be
opposed by the leading Members of the two Universi-
tie ..—(Hear, hear.) He supposed that in doing- so they
could only be actuated by a desire to support the
Church as a separate sect. The very article to,
which the Hon. Member for Oxford had referred,
made the taking of an oath permissory ; the a-gument
therefore, of the Honourable Member for Oxford
was against, instead of in favour of, the Church.
The Hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill ought to
have been extended to the cases of a Mussulman ; but
as Mussulmcn did not object to taking an oath upon the
" Koran," his Hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth„
was not bound to include them in his Bill. He should
support the Bill, believing it was a Bill in favour of li-
berty of conscience, and the furtherance of the interests.
of religion.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON said that in legislating on the
subject they should not look to the case of the party
who might have evidence to offer, but to the interests
of those whom his evidence might affect. The present
state of the law deprived the public of the benefit or
the evidence of honest witnesses, and offered to dishonest.
witnesses an excuse for withholding their evidence.
He was persuaded that the measure which it was then
proposed to introduce would be found a public benefit.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it

.. . 59
Majority ........ .. ... .. —32

The House then resolved itself into Committee.
Clauses I and 2 were agreed to without discussion.
On the reading of clause 3,
Mr. FINCH objected to the punishment of hard
labour being added to imprisonment, in the case of a
person making the declaration in a Court of Justice,
without having previously made the affirmation before
two Justices, as required by the Bill. He recommended
that the clause should be altered in this respect.
Mr. HANDS was willing to accede to the recom-
mendation. But it was only justice to the Committee
to state that the clause had received the serious con-
sideration of a Learned Judge, who came to the opinion
that the additional punishment was necessary.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the omis-
sion of the words.
Mr. HUME thought that persons would he deterred
from prosecuting it hard labour were inflicted, and.
therefore hoped the words would be omitted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if it.
were contended that such a provision would deter per-
sons from prosecuting, there would be a total impunity
for crime.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BRISCOE thought it might be left optional
with the Magistrate.
Sir R. PEEL said that the party, in addition to
having a certificate from the Magistrates, must have
made a declaration at Quarter Sessions.
Mr. WARBURTON thought the punishment pro-
vided for misdemeanour sufficient.-
Sir it. PEEL would suggest to the House the case
of a person having a conscientious objection to take an
oath, but having neglected to take the proper means
to entitle him to take the declaration.
Mr. HAWES said that case was provided for, and
he would do it yet more effectually, if the Right Hon.
Gentleman would support him in introducing a more
extended Bill, and allow his name to be put on the bask
of it.—(A laugh.)
Mr. HOBHOUSE submitted that the word " vvil;
ful must be introduced in the second part of the
clause relating to the neglect to make the affirmatiou

3 lllol\T .4 -A. 41VF1N INC E
-A -A

before a Magistrate, as well as in that which related to
g:vlig false evidence.
Atter a few words from Mr. ESTCOURT and Mr.
HAWES,

Mr. PRYME thought it would be desirable to
leave such a discretion with the Magistrates on the
clawe proposed.
Mr. J. HOBHOUSE moved that the word "wil-
ful.' would he inserted.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought the introduction of the
word totally unnecessary. He could not understand
how any one could make so solemn a declaration as
that provided by the clause without doing so wilfully.
After a few words from Sir C. GREY and Mr.
H AWES,
Mr. T. HOBHOUSE withdrew his amendment.
Sir R. PEEL thought that if a party made a false
declaration, under the Act, that falsehood ought to be
treated as perjury.
Dr. LUSHINGTON was of opinion that the
clause would answer every purpose as it stood.
Upon a suggestion of the LORD ADVOCATE,
the clause was amended by the insertion of the words
° wilfully and falsely." The clause was then ordered
to stand part of the Bill.
The remaining clauses were agreed to.
Upon the schedules being put,
Sir R. PEEL said he must object to the Bill, be-
cause it went altogether upon an erroneous principle,
and if it was carried out to its full effect they must
admit a man to make such a declaration in a Court of
Justice as he said was in accordance with his conscien-
tious scruples. According to the principle of the
Bill no man could have conscientious scruples unless
two Magistrates certified that he was of good moral and
religious character. Now, how was the man to obtain
such a certificate from a Magistrate, or from two
Magistrates, who entirely differed from him, either
upon the point of morals or religion? The Bill
might pass into a law, but a very few years would pass
away before a very great amount of objection would
arise against it in the country.

