The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Jura: 20.
The 'Woollen Trade Act Repeal Bill and several private
Bills ‘a ere brought up from the Commons.
The Earl of AIALMESBURY presented a petition
from certain tradesmen and inhabitants of the Isle of
WiPub against the present standard of measures.
The E irl of ELDON presented a petition against the
Limitation of Actions Bill.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from a parish in
Norfolk, praying for a further amelioration of the criminal
law.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from a
small body of individuals in his diocese against legislating
for the better oliservance of the Lord's Day. He did not
agree with the petitioners in their view of the subject; but
as he believed that they were sincere in their opinion, he
thought it right to present their petition.
The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from
Stainbridge, praying that a Bill might be immediately
passed for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the
whole of the British dominions.
The NOBLE DUKE also presented a petition from the
Protestant Dissenters of Preston, praying for an improve-
ment in the system of parochial legislation, and that all
places devoted to the worship of God should be exempted
from taxation.
Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from Stock-
port, complaining of the great burden inflicted on the
people of that town by the influx of the Irish poor, anti
praying that a system of poor rates should be established
in Ireland.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a petition
against the Local Courts' Jurisdiction Bill.
On the motion of the Earl of HADDINGTON, the
Edinburgh Improvement Bid was read the second time.
WEST INDIA QUESTION.

Mr. STANLEY, and other .Members from the Com-
mons, appeared at the Bar, and informed their Lordships
that the Commons desired a conference, on a subject of
high importance to the prosperity of his Majesty's coloni
possessions.

A conference was ordered forthwith. The managers
on the part of their Lordships were the Lord Privy Seal,
the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Gosford, the Eat! of
Wicklow, the Bishop of London, Lt,rd Suffield, and Lord
Ly ttleton.

On the return of the managers,
The Earl of RIPON (Lord Privy Seal) informed their
Lordships that they had met the manager, on the part of
the Commons, who had communicated to them the reso-
lutions to which their Lordships' concurrence was de-
sired respecting the Abolition of Slavery.
The NOBLE EARL then moved that the resolutions be
printe L—Ordered.

The NOBLE EARL then gave notice, that on Tuesday
next be should move that these resolutions be take❑ into
consideration.

The Earl of GOSFORD presented petitions from eleven
places against colonial slavery.
QUAKERS' AND MORAVIANS' AFFIRMATION

BILL.

The Duke of RICHMOND moved the second reading
of the above Bill.

Lord WYNFORD made some observations on the
measure, which were very imperfectly heard in the gal-
lery. We understood him to express an opinion that, from
scruples of conscience, the sects who were sought to be
relieved by this Bill would dislike to act upon juries in
criminal cases.

The Bishop of LONDON did not mean to make any
observations upon the Bill then before their Lordships;
but he wished to offer a few observations on the subject
of oaths in general as they were administered in this
country. It was a matter of very great importance both
in a religious and moral point of view, and he was ex •
tremely sorry that the attention of the Legislature had
not been more directly called to it. A Bill had been
brought in about two years ago by the Lord President of
the Council, which in some degree lessened the evil to
which he was adverting. He thanked the Noble Lord
for that mea,ure, because any measure which tended to
diminish the taking of a great number of oaths was a
public benefit. He could assure their Lordships that
there was a strong feeling on this subject amongst
the religious p,rt of the community in this country.
He did not think that he was going too far when
lie said that there was no country in the world
in which this most solemn and sacred obligation was
adm nistered with less gravty, with less impressiveness,
with less decorousness of manner, than it was in this
country. Toe etf-ct of the system had been well and truly
described by Dr. Paley, who observed that " the obscure
and ehiptical form, together with the levity and frequency
with which oaths are administered, have brought about a
general inadvertency to the obligation of them." Dr.
Paley alluded especially to " the cus•oms, and to the qua-
lifications of petty officers ; in both these ca.es a man

could not proceed without raking half-a-dozen oaths ;" and
he contended that " they ought to abstain from calling
into tequi•ition the sieved sanction of an oath, except on
the most important occasions." There were two species
of oaths—assertory oaths and promissory oaths Asser-
tory oaths were necessary for the discovery and punish-
tnent of offences ; whilst promissory oaths were not only
not necessary, but were, in truth, productive of the worst
tffects. To this subject Dr. Paley had called the atten-
tion of the public more than 40 years age. The Bill
bi ought in by the Noble Marquis to whom h.• had before
alluded had done away with the necessity for taking
10,000 oaths in a year, but still much of the evil rema n,(l.

. -
The municipal oaths ought to be revised; nine tenths
of them might, he was of opinion, be done away with,
and a simple declaration introduced in their place. This
very serious question had been pressed on the atten-
tion of the British people long before the time of
Dr. Paley. It bad been forcibly taken up by one
of the most virtuous, learned, and eloquent men that ever
adorned the Protestant church,—he alluded to Bishop
Jeremy Tdylor. It was a subject well worthy of grave
consideration, and in the next session of Parliament, if
his life were so long spared, be would call the attention of
the House to it, unless it were taken up by some Noble
Lord more competent than he was to undertake the task.
The consideration of this subject ought, in his opinion, to
be intrusted to a Select Committee, or to a Royal com-
mission. He would here refer to another class of oaths,
which appeired to him to be liable to great objection--he
adverted to the oaths taken in universities and schools.
He felt, that to administer an oath to a young man, not
of full age, except in cases where truth was judicially
sought, was very objectionable. Certainly, proaiissory
oaths should not lie exacted from them. He now publicly
expressed a hope that, as this subject had been taken up
in one of their universities, it would as soon as possible be
entertaiNed by the Legislature, who ought to inquire how
for it was consistent with sound religion and right princi-
ples to enforce on young men, not of age, an obligation
for the observance of duties the performance of which
might be exacted by ea-ier means.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he only spoke the
sense of those persons who had turned their attention to

this subject, when be expressed his opinion that a thorough
revision of the present system ought to take p 1 ice. Far
from thinking that the question should be intrusted to
other hands, he felt that it could not be taken up by any
individual more capable of doing justice to it than the
Right Rev. Prelate himself.—(Hear, hear.) There was
another description of oaths which, in his opinion, ought
to be discouraged : he meant voluntary oaths or affidavits.
A penalty should be inflicted for administering such oaths,
or a penalty should be levied on the individual taking
them, if it appeared that be had been guilty of false
swearing. As the law at present stood it did not meet
those cases.

The Bishop of LONDON said that he had not men-
tioned the class of oaths noticed by the Noble and Learned
Lord, because he had on a former occasion called the
attention of their Lordships at some length to that branch
of the subject.
Lord BEXLEY expressed himself in favour of a dimi-
nution of the number of oaths which individuals were no e,
under a variety of circumst inces, compelled to take.
Toe Duke of RICHMOND, in order to show that the
persons intended to be relieved by this Bill would not
scruple to do their duty, instanced the case of a Quaker,
who, being on a jury, did not hesitate to find a man guilty
of felony.
Lord SUFFIELD said the Noble and Learned Lord
(Wynford) seemed to think that tom some religious scruple
a large body of men would violate their affirmation..
Now he thought the parties alluded to were as incapable
of violating their affirmations as any Noble Lord was in-
capable of violating his o,!,1).
Lord WYNFORD denied that he had made any such
assertion. He was unwilling to place the Quakers in the
situation in which that Bill would place them.
Tile Marquis of LONDONDERRY made an observa-
tion which did not reach the gallery, but it called up
The Duke of RICHMOND, who said that the Noble

Marquis bad on this, as on other occasions, acted as a
skirmisher. If he thought proper to attack him, he was
reedy at all times and i❑ all places to answer the Noble
Marquis, with the same perfect good humour which be
felt at that moment. He would, however, say that if the
Noble Marquis at the head of his troop of Hussars had
behaved so irregularly as he had done on this occasion, he
would not have obtained so much honour and distinction
as he had done.--(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he was no
skirmisher, but he would make observations on the pro-
ceedings of the Noble Duke whenever he thought fit, al-
though he was a Cabinet Minister. The Noble Duke
appeared to have placed himself at the head of a party to
whose sentiments he (the Marquis of Londonderry) wary
opposed, and therefule he could not hope to escape ani-
madvet sion.

The Duke of RICHMOND—It is very true that I am
a Cai,inet Minister ; and I should not be at all surprise I if
the Noble Marquis wishes for my place.—(Laughter.)
The Bill was then read a second time.