Mr. HAW ES complained of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet making his objections to the principle of the Bill
upon the schedules. If he was opposed to the princi-
ple of the Bill he ought to have openly stated it in
an earlier stage of the Bill. The Magistrate was not
hound to certify that the party applying was of a good,
moral, or religious character, without evidence, which
any man might get from his neighbours if he deserved
the character, so that praztically no difficulty would be
found in coming out the principle of the Bill. The
evidence of Quakers, of Moravians, and of Separatists,
was now received in Courts of Justice without the
s:igbtest objection or disadvantage ; why then anticipate
any from the present Bill.
Mr. DA RBY objected to a witness being put into
the' witness-box with a certificate of good character
from two magisttates in his pocket. A man ought to
eater such a place without the jury knowing anything of
him.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it might
be safely left to the intelligence of a British jury to
decide upon the credibility of any person who came
before them in the capacity of a witness.
The schedule was then agreed to, so also was the pre
amine, the Bill to he reported to-morrow.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT.

The Report of the Marriages Act Amendment Bil
was received and some amendments added.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.

On the bringing up the Report of this Bill,
Mr. FOX NIAULE said he did not think that in
the present state of the House he could safely take a
division on the Bill, as he intended to have done. The
more he rtfl9cted on it the more he was convinced of its
injurious tendency. After the recent changes which had
taken place in the law he should not think himself jus-
tified in further alterations at present. He repeated he
thought the Bill was framed in a most exceptionable
:manner. The course he should pursue was to allow the
Hon. Gentleman to bring up the Report, assuring him,
totvever, he should strenuously oppose the third reading.
He thought changes like that proposed by the present
Bill should originate with the Government--(Hear)—
and that they should not be introduced at all without
further experience than they were possessed of at present.
Mr. KELLY regretted the course which the Go-
vernment had taken on this measure. The Bill had
met with general support out of the House, and he
should tllerefot e bring up the Report, and fix the third
reading far this dey se'nnight, whet he should be pre-
pared to press the third reading. He must again defend
th., manner in which the Bill had been drawn, and
which appear to be objected to by the Government. for,
rue contended it was perfectly capable of amendment.
With respect to the modification of punishment, the ob-
ject proposed by the Hon. Gentlemen might be attained
by the insertion of a few lines in the main clause. It was
not of ()nurse for Um to propose such a clause against
the spirit of his own Bill, but he doubted
not the Attorney-General could supply the
Honourable Gantleman with the words necessary
for that purpose. Again thanking the House for the
support gis e. to the measure, he moved that the Report
be reeeive,j,,—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOU I, BURN objected to the manner in which
the Bill vas framed, and intimated his intention ()-
voting against the third reading.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he thought
there ought to have been a special enactment for ever)
crime affected by the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) lie thought
it seemed monstrous that a great number of crimes of
various character shouki be punished in the same man-
ner, and at the discretion of the Court. He agretd
with the Hon. Gentleman that with respect to any par-
ticular crime, it might be exempted from the B:11 by the
omission of till recital relating to it. He must
say he thought the lion. and Learned Gentleman would
sooner attain his object if he would allow more time
for experience, and tor framing the measure he had so
much at heart.

Sir C. GREY concurred rvith the Attorney-General
that. the Hon. Gentleman would best attain his object
by postponing his measure far the present. He also
thought the manner in which the B 11 was framed was
very exceptionable, as it allowed no opportunity for in-
serting exceptions in extreme and aggravated cases.
He thought there might be cases of attempts at mur-
der ; as, for instance, when the victim was left for dead,
and the criminal believed him to be so, which were
equally culpable, and as deserving of the pu-
nishment of death as murder itself.—( Hear, hear.)
If the Bill had been framed according to the sugges-
tions of the Attorney-General, exceptions might have
been introduced. Ought they to say that in no case,
however atrocious, the Judge ought to have the power
of inflicting the punishment of death ? He would
allude only to one point more. The Hon. Member
exempted piracy from the punishment of death. Now,
a pirate was considered hoslis humani generis, at war
with all Governments, and consequently with his own,
and therefore guilty of treason, for which the punish-
ment of death was still retained.—(Hear, hear.)
The Report was then brought up.
Mr. KELLY proposed a clause for exempting from
the punishment of death the offence of forgery of
stamps and dyes, which had been omitted from the
Bid. He was indebted to the Attorney-General for
basing drawn his attention to this omission. He had
(considered that the punishment of death had already
been removed from these offences, but it appeared, that
by certain clauses in the Stamp Act, these offences
were made capital, and that these clauses had not been
repealed, he believed, through inadvertence.
On the ite,zgestion of the ATTORNEY-GENE-
RAL, who said he approved of the clause, it was agreed
.•thnt the clause should be printed, and that it should be
proposed,on the third reading of the Bill.
Sir EA RDLEY WILMOT said that, on the third
reading, be should propose a clause prohibiting the trial
of petsons at Quarter Sessions charged with these
offences.

The Report was then received, and the BM was or-
.dered to be read a third time on Wednesday next.

OONSTABULARY BILL.

Mr. LAW HODGES moved the second reading of
tho Constabulary Bill. He had explained the character
of the Bill a week ago, and therefore would not trespass
on the House on the present occasion.

Mr. FOX MAU LE could not agree to the second
r:eadingsof the Bill. He had already stated his objec-
dons t 6 it, and those objections he considered insu-
rlahk, as it would entirely frustrate the objects of the
act of 114 Session. _

. _
.41E. Rlct Aid that although the Hon. Member had
rtlat he aid pot brit; it forward in opposition to
of las) Session, yet he had stated many objec.-
*ins to aka: Bill. It was quite a delusion to say that
the restraint of a police was not as much required in
as aviaultustal as in a manufacturing district. The
Act, was iverlinE extremely well in the county of
Essex, into witich it had been introduced. Under the
present Bill there would be as many different systems
of police in a county as there were divisions in it. He
behred it desirable that the police should be under the
direction of a chief constable rather than of a Magis-
trate. He hould oppose the Bill.
Mr. HODGES explained. Ho ghoul' certa;.ily
divide on the subject.
Mr. HoUME hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not
divide, but would withdraw the Bill, and bring it for-
ward again next Session, as he was convinced the sub-
ject was not understood.
Mr. LANGDAbE supported the second reading
of the Bill, ase considered the present Act unfitted to
thwiural districts. He denied the necessity of a rural
police io the agricultural districts, and thought the pre-
sent constabulary force might be so improved as to
make it effectual.

Mr. PRlSCOE'should vote for the second reading
of the 8111, not to supersede the Constabulary Bill of
last Session. but to supply an omission in that Bill by
affording those who did not choose to adopt that Bill a
means of improving their constabulary force.
Mr. HODGES rose to reply, but
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member, on
moving the second reading had not a right to reply.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH objected to the extending of
the principle of the Bill to rural districts.
M. FOX MAULE would consent to the second

rent-ling of the Bill, in order that it might be further con- '
sidered in its future stages.
The Bill was accordingly read a second time.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
Mr. PRYME moved that the Report on ti.is Bill
should be received.
Mr. DARBY was opposed to the motion. He
thought that the principles of the Bill were not gene-
rally understood, and it was of too important a nature to
be passed without being fully discussed. The Bill, in
addition, should have been introduced as a private one,
for it interfered with the rights of individuals.
Captain PFCHELL said that the Honourable
Gentleman had himself supported a Bill which
interfered more seriously with the rights of in-
dividuals—namely, the Farnham Rectory Bill.
As to the assertion that the Bill had not been fully
discussed, he thought it was wholly unfounded, as it
had received the fullest consideratio 1, and had occupied
an entire evening in Committee.

Colonel SIBTHORP complained of the surrepti-
tious canner in which the Bill had been introduced. He
also thought it was an arbitrary Bill, and granted the
most dangerous powers. He would therefore move
that the further consideration of the Report be post-
poned to this day three months.
After a few words from Lord Worsley, Mr. Rice,
Mr. Pryme, Mr. Darby, and Sir J. Graham,

The House divided, when the numbers were
Fur the motion 65
Against it 29
Majority
The Report wasp then received. and the Bill was or-
dered to be read a third time on Wednesday next.
SUPPLY—CASE OF THOROGOOD.

On the reading of the 'Order of the Day for the
House going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to bring forward the
motion of which he had given notice, relating to Mr.
John Thorogood. The Hon. Member was interrupted
by cries of " Order" ; but having persisted in obtaining a
heating, he said he had understood that the only time
for his making his motion was upon the reading of the
Order of the Day. He had understood that upon the
question of going into Committee of Supply only two
motions could be made, one upon the reading of the
Order of the Day, and the other upon the motion that
the Speaker should leave the Chair. Now, he
thought that if Ministers chose to make Wed-
nesday an Order Day for Government purposes,
they ought to allow independent Members of
Parliament the same privilege which they had of
bringing on motions, upon the established Order Days,
Mondays and Fridays.—(Hear, hear.) The preceding
day (Tuesday) was an open day for independent Mem-
bers, but the Government had no less than twenty-
three notices.—( Hear, hear.) But he knew very well
that they would have no House in the evening. He
insisted that as long as there was a grievance to be
redressed, no qaestion of Supply ought to be gone
into.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what took place yesterday
morning ? There were two or three-and-twenty Govern-
ment notices, all of which were forwarded a stage in
the morning sitting, and so confident did he feel that
it was meant by that to put off the notices of motion by
making no House in the evening, that he went to the
Clerk at the table and told him to put his notice, which
then stood on the Paper, down for that day on going
into Committee of Supply.—(Hear, hear, and cries of
" Order.) All he was anxious to know was whether he
should be allowed to proceed or not.—(Cries of " Go
on, go on.") If he did go on, he trusted he should not
be told, after he had made the motion, that he was out
of order.
Lord SANDON rose to order. He understood
that, in the early part of the evening, it had been agreed
that the Orders of the Day should be read, and such
being the case, he believed it was not competent for any
Hon. Member to make a motion upon the reading of
any particular Order of the Day.—( Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said that the House having agreed
to the reading of the Orders of the Day, it was not
competent to raise any question on the readinc, of any
particular Order, but an amendment might bee moved
on the question of his leaving the Chair.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said if there was no other
course left open to him, he should move that the House
should adjourn, as he was determined no money should
be voted till he had brought the grievance of which he
had to complain fully before the attention of the House.
—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Order.")
Mr. HUME, during the number of. years he had
had a seat in that House, had never witnessed anything
like the proceedings of yesterday. He never yet knew
it to be necessary, when the House met in the mornirg,
to count it over again when it re-assern.tled at five
o'clock. What took place yesterday? Why at twelve
o'clock the House was formed, at half-past three the
Speaker left the chair; and he should like to kno7.-: whether
during the last 25 years, when a meeting of the House
took place at twelve o'clock, it had ever been considert.d
necessary to count it again at five o'clock? He had
been ialorracd that the the necessity for adopting that
course was, that alien the Speaker left the chair at
baif past three the mace was removed. Now, if such
was the case, he thought such an attempt to prevent
there being a House in the evening was unworthy of
any Ministry, as it was little short of cajoling Hon.
Members.—( Hear.) . _

The SPEAKER said, after what bad fallen from the

Hon. Member for Kilkenny it was necessary that he
should state what the rule of the House was. The rule
was this, that if a morning sitting was appointed it was
the duty of the Speaker to take the chair at twelve
o'clock, and he apprehended he would not be at liberty
to leave it unless the House was adjourned. It was
true that for ori• or two Sessions the House had adopted
resolutions by which the Speaker was to take the chair
at twelve o'clock and leave it at three, and during one
session twenty Members at twelve o'clock were .itli
eient to form the House ; but since that time those
orders had been rescinded, and upon that taking place
tie Speaker had no power to leave the chair, but was
bound to sit there till the House was adjourned.
Yesterday all the Orders of the Day had been
gone through, and the motion was made that the House
should adjourn to 5 o'clock ; such being the case, he was
bound to count it over again at that hour.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUME, after the cxplanation from the Chair,
felt bound to say that he was in error.—(Hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON believed it had been the
invariable rule when the House met in the early part
of the day, and adjourned to 5 o'clock, that it should be
counted again at that hour.

Mr. HtiTME apprehended that it was quite compe-
tent for him to move as an amendment that the Hon.
Member for Finsbury should be then heard, and taking
that to be so, he should make that motion.—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER having put the question,

Mr. GOULBURN rose to order. On the question
being put, the Speaker had called upon his Noble
Friend (Lord Sandon), and such being the ewe, he was
in possession of the House ; it was not therefore com-
petent for any Hon. Member to interfere.

Mr. HUME though: it would be better for his Hon.
Friend not to attempt to press his motion at the pre-
sent time.

Lord SANDON then rose to call the attention of
the House to the state of the commercial relations
with foreign cnuntries, but he was interrupted by
Mr. DU NCO MBE rising to order.

The SPEAKER said that he had certainly called
on the Noble Lord because his name stood first on the
paper.

Mr. HUME said, that under the circumstances he
should withdraw the motion that he had just made.
Mr. DUNCO MBE again rose to order. The ques-
tion was, whether the motion should be withdrawn.--
(Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Order, order.") He
objected to its being withdrawn.—(Hear, and Order.)
The SPEAKER here called upon Lord Sandon.
tprd SANDON said that he had no personal wish
to gratify in bringing his motion before the House ; all
that he was desirous of was that the Orders of the House
should be attended to.

Mr. DUNCOMBE again rose to order amidst much
confusion and cries of " Order, order." The question
was that the motion made by the Hon. Member for
Kilkenny should be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER—I beg to inform the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury that the motion of the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny has been withdrawn.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE—Sir, I move that this House
do now adjourn—(Cries of Hear, hear, and Order,)
amidst which—
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS.
Lord SANDON proceeded to address the House.
He trusted that the Hon. Member for Finsbury
would upon reflection think that his motion was not
of so pressing a nature as his (Lord Saudon's), it
having already been several times before the House.
With respect to the motion he was about to bring be-
' fore the House, he felt bound to say that the Noble
Lord had been in the habit of assuring the House
that no Minister of the Crown bad ever done so
much for the commerce of the country as he bad
Such being the assertion of the Noble Lord, he felt
bound
to call the attention of the House to some of the
points
which had induced him to bring this question
forward.coniree ine There were two points of view in which the
bf this country might be considered. First,
as to the exports of manufactures • and secondly, as to
its navigation. It was only a short
Mexico a very heavy
duty was
time ago that in
was put upon goods from
this country—he believed
saboutFebruary
badBO 800 per cent. The
attention of the Noble Lord e f
last,beed the
ancalled
greatest complaints laa gaga a
had been made the Noble Lord
the
notfor his
knowninattention
w h
a t wtaso the
the tone of remonstrance subject, and
it w evenwiniirh
had been employed by the Noble Lord to s
authori-
ties at Mexico. Upon his putting a question
upon'he
hadth
hi
os
subject to the Noble Lord some short time aga
understood him to state that he had received assurances
from the Mexican Goverament that the dutyshould
either modified or removed. But nothing of that sort'
he believed, had been done. Now, passing from Mexico
to Buenos Ayres, he wished to know how long the Noble
Lord intended that the blockade of that place should
be permitted to continue ? Questions he had put to the
Noble Lord upon this subject in an early period of the
Session, and he had stated then thaf- he :lid received
assurances that it would shortly be removed. But